Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2026-02-11 23:30:54 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_3528d7bd-972e-4c37-86db-dab0fdf0ae41.ogg

Segment 1

Hello everyone, good evening.
All right, hello.
I am going to call to order the Berkeley City Council meeting.
Today is Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.
Clerk, could you please take the roll? Okay.
Council member Kesarwani? Here.
Taplin? Present.
Bartlett? Here.
Tregub? Aye.
O'Keefe? Present.
Here.
Blackaby? Here.
Lunaparra? Here.
Humbert? Present.
And Mayor Ishii? Here.
Okay, quorum is present.
All right, so it is the first meeting of February, so we will have Council member O'Keefe read the land acknowledgement statement.
For those of you that don't know, we've been taking turns reading the land acknowledgement, and so Council member O'Keefe, if you could take it away please.
Okay.
The City of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in was built on the territory of the Huchun, the ancestral and unceded land of the Ticino-speaking Ohlone people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona band of Alameda County.
This land was and continues to be of great importance to all of the Ohlone tribes and descendants of the Verona band.
As we begin our meeting tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley, the documented 5,000-year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shell Mound and the Ohlone people who continue to reside in the East Bay.
We continue, we recognize that Berkeley's residents have and continue to benefit from the use and occupation of this unceded, stolen land since the City of Berkeley's incorporation in 1878.
As stewards of the laws regulating the City of Berkeley, it is not only vital that we recognize the history of this land, but also recognize that the Ohlone people are present members of Berkeley and other East Bay communities today.
The City of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the Lijian tribe and to create meaningful actions that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.
Thank you very much, Council Member.
We will now move on to ceremonial items.
So, we have a proclamation that was brought by Council Member Humbert.
So, Council Member, you're welcome to read the proclamation.
I know you have some remarks as well.
And actually, if the awardees would like to come forward.
Go ahead.
Yeah, the whole troop could come up if you'd like.
The entourage.
Thank you.
I want to thank the Mayor and her staff for helping create a proclamation recognizing the work of Tom Broem and Barry Warren, who were instrumental in advocating for the City of Berkeley to establish first in the nation recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships.
I'm proud that these brave and persistent men are Berkeleyans.
I'll now read the proclamation in recognition of their service to Berkeley and the broader LGBTQIA plus community.
Whereas Tom Broem and Barry Warren have shared their lives together since 1975 and through their tireless advocacy, fundamentally changed the landscape of civil rights for the LGBTQIA plus community in Berkeley, the United States, and across the world.
And whereas in 1979, while working for this city, the City of Berkeley, Tom Broem discovered that he could not enroll his partner, Barry Warren, in city health and dental benefits because those programs were strictly limited to married spouses.
And whereas Tom Broem recognized a critical contradiction between Berkeley's 1978 non-discrimination ordinance and its exclusionary marriage-based benefits, leading him to author two historic letters in August, 1979, proposing the first domestic partnership policy.
And whereas Tom and Barry spent years persistently lobbying the City of Berkeley, the University of California, and local unions to adopt this new legal protection, providing a path for equity rooted in basic fairness and recognizing shared humanity.
And whereas their work inspired the formation of the East Bay Lesbian Gay Democratic Club, which organized a methodical community-led campaign that successfully made domestic partnerships a central issue in the 1984 Berkeley municipal elections.
And whereas in December 1984, the City of Berkeley enacted the first policy of its kind in California, and I think the nation, and Tom Broem and Barry Warren became the first couple to file for employee domestic partnership benefits under this landmark legislation.
And whereas this pioneering policy served as a national model, overcoming the resistance of health care providers, employers, and reactionary opposition, and paving the way for statewide registries, civil unions, and eventually full marriage equality.
Whereas Tom Broem continued his service to the public as the first openly gay elected official in the East Bay, serving as Peralta College community district trustee from 1986 to 2000, 14 years, where he remained a champion for educational opportunity.
And whereas since 2000, on a lighter note, Barry and Tom have hosted more than 100 community events, including more than 90 supper and song dinner concerts, bringing together local musicians and music lovers in celebration and community.
And whereas Barry Warren's steadfast partnership and his own advocacy as a University of California employee were indispensable to the success of this movement, which has since provided immeasurable benefits, security, and dignity to millions of families, now therefore be it resolved that I, Adina Ishii, Mayor of the City of Berkeley, do hereby recognize Tom Broem and Barry Warren for their visionary leadership, their decades of activism, and the historic role in securing the first domestic partnership policy, ensuring that the City of Berkeley and the United States remain beacons of equality and justice for all.
If you'd like to say a few words, you can.
And I will present the formal City of Berkeley proclamation.
I'll come out.
My remarks are going to be very brief because the proclamation says so much and was so detailed in recounting the steps that we originally went through.
So I thank you for the thoughtfulness of the proclamation and for the work that went into it.
You did your research.
We're very grateful for this community.
It's lovely to have lived here all of our lives and perhaps there's no, at the time there was no other place on the face of the earth that would have undertaken the risk of when the city councils took seat in 1984 that basically said do it and we'll pay the bills.
There was, it was a great act of faith.
No one quite knew how it would work and we thought it would work just fine, but there was no precedent at all.
And so I think it's a great celebration of this community that this is the first place in the world that simply stepped up to the plate and said let's do it.
We'll pay for it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, we now have a proclamation and also an adjournment in memory in honor of Todd Walker.
Family, friends, folks who are here to support him, you're welcome to come up to the podium here.
And this adjournment in memory was brought forward by Council Member Ben Bartlett, Council Member for District 3, and I will read the proclamation as you are coming up.
Honoring the life and legacy of Todd Walker.
Whereas Edward Todd Walker was a beloved son, father, grandfather, brother, uncle, friend, coach, mentor, and esteemed colleague who devoted his life to serving the Berkeley community with unwavering commitment and love, and whereas Todd Walker served as a community peace ambassador, life coach, street outreach worker, violence interrupter, and community leader, dedicating himself to community-led gun violence prevention and intervention work that saved lives and transformed our city, and whereas through his work with Live Free California, Todd Walker was instrumental in achieving Berkeley's historic milestone in 2025 of 100% reduction in gun violence, a testament to his tireless efforts and the power of community-centered approaches to public safety, and whereas Todd Walker was a pillar of faith and service at McGee Avenue Baptist Church, where his spiritual leadership touched countless lives and created a foundation of hope and healing for community members, and whereas Todd Walker built bridges across our community, working collaboratively with city leaders, journalists, community residents, youth and families, and sports teams to create a safer, more connected Berkeley, and whereas Todd Walker's life exemplified the values of compassion, dedication, servant leadership, and an unshakable belief in the potential of every person he encountered.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Adina Ishii, Mayor of the City of Berkeley, hereby honor the life and legacy of Todd Walker, recognizing his invaluable contributions to our city and celebrating the remarkable impact of his life and work.
The Berkeley community grieves the loss of Todd Walker while celebrating a life well lived in service to others.
Thank you, Madam Mayor and council community.
The last time I was still here, we were receiving a million dollar grant that we got to expand the program, and I was told that we had two options, and that Todd came up with me, and so we're talking as we're coming up, and I said, okay, well, I'm gonna take, you know, 30 seconds, and I'm gonna give you 30 seconds.
He pushed me in my back.
He said, no, you got it, you got it.
I was interested in seeing him publicly speak, knowing his track record, his history.
Todd has a legacy within the work, within the community, that will never be forgotten.
He's touched so many lives.
He's impacted so many people.
A true trooper to those who do not know and hadn't had the opportunity to spend time with him.
Todd was a true historian of Berkeley.
If you sat down with him, he would give you knowledge and information from his experience growing up in the city, information that was passed down from, you know, his older brothers, and as well as his own experience, and so our hearts are deeply saddened in this moment, but we're also inspired to know that we must continue to allow his legacy to live on.
We must continue to put forth the work and the efforts to make public safety a reality in the city of Berkeley, to challenge all individuals, to relinquish sides, and come together as one community for the sake of peace and justice.
Todd was an advocate, a fierce advocate, as someone who stood by principles, and in a short amount of time that we've worked together, he showed me so much.
I remember seeing a news special in 2006 or 7, as I was dealing with some of the young men in my career that we've lost to gun violence.
I met Todd at a funeral of one of my young persons, and it was his commitment to that family and making sure that things were done dignified, to make sure that there was honor and respect towards the loss of the family members, but also honor and respect towards community, and so we just want to continue to allow his legacy to live on.
We're going to continue to do this great work in honor of him, and we just really appreciate.
I want to acknowledge both of his daughters are here tonight, and I want to acknowledge his brother, one of his oldest brothers, I mean older brother is here as well tonight, so on behalf of the Live Free team, on behalf of the city of Berkeley, we thank you and appreciate you for this acknowledgement, and we'll continue to do great work in his name.
Thank you.
Oh, he was really okay.
I know that's a huge thank you okay all right um so the final ceremonial item this evening is just a very brief presentation that I have um I was recently in Washington DC and I want to make sure that you all know about my trip there yes okay okay if I do this then you won't be able to I won't be able to see my notes so I'm going to keep it here all right okay so all right everyone so at the end of January excuse me all right at the end of January I attended the United States Conference of Mayors followed by the Mayors Innovation Project at the U.S.
Conference of Mayors so you can see I went to the U.S.
Conference of Mayors I'm also going to talk about the Mayors Innovation Project I'm going to briefly discuss some of the lobbying that I did there and also some key takeaways so at the U.S.
Conference of Mayors there were three significant bipartisan takeaways that I want to share housing was a really big topic there the conference opened with a statement from from Republican Senator Tim Scott and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren who came in person to talk about the bipartisan unanimously supported road to housing bill this bill encompasses things that both parties could agree on to address the national housing crisis by growing more housing stock there was also a very clear opposition to the Department of Homeland Security Immigration DHS Customs Enforced Immigration Customs Enforcement ICE and Customs and Border Patrol CBP takeover and invasion of American cities along with indiscriminate attacks on our immigrant community during the U.S.
Conference of Mayors press conference we heard public testimonies from Minnesota mayors and the terror being imposed on their communities some of the mayors shared that they themselves are carrying around their own passports because they're concerned that they may get picked up off the street they talked about businesses being closed schools where children are not going to school because they're afraid of what's going on and I think it's important to bring that back to our community so that folks know about what's happening and other parts of our country another thing I wanted to bring up that I thought was important for my colleagues to know in particular is this we were talking about the safety and security of elected officials so I've actually asked our our city manager and our chief of police to do a security audit of our building and I want to recommend that all of my council colleagues also do security audits of their homes as well if they haven't had an opportunity to do so it's a it's a very scary time unfortunately for those of us who are elected leaders and leaders from around the country we're talking about some of the scary incidents that they faced so I want to bring that up as something important for folks to know about the two days were full of workshops and sessions on a full range of topics and Julie Sinai who is my chief of policy and I attended sessions on artificial intelligence housing city design transportation immigration responses economic development I also attended the AAPI mayor's session and volunteered to assist them in growing so the next thing I want to talk about is the mayor's innovation project so immediately following the U.S.
conference of mayors was the one and a half day mayor's innovation project MIP.
MIP is a national learning network for mayors committed to shared prosperity environmental sustainability and efficient democratic government they support mayors around the country who are taking the lead on pressing issues climate change racial equity economic revitalization housing and more the four in-depth sessions that we attended were looting under pressure protecting elected officials looting through uncertainty a fiscal playbook for a thriving community very relevant to our conversations that we're having right now about the budget crisis from crisis to community asset building a supportive child care ecosystem for families and workers and building an age-friendly city the imperative of aging in place that photo in particular was about the aging session very interesting topics from our young and to our older members of our community additionally we got the benefit of an innovation showcase which is a speed dating type of presentation form from 10 cities at sharing innovations over the past few years everything from seawalls to protecting urban trees parks housing transit better public meetings and more they only had I think three minutes to present each so it's very quick the annual winter sessions are timed with the opening of the congressional session to make the most out of mayoral power and influence with the 119th congressional session so while in D.C.
we leveraged this time to meet with our congressional delegation I had four productive meetings we met with U.S.
Forest Service which was virtual given the snow storm I don't know if you know but when I was in D.C.
there was really record storm our purpose was to talk with the department leads about our embers policy we met with the branch chief the California lead and other members of the forestry service they applauded our city for being the first in the country to seriously prepare for and address wildfire risks in our wild land urban interface our embers program they said is the first of its kind in the nation they were very interested in learning more about how we're implementing our ordinance what's working what isn't we stress the importance of the department continuing to provide the research and science supporting our efforts I also of course highlighted our really great community efforts and all the efforts that are happening from our fire department including interns who are literally going door to door I met with Senator Schiff and had the opportunity actually to connect with him one-on-one of course we talked about fire safety and ember but also small businesses and just Porto's I don't know if you know but he's from Burbank originally Porto's is a great bakery down there anyway it's important to have those conversations too we met with Congresswoman LaCieva Simon's office her legislative director it was great to provide some context oftentimes folks who are working in D.C.
haven't actually been to the cities that they're representing so it's good for them to understand what we're doing in our city Senator Alex Padilla's office we met with legislative staff who lead the senator's housing immigration and fire policy agendas and we also met with Senator Adam Schiff's staff which met with about housing disaster preparedness and health I gave updates on what our city is doing to address various issues what opportunities there could be to work together and we asked them what we could be doing to support their work in Congress some of the ideas included loss of interest in keeping up to date on our embers work commitment to staying engaged and updated on ice activity in the bay and continuing to provide stories from the district that support our policy goals and as part of the conference of mayors I joined the delegation of California mayors in a one-hour briefing with both senators Padilla and Schiff where the focus was on immigration and also infrastructure they allowed us to ask questions and one of the things that I mentioned was you know about thinking about how we can continue to move things forward as as many of the things in our country feel like they're actually going backwards and so briefly just my key takeaway is just housing housing housing it's amazing how mayors across the country are all talking about housing and homelessness and the important of of building importance of building more housing immigration of course was a was a very serious topic as I mentioned and bipartisan unity I was very heartwarmed to see that mayors around the country were willing to have conversations across party lines in order to be focused on the matters that at hand and really supporting our community members I think that that was really important so thank you all for for giving me some time to talk about that yeah okay I am going to okay all right very good now moving us on to the agenda we are now finished with our ceremonial items and I will check to see if the city manager has any comments no comments thank you madam mayor okay we will now take public comment on non-agenda matters okay so we'll draw five cards for in-person speakers and then now is the time if you're participating remotely on zoom if you intend to speak on non-agenda matters now it's time to raise your hand so okay so the five speakers and please come up in any order is Steve Tracy Gina Rieger Carol Morozovic Stephen Alpert and Pam Jacobs so if you heard your name called please come on up um there's a chance to speak at the end of the meeting good evening mayor council and and city of Berkeley manager and attorney redundant no longer needed redundant that's our health department in Berkeley okay 27 million dollars of a deficit almost half of it is a redundant health department the county's number is way bigger than 12 million it's 1.4 billion so Berkeley is spending one percent of the county total but let's see 12 out of 27 you could save about half of that deficit by getting rid of the redundant department any chance we can rotate this to where it was last year so the speaker doesn't have their back to the audience and the speaker can acknowledge certain individuals without having to twist the neck is that I think your time is a consideration I didn't hear the the sound but your time is actually up and the actually the podium has been consistently that way so um next speaker first up before I speak I just want to address these three screens are unseeable by people in the audience you can't see anything really on them this is part of your time go ahead okay um I recently went to a save our shops meeting and what I heard was pretty appalling um none of the shop owners in either in any of the three districts we're talking about the corridor up zoning the Elmwood up zoning the Elmwood the Solano and North Shattuck um charming areas which the city of Berkeley economic depart economic opportunities thing touts as being having the charming village quality that we all love that's a recent thing that you've put out about why people come to Berkeley and yet you're talking about putting up eight-story buildings in these areas I want you to think long and hard about that it's a disgrace and you need to include the people who live here and thank you work here thanks for your comment good evening I'm Dr.
Stephen Alpert I forwarded a copy of this recent publication publication by the London School of Economics inequality not regular regulation drives America's housing affordability.

Segment 2

Housing Affordability Crisis to the Council and to Planning Director Klein.
This article exams and dismisses a core belief that the shortage of housing in the U.S.
is primarily due to excessive regulation.
These internationally recognized academics maintain that housing affordability crisis is driven by broader economic inequality, rather than solely by regulation and by lack of supply.
A popular view holds that declining housing affordability stems from regulations that restrict new supply, that deregulation will spur sufficient market rate construction to improve affordability.
We argue that this deregulationist view is based upon flawed assumptions, and even a dramatic deregulation-driven supply extension would take decades to generate widespread affordability.
Thanks for your comment.
You all received this.
Thank you.
Hi Carol.
First I want to speak on the information report in terms of switching from taxis to the go-go grandparent.
And I agree with this because the taxi drivers, in part I agree with this, because the taxi drivers often ask $20 minimums, $50 minimums, huge tips, don't turn on the meters, etc.
But I would ask staff to make one revision, which is instead of to go-go grandparent, to make it optional whether someone can book Lyft on their own, Lyft or Uber, or go-go grandparent.
And as an example, last week I reserved a ride to go-go grandparent that charged me $14 and something, and I looked at, had I booked Lyft directly, it would have been $6.94.
So they're clearly charging the highest price and a fee on top of it.
Now, again, I understand some people don't.
Carol, thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
There's actually a mic that's down here if you'd like.
There's one right here if that's easier to reach.
Good evening, everyone.
Can you hear me? Yes.
My name is Pamela Jacob, and I'm a resident at a senior building in Berkeley at Helios Corner.
And I have been a recipient of TaxiScript now for years.
I'm in a low-income area, and it's been my lifeline to maintain my health to the outside world needs.
The sharp cutbacks now to once every seven months, six for high medical needs, one per month, and three for regular for seven months for shopping and errands has turned my life upside down.
I have to cancel most of my many needed medical appointments to accommodate this cutback and my lifelong enrichment twice a week and my PT swim therapy that costs $60 round trip one single way, which uses up all my go-go credits.
And I'm able to take public transport or paratransit due to our- Thank you.
I'm so sorry, but your time is up.
Thank you.
Yeah.
If you haven't read in council already, perhaps my staff can also share some of their contact information with you.
Thank you.
Afterwards.
Yeah, they'll walk over and give you a card.
Thank you.
Okay.
So now we'll move to five speakers on Zoom.
The first raised hand is-and you have one minute each.
First raised hand is speaker with a caller number.
The number ending in 000.
Hi.
Good evening.
Very nice to talk to you again.
My assistant again, Roy.
A couple of documents, one about the business history, 52 years.
And I request a friendly meeting with the mayor.
Friendly meeting.
We'll discuss different options.
Okay.
Now we have to talk about what is happening in the country.
It is a monstrosity.
They're going after brown people, Mexican Latinos, or blacks, as you called Obama, a monkey.
This is unbelievable.
This man belongs to a mental hospital or prison.
Not a president.
And we need all of us to stand up, because they come after you, you, you, you.
They come after the first blacks, brown, whatever.
Then they come after everybody.
It is a typical fascist-style scheme.
It is also so uncanny.
It is also a trojan horse for Putin, Russia.
Putin is laughing every day at all of us.
Thank you.
Your time is up.
Next speaker is Della Luna.
Yes.
Can you hear me okay? Yes.
Yes.
So I wanted to talk about, well, recently in the paper, there was this story about the elderly woman who passed away in the fire.
And what stood out to me was how her neighbors tried to get her help and support and called the city multiple times, or BHA, the housing authority, and or the fire department, because the woman had been collecting items, and her house was full.
But this reminded me of the previous news story we read about a man who was in the homeless shelter, and he was murdered there.
And they were also calling the city and letting them know that there were problems in that institution.
So I have called the city, and I get the same response.
Some staff don't respond, and there needs to be more oversight.
The city might have policies, but departmental practices are not in alignment with those policies, if they exist.
And I would like for you all to publish your standard operating procedures so that the constituents know, like, what is expected of the staff when they are contacted by us.
Thank you.
Thanks, Della.
Next is Amelia Purnell.
Hi.
Can you hear me? Yes.
Okay.
I just wanted to comment on the rise in authoritarian violence the mayor mentioned in her field trip report.
My neighbors and I are terrified that this council has chosen to meet the moment by removing police accountability, and instead looking for ways to give BPD more access to weapons of war to use against your constituents.
Firing the director of police accountability for doing his job too much without your permission represents a huge waste of taxpayer time and money.
I'm really terrified that this is what you guys are seeing when you look out the window as we are facing this huge amount of violence, that BPD doesn't need oversight anymore, and that's really scary to us.
They've lied to council several times in the last few times that they've testified, especially about abuse of FOC cameras, and you've responded by giving them more access to spy on us.
I think that they need more oversight now than ever.
Thanks for your comment.
All right.
Next is Janice.
Janice, you should be able to unmute.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak today.
I want to urge city council to uphold the public right to speak on items that you are going to discuss.
What happened at the last city council meeting for those who missed it, a council member proposed an item but chose not to, sorry, proposed small amendments to an ordinance presented by planning staff, but instead of sharing it so that the public could comment on them, she stated, I think we should close the public hearing and then I can discuss my proposed amendments.
Now, this may not have been a violation of the Brown Act, but it does violate the spirit of the law, and I understand that last minute changes may come up, but changes that are purposely withheld should not be allowed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And the last speaker on non-agenda comments is Wilhelmina.
Wilhelmina, you should be able to speak.
Wilhelmina, you should be able to unmute.
Yes, can you hear me? Yes.
Oh, okay.
I just wanted to make a comment about the zoning proposal.
I want to urge the council to step back for a minute and think of what we have in Berkeley, which is unique.
I have seen tour buses drive up to experience, people getting off to experience Chez Panisse, the cheese board, and all the other little restaurants in that area, and the idea that you'd have a golden goose like this that brings in so much revenue.
I propose putting high-rise buildings into what people consider a French country little area.
I think you're going to ruin the city, and please think creatively.
Don't just put up high-rise buildings because you think it's part of an ill-conceived plan.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
That concludes non-agenda public comments.
For the beginning of the meeting, there is another period of non-agenda public comments at the end of the meeting.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Since this is the first meeting of the month, we also have time for public comment by employee unions.
Are there any employee unions here today? If you are in a union and you're online, you can also raise your hand.
No hands raised for representatives from employee unions.
Okay.
All right.
We will move on to the consent calendar then.
All right.
At this time, if there are any council members who have comments and consent, please go ahead and press your button.
Starting with Council Member Trakob.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I, just for the record, need to note that I will be recusing myself on item three, amendments to title 21 to allow separate sale of ADUs as a post-1996 tenant in an ADU.
Thank you.
Other comments on consent? Do you want to get Council Member Kessler? Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Yes, like Council Member Trakob, I would also like to recuse on item number three.
Thank you very much.
Mr.
Stakler, could you speak to what that looks like? So we'll just vote.
Council Members Trakob and Kessler can recuse themselves.
We'll vote on item three, then they can return, and then we'll vote on the balance of the consent calendar.
Okay, sure.
Thank you.
Are there other comments? I'm just checking to see.
Okay.
I do want to just appreciate staff for pursuing funding for our housing, our much-needed housing.
Item number nine is the application for pro-housing incentive program funds, PIP funds.
The City of Berkeley is eligible to pay for up to 1.2, eligible to apply, excuse me, for up to $1.25 million through the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development's pro-housing incentive program.
The final award amount will be decided as part of the competitive application.
The funding will be used to support the Department of Health, Housing and Community Services programs in support of low-income or unhoused residents, including the Housing Trust Fund Program and or eligible homeless services.
So thank you very much to staff for doing that.
All right.
I will then close Council comments and open to public comments.
If you have a public comment on Council or consent items only, please come on up.
On items three and four, both of these, along with several other measures you've been passing recently, incentivize speculation.
Speculation has consequences, whether you want to recognize it or not.
On the one hand, and you can't predict which way it's going to go.
On the one hand, you could get more displacement, more gentrification, more unhoused folks.
On the other, you could have underwater properties and bankruptcies if things go sour on your speculation.
Thank you.
Do you have a comment on consent or information items? Yeah, I have a comment on what you just spoke of, Mayor Idina Ishii.
Well, my name is Irania Delamora, and I'm here to speak on the housing situation.
I think housing is very expensive.
People don't make enough money.
I appreciate you all saying that you're going to do affordable housing, but it would be very helpful if you mentioned how much it would cost, rather than just saying affordable and not saying the price, or giving a website where you give the prices.
I've been to many meetings on different councils, and they always say affordable housing, but then when the housing comes out, it's not affordable.
It's around $3,000, $2,500, which is the normal, which is everywhere else.
If it's going to be affordable, it needs to be affordable, like $1,900.
People make $25, $18 an hour.
So it would be very helpful when you say affordable, you give a number, not just say affordable and be vague, and then it will not be affordable when it actually comes out.
Also, if you're going to do affordable housing, it would be good to also make more jobs, just like Donald Trump is doing.
I know a lot of people in the Bay Area do not like Donald Trump, but I do, and I voted for him, and I appreciate how he not just tries to make more housing, but he tries to bring more jobs.
Okay, because very nice, you want to give affordable housing, but how are people going to pay for it? They need jobs.
And right now, jobs since COVID, which was brought by China to America and to the whole world, has caused a severe unemployment and closed down many jobs.
Let me finish my time.
And I would really appreciate, with affordable housing, you also create more jobs for average people, entry-level jobs, so people can actually have jobs, because people are suffering right now looking for jobs, and I appreciate that kind of—and that is all.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
You have a question? No? Go ahead.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much.
If you have a statement, you can— Okay, appreciate it.
Thank you.
Hi, Maria.
We're on a public comment on consent or information items.
Yes, thank you.
And first of all, I want to thank you for going all the way to Washington, D.C., and surviving the snow and talking to everyone about us.
I really appreciate it, and I know you—I'm really grateful is the point.
And because Berkeley has been first, I'm concerned that we're slipping a bit, especially when it comes to housing, because there are so many high-development buildings going up, it's difficult to drive, park, et cetera.
So, you know, the ratio of affordable, moderately affordable units is so minimal, and this good doctor that spoke earlier, when he spoke about inequality, he said, okay, this is what the world is doing.
We've got those that have and those that have not, and it's not working because the majority of people have not, and it's getting worse.
So I'm concerned about that.
I'm really glad that we're considering bike registration and licensing because I'm having a hard time not running over people because they're coming out at night in black, no lights, no nothing, and they are utterly, you know, just taking advantage of things and being motorized and zipping, and I'm really scared for them.
Yeah, and God bless the firefighters and just each and every one of us, but I really hope we start encouraging more caring and sharing and more courtesy because we're not going to get through this if we don't start taking care of ourselves more responsibly and each other because it's really alarming out there.
All right, thank you very much.
Thank you, Maria.
Are there any online public comments for consent or information items only? There's currently two hands raised for the consent calendar, consent and information items only.
First is Bryce Nesbitt.
Yes.
We can hear you.
But I'll push through it.
I encourage council to take item one, which is the bicycle registration item, off consent and discuss it.
Most of it's completely obsolete and should be gotten rid of, but there's a baby in that bathwater.
There's a present rule that requires dealers to report sales.
It's in the wrong way, but there's a modern system called bike index, which can match an owner with a serial number of a bicycle and a requirement to require that bicycles purchased in Berkeleys be registered by the dealer is a low-cost, high-impact way to help people get back stolen bicycles.
So I think you got it close, but pull it off consent, talk about it a little bit more.
Thank you.
And the last speaker for consent information is a speaker with a phone number ending in 2-1-1.
Should be able to unmute.
Okay, I'd like to talk about consent item number four.
In 1968, I bought a house in Euclid.
No, I'm sorry, in Craigmont.
28,000.
Beautiful house.
Still exists.
I don't own it anymore.
In 1978, I bought a house in Euclid for 101,000.
Now, both of these houses are now worth over $2 million.
What happened? Privacy, equity, firms, foreign money from India, Russia, everywhere, United States, criminals, Milton Friedman, all of this horrible crowd of money, money, money.
And because of that, that won't go forever.
We're going to have far worse crash than 2008.
Where me and many of my friends lost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Give me a call, 510-848-5000.
510-848-5000.
Two-year-old phone number.
Thank you.
Bring it back again.
Thank you all.
Thank you.
Okay.
That's it.
No more speakers for consent or information.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
So, now moving on, I know we said we were going to pull out three.
So, is there a motion to approve item number three on the consent calendar? So moved.
Second.
Okay.
Could you take the roll, please, clerk, after she's got.
On consent item number three, Council Member Taplin? Yes.
Council Member Bartlett? Yes.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? Yes.
Gunapara? Yes.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
All right.
Maybe we should get them to come back for the rest of the consent calendar.
Can someone grab them really quickly? Thank you.
The city attorney went back.
Oh, okay.
Okay.
All right.
Now, at this time, is there a motion to approve the rest of the consent calendar? Second.
Okay.
Moved by Council Member Bartlett, seconded by Council Member Humbert.
Could you please take the roll? Okay.
All right.
We have a motion to approve the rest of the consent calendar.
Council Member Kesarwani? Yes.
Taplin? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Trigub? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? Yes.
Gunapara? Yes.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay.
Motion carries.
All right.
Thank you all very much.
Consent calendar is now complete.
Seven o'clock.
We are now going to move on to the action calendar.
We only have one item on our action calendar this evening.
It is a public hearing.
So I'm going to open the public hearing for item number 14, Zoning Adjustments Board Appeal, 2109 Virginia, Use Permit ZP2024-0066.
And I know we have a presentation, but just so folks know what's going to happen, we're going to have a presentation, and then we'll hear five minutes from the appellant, five minutes from the applicant, take public comments on this item, take council questions, close the hearing, have council deliberations, and then vote.
So I will pass it over to the Planning Department.
Thank you, Mayor.
Good evening, Council Members.
Jordan Klein, Director of Planning and Development.
I'm joined at the staff table here at the far end.
That's Sharon Gong, Principal Planner.
Anne Hirsch, Land Use Planning Manager.
And presenting for staff this evening is Senge Saliki, Senior Planner in the Land Use Team.
All right.
Good evening, Council and Madam Mayor.
As Jordan said, my name is Senge Saliki, and I'm a Senior Planner with the Land Use Planning Division.
Tonight, I'm presenting on 2109 Virginia Street an appeal of a Zoning Adjustment Board decision to approve a use permit to demolish a non-residential building and parking lot and build a mixed use residential building with 110 dwelling units, ground floor commercial space, off street, and bicycle parking spaces.
I'll present the review history of the proposed project and provide project-specific details before addressing the appeal issues.
On December 14, 2023, the City received a preliminary use permit application pursuant to SB 330.
The preliminary application was deemed complete and thereby vesting the development rights on December 27, 2023.
A use permit application was submitted on June 3, 2024, and was deemed complete on July 3, 2024.
On October 7, 2024, the LPC held a public hearing and took no action to initiate a landmark or structure of merit designation.
On May 15, 2025, the DRC held a public hearing and provided a favorable recommendation to the ZAB.
On July 10, 2025, the City mailed and posted public hearing notices.
On July 24, 2025, the applicant requested to remove the item from the action calendar of the ZAB public hearing.
On August 28, 2025, the City mailed and posted new public hearing notices.
On September 11, 2025, the ZAB held a public hearing and voted to approve the use permit.
The City received an appeal from nearby residents on September 30, 2025.
Today's hearing is the fourth out of five public meetings allowed under SB 330.
The project site is located on the northeast corner of Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Street in the North Berkeley neighborhood.
The half-acre lot is split-zoned and contains one commercial district on approximately 90% of the lot and two residential districts on the remaining 10% of the lot.
Properties in the same zoning districts surround the site except to the south across Virginia Street where the zoning is corridor commercial.
The area is characterized by residential and commercial buildings that are one to three stories tall with commercial uses primarily fronting on Shattuck Avenue.
Surrounding uses include commercial uses to the north and west and a multifamily building to the south.
To the east is a commercial use and residences.
The property is accessible by AC Transit bus service and is less than a mile from the North Berkeley BART station and a half mile from the downtown Berkeley BART station.
The proposed project would demolish the existing two-story commercial building and surface parking lot to construct an eight-story approximately 112,900 square foot mixed-use residential building containing 110 dwelling units including nine very low income and nine moderate income density bonus qualifying units.
The project also includes 690 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 109 vehicle parking spaces.
The project provides approximately 7,000 square feet of usable open space, 64 bicycle parking spaces and new street trees on Virginia Street.
The site is identified as a housing opportunity site in the city's adopted housing element.
Due to the site size exceeding half an acre, it was identified as a high potential site for redevelopment of residential uses with a capacity of 50 dwelling units per acre.
This is a rendering of the proposed project from Shattuck Avenue looking northeast.
These are the primary elevations facing the streets.
The west elevation facing Shattuck Avenue is on the left and the south elevation facing Virginia Street is on the right.
This is the east interior side elevation facing the existing residencies adjacent to the site.
The proposed project qualifies as a housing development project.

Segment 3

The Berkeley City Council is a non-profit project under SB 330 and is entitled to a density bonus under state law.
The density bonus is calculated based on the site's base density, which is the maximum number of units allowed on the site while fully complying with the applicable district's development standards.
The density bonus is then determined by the percentage of total units dedicated as affordable and their affordability level.
Under the city's density bonus procedures, the base project is 55 units.
By providing 9 very low income and 9 moderate income units on site, the project is eligible for a 100% density bonus or 55 additional units.
The project proposes 55 additional units above the base density for a total of 110 dwelling units.
This exceeds the 50 dwelling unit per acre potential capacity of units anticipated in the housing element.
Two concessions are requested to exempt the public art in lieu fee and relocate underground parking in the base project.
The applicant also requested waivers for height, setback, lot coverage, and parking to accommodate the proposed project on the site.
Moving on to the appeal, the following slides summarize the appeal issues and staff's response with a more detailed explanation in the staff report.
The first appeal issue is about construction impacts and environmental concerns.
The appellants argue that construction activities would create noise, dust, and vibration that would disrupt nearby households, and they are requesting mitigation measures to reduce these impacts.
In addition, they are requesting mitigation to nearby creeks and aquifers, additional soil testing due to the site's past use as a dry cleaner, measures to protect community health from exposure to hazardous substances, and written disclosures to future tenants regarding soil or groundwater monitoring and any health risks associated with the site.
The conditions of approval include several conditions to mitigate the construction impacts mentioned.
No creek or culvert, as defined by the BMC, exists on or within 30 feet of the project site.
Due to its previous use as a dry cleaner, the site was remediated under the oversight of DTSC and assessed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The applicants submitted Phase 1 and 2 ESAs, which were reviewed by Toxics and a CEQA consultant in order to prepare an environmental checklist.
The CEQA analysis found that the project would not have significant environmental effects that have not already been analyzed in the housing element EIR, or that are more significant than those previously analyzed.
The second appeal issue is on labor standards.
The applicants argue that the project should be conditioned to use union labor, ensuring fair wages, safety protections, and higher construction quality.
The project was vested on December 27, 2023, under SB 330.
This vesting date is prior to the January 1, 2024 effective date of the Hard Hats Ordinance.
Therefore, a condition of approval cannot be retroactively applied to the project.
The third appeal issue is on parking concerns.
The appellants argue that parking will overflow into nearby streets, worsening the existing shortage.
They also claim the location of the parking entrance will increase congestion on Shattuck Avenue and pose safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists.
There is no parking minimum for the applicable zoning districts, and the BMC limits off-street residential parking to a maximum of 55 spaces when near transit.
The project uses a waiver to exceed this standard, and provides 109 spaces to help reduce neighborhood spillover.
The project is not eligible for the Residential Permit Parking Program, so new residents would not be able to secure the existing permits for on-street residential parking that serve the neighborhood.
The site is well served by BART and AC Transit, and includes transit incentives and unbundled parking, which encourage reduced car ownership and use.
The parking entrance on Shattuck Avenue reuses an existing curb cut and is consistent with existing commercial access patterns.
The project maintains existing street trees and adds a corner bulb out with seating on Shattuck to enhance pedestrian safety.
The fourth appeal issue is on operational impacts.
The appellants claim that the number of units and parking spaces will lead to operational impacts, including noise and increased traffic from deliveries, rideshare pickups, and service vehicles.
The project includes standard conditions of approval to manage operational impacts such as noise and traffic, as detailed in the staff report.
No significant operational impacts were identified in the CEQA analysis, and the project complies with all applicable zoning and environmental standards.
The fifth appeal issue is on public input, affordability, and transparency.
The appellants claim the project increased from five to eight stories without clear public notice or sufficient community input.
They request stronger affordability commitments in exchange for the added height, and ask for transparency on how the density bonus was calculated, which concessions and waivers were granted, and how the City ensures that concessions result in real community benefit.
The project has been under review for over two years, and public outreach included a neighborhood meeting, mailed and posted public notices, and three public hearings.
The increase to eight stories complies with the State Density Bonus Law, which allows additional height in exchange for affordable housing.
The project includes 18 below market rate units, nine very low income, and nine moderate income units, and qualifies for a 100% density bonus.
Details on the density bonus calculations, concessions, and waivers are in the ZAB staff report, and were presented at the ZAB public hearing.
I also covered these calculations earlier in this presentation.
Per State law, concessions granted under the State Density Bonus Law are intended to support affordable housing, and do not require the provision of community benefits.
The sixth appeal issue is on shade and privacy impacts.
The appellants claim the proposed project would create shade and privacy impacts for the adjacent homes.
The city has no objective standards for solar access, and the shadow studies submitted indicate that new shadows would fall on nearby residential homes.
These shadow impacts would be limited in duration and extent, and are typical in a built urban environment.
To address privacy, the project steps back above the ground floor, approximately 12 feet on the north side, and approximately 10 feet on the east side.
This step back area outlined in green incorporates trees and planters on the second level to minimize privacy impacts to the surrounding homes.
The step back is maintained for all upper stories above the ground floor.
The last appeal issue is on infrastructure impacts and emergency preparedness.
The appellants cite the site's seismic risk and deep excavation for the eight-story building as potential safety issues, and request details on fire protection and emergency access.
They also note increased demand on police and fire services, loss of trees and green space, and claim the project's impact on utilities and infrastructure hasn't fully been addressed.
The site is not in a designated seismic hazard zone, so no extra mitigation is needed beyond standard building codes.
The project will meet 2025 building and fire codes, including fire sprinklers, emergency access, and evacuation planning, which will be reviewed during the building permit process.
The CEQA analysis found no significant impacts on police, fire, or ambulance services beyond those addressed in the housing element EIR analysis.
The project is consistent with planned residential growth and infrastructure capacity.
It includes new street trees and landscaping to offset vegetation removal.
These features enhance the pedestrian environment and contribute to the urban canopy.
Staff recommends that council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution affirming the ZAB's decision to approve the use permit at 2109 Virginia Street.
This concludes staff's presentation and I'm available for any questions.
Thank you.
I appreciate the presentation.
And so, folks, I want to actually give people an opportunity, council members, if you've had any ex parte conversations that you'd like to disclose before we ask any questions.
Go ahead, Council Member Trachom.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
As this project appeal was moving forward, because it is in our district, our council office was copied on at least one appellant communication.
Today, the applicant reached out to a staff member in my office.
No substance was discussed and the emails we were copied on went to the full council.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else? Okay.
Are there any questions for staff? Yes, Council Member O'Keefe.
I didn't want to go first, but it's fine.
I'm curious about the waiver of the civic arts fee.
Do you? I know it's hard to estimate that speculative, but could you give us a sense of what the value of that is? Is that possible? It's okay if it's not possible, but I thought I'd ask.
I believe it's 0.8% of construction costs.
What's this, a 110-unit project? Yeah, do the math for me, please.
I don't know.
I would guess $800,000, maybe less.
In range, $500,000 to a million.
Okay, thanks.
Yeah, I acknowledge that.
I understand the proposal is to waive it, but could the developer, they can also build the art.
Is that right? Could you explain how that works? Just briefly, how does that work? Okay.
It's a project that's been on the agenda for a while, and there's a lot of stuff that's been going on, but it's not a project that's been on the agenda for a long time.
So it's not a project that's been on the agenda for a while.
So it's not a project that's been on the agenda for a long time.
Is that right? Could you explain how that works? Just briefly, because it's a little tangential, but I am curious.
Yeah, so the public art and private development policy gives kind of two pathways to compliance.
You can incorporate a public art project that's worth, I think it's one, one and a half percent of construction costs.
And there's a process to engage a qualified professional to oversee that, to ensure that that project meets the city's standards for public art, although we don't actually approve or disapprove of the art piece itself.
It's just the process to make sure they comply.
So they can do the on-site art, or they can pay an in-lieu fee.
Great.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Thank you.
Council Member Blackaby.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
Just two questions.
One for staff and potentially the city attorney.
Just to remind us and also remind the public who's here tonight, what discretion does the city council have under SB 330 for a density bonus project like this? What kind of discretion do we have when we're hearing an appeal? Like what standard needs to be met? So under SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act, if the project is compliant with all objective standards, then the city cannot deny or reduce the density of the project unless it meets findings of specific adverse impact to health and safety, which is a very high bar to meet.
So it's really specific adverse impact to community health and safety.
That's the standard that has to be met? Correct.
Okay.
And then I noticed also in the staff report, a project like this would be normally entitled to have up to three concessions.
They've asked for two.
Do we have any reason to or any idea why they asked for two instead of three? If they could have taken three? Just curious.
You can ask them after their presentation if you'd like.
Do you want to hold the question? I will hold that question.
But thank you for the updates on the standard.
Thank you.
Okay.
Council Member Trago, do you have questions? Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.
We received a communication today from a member of the public, and one of the things it asks about is citation analysis for findings under the Neighborhood Commercial Preservation Ordinance and other approved ordinances.
I was just wondering if you could, in general terms, talk about what goes into the findings around BMC Code Section 23 or how other provisions are incorporated either by reference or as part of the Code.
Can I just ask for clarity? You mentioned findings, and just so I'm clear, is it findings more broadly or is it specific to a commercial component? I wasn't quite clear.
Yes, I'll just, and I realize this is a little maybe unclear, I'll read an excerpt from the letter.
After reviewing the administrative record for this project, I was unable to locate citation analysis or findings under Berkeley's Neighborhood Commercial Preservation Ordinance.
I also did not find findings under Related Voter Adopted Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance or Anti-Demolition Ordinance.
And then at the, so I think the question is, well, the question I have is, can you speak to how such things may or may not be included in the findings of the staff report recommending denial of the appeal? So the findings for approval will generally include the findings for approving a use permit.
So those are the general non-detriment findings.
Other findings that might be included in the staff report would be any use permit that is not included in the base project by right.
So for instance, the demolition.
So there are demolition findings in the set of findings that are attached to the staff report.
In specific demolition of non-residential building, that finding was made also.
We also include density bonus findings, findings for the granting of the waivers and the concessions.
In addition, it looks, let's see if there's any additional standards or findings that we need.
Those are the main ones.
We also cover Housing Accountability Act findings, which I just addressed, findings for denial, whether the city can make findings for the denial according to specific adverse impact to health and safety.
And then any other specific findings that are for use permits that are included, that are not included in the base project and that are by right.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member, Vice Mayor Lunapara.
Thank you.
I have a question about the waiver for more parking.
I'm curious how that is justified under the allowable waivers.
The waivers are allowed based by the state density bonus law.
So if it's a state density bonus project, then they are allowed an unlimited number of waivers.
And so this is one that the applicant chose to waive because they wanted to provide more parking than the maximum that's allowed.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
I need to clarify.
I'm sorry.
No, seeing I did answer that correctly.
Thank you.
I have a quick follow up just so I understand.
My understanding, and I could be not remembering right, waivers are connected to making the project more feasible and allowing for those new density bonus units.
And so I don't know if the applicant is supposed to defend their waivers or how that works or how this waiver is part of that.
I understand the premise of that there is unlimited waivers, but I thought that they had to be connected to lowering the cost of a project or making it more feasible to build.
Yes, there are a couple of different kinds of.
Requests that are that could be waivers to development standards, so waivers are.
A modification of the development standard, in this case, parking in order to physically accommodate the building with the concessions included on the site and concessions are modifications to development standards or other standards.
As long as there is a justifiable cost reduction to the product.
In the case, the parking was a development standard that the applicant asked for to accommodate the project that they designed to to be built on the site.
Okay, thanks.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And a number of questions that I had have already been asked and answered, but I guess I would ask a general question.
Has the project and I think I know what the answer is.
Has the project been found to comply with the applicable development standards accounting for any incentives or concessions required under state density bonus law? Yes.
Okay, that's yeah, that's what I thought.
Are you aware of any evidence that the environmental assessments of the site or its remediations have been insufficient or that any applicable monitoring or mitigation measures would be insufficient to assure the safety of future residents and workers? With this application, the applicant provided a phase one and a phase two report as well as a closure letter.
And the site itself was analyzed specifically for housing use as part of the city's certified housing elements.
So it was already evaluated through the E.I.R.
And accordingly, we used the checklist just to have that as part of the action before you tonight.
So we have a fair amount of comprehensive evidence to support that.
There are no impacts.
Okay, thank you.
And and finally, is the city empowered to require modifications of the proposed design on the basis of shadow privacy or aesthetics? No, because there are no objective standards for solar access.
Thank you.
That's those were my questions.
Okay, thank you very much.
So now we've got a five minute presentation from the from the appellant, five minutes from the applicant.
So would the appellant like to come forward? And I think that the planning department might need to remove their presentation or I'm not sure whose screen is up right now.
Okay.
I am sharing my screen.
Okay.
All right.
Great.
Okay.
Ready to roll.
Five minutes on the clock.
Go ahead.
Good evening, members of the city council and the residents of Berkeley gathered here.
My name is Vijay Srinikrishnan.
I'm representing the North Shattuck Alliance to appeal the approval of the property here in 2109 Virginia Street.
Why are we here? Well, we're neighbors and residents of North Shattuck Alliance, and we represent residents, family workers, small businesses who care deeply about the future of a neighborhood.
We're here to appeal the approval of the proposed eight story building.
The building is out of character with the neighborhood and will ruin our North Shattuck commercial district.
And we believe that in approving this project, the city council has relinquished both your legal as well as moral responsibilities for the community it serves.
And I will give you some of the reasons why we believe so.
So the protest focused on three issues.
One, as we understand and we have access, the applicant has failed to document and justify the claim needs for waivers and concessions used to increase the height, size and bulk of the building, resulting in incomplete and legally flawed application.
Second, the city failed to review these needs for waivers and concessions, which we can talk in more detail.
And this third, the city did not follow the established procedures for the environmental review of the project, which is located above a toxic waste site, the former Virginia Cleaners.
We believe that the planning code exists for the people of Berkeley.
We don't drill oil next to schools and the code is for maintaining and improving the neighborhood commercial areas such as North Shattuck, make it pedestrian friendly, visually attractive and reduce potential conflict with neighbors.
This is a rendering of the apartment and a potential scale size of a house that's right next to it.
And it fills 22,000 square feet with vastly increased height and property built end-to-end in terms of setbacks and then less than 700 square feet of public use common space in almost 22,000 square feet of the area.
So why eight stories? The planning department says it's due to the housing density bonus laws and your hands are tied.
However, this overlooks two things.
The city can ask for documentation for needs of waivers and concessions and I think they've been brought up a few times now.
And the city can deny a project if it makes, finds necessary findings.
And what has the city done instead? Did not ask the applicant to document the true cost reductions that favored the construction associated with the waivers and concessions.
And did not use its discretionary authority to actually determine if those concessions and waivers were in fact needed.
And as it stands today, the project has been granted some quite substantial concessions and waivers and for a low density neighborhood, which is where we live.
And yes, this project is, you could argue that maybe these trade-offs are not needed, but these trade-offs are substantial.
It affects the quality and the livability of us neighbors in the area.
And the city can argue that the state law leaves it with no discretion, but asking these questions is not prohibited.
And we believe that with the amount of trade-offs, asking these questions is essential.
The second, the city did not meet its obligations to protect the environment.
As we see, the site sits above a toxic waste site.
The applicant's own environmental review revealed the presence of various, various environmental pollutants.
The building is less than 30 feet away from a well-established, large pediatric medical clinic and right next to several elementary schools.
And the so-called review that was done, 1987 state review, almost 30 years old, is used to identify the pollutants.

Segment 4

I'm Rashi Kesarwani, and I'm going to talk to you today about the housing element EIR, which addresses the program EIR and is not sufficient to address site-specific concerns, and is more of a checklist.
These are serious, unresolved concerns.
As a parent of young children, I urge you to know that this is not abstract risk.
This is real risk.
These are risks to children, seniors, and community members who live in that neighborhood.
We welcome housing in our neighborhood.
Don't get us wrong.
We believe in livable, family-oriented housing.
We believe in the middle housing aligned with Berkeley's vision, thoughtful when integrated, responsible development, and not driven by speculative investments by private equity firms, which essentially has led to potentially the foreclosure of 1709 Shattuck, which is the building right next door.
We don't want that type of development.
The project must be denied, our conclusion.
There's numerous other projects that can be accelerated in the pipeline.
In fact, the developer has them.
The city has failed to follow its own rules.
City Council has a moral obligation, and you can't exercise that right, and the toxic issues of the site require a full-scale environmental review, in our view.
This is clearly not the future of Shattuck Avenue that we want to see.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And kudos on your perfect timing.
That was great.
Very impressive.
Can we have the applicant come up, please? You'll have five minutes to present.
My name is Patrick Kennedy.
I'm the developer of the project.
This is Mark Loper, our attorney.
I think, as you know, I've been developing in Berkeley for 35 years, and I have never been more bullish about the prospects for downtown Berkeley and Berkeley generally.
I'm very encouraged by the emphasis on housing in the current council and on business development throughout the city.
This project is the first project we have done that is actually for older Berkeley residents and non-students.
This project is targeting older Berkeleians that are interested in downsizing, empty nesters that are interested in downsizing, and all of these people have no place to go if they want to stay in Berkeley and they sell their Berkeley house.
The project will have a lot of downstream benefits to the city as well.
It will liberate a lot of pre-Prop 13 houses that these people will sell and provide more opportunity for young families.
It would provide more opportunities for young families to move to Berkeley.
It would allow a lot of legacy Berkeleians to stay in Berkeley where they desperately would like to go instead of moving to Walnut Creek, and it would generate a huge amount of additional taxable property in the neighborhood of around $100 million to the city of Berkeley.
That's apart from the additional taxes that would be generated by turning these houses over.
It would also provide a lot more patrons to the arts and businesses downtown that sorely need new patronage other than students.
I encourage you to deny the appeal and approve the project.
Here's our lawyer that will address the legal issues.
Mark Loper, thank you.
Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers.
Mark Loper from Rubin, Junius, and Rose on behalf of the project applicant.
Just a few things based on some of your questions and then what we heard from the appellant.
The standard for a specific adverse impact, that means a significant quantifiable indirect impact based on objective identified written public health or safety standards.
I heard that the project was out of scale, that it didn't meet neighborhood character, that it wasn't reflective of what some people in the community might want.
I didn't hear reference to any significant quantifiable or direct impacts based on objective identified health and safety standards.
There are several approval conditions that are specific to ongoing work that needs to be done when this project is built, if you see fit to approve it.
Those address things like the contamination that was remediated.
There are procedures in place that go through the state, the county, or the city as the city deems it appropriate to deal with remediation activities on sites that had former toxic soils.
Developing housing on sites that have former toxic soils happens around the state.
If Berkeley just stopped doing it, you'd rule out a lot of sites.
I'd also like to point something out that staff emphasized.
This project is on your most recent housing element.
It was on the one before that, too.
This is a reused housing element site.
That means that for the last two cycles, you as the city council have directed, from a policy perspective, this site to be developed with dense multifamily housing.
The project does use the density bonus law.
There are only two concessions that we've asked for.
We can get into why.
Our architect is here, also, to help walk through how the project goes from the base to the density.
I'm sure that many of you know things like height, setbacks, parking location.
Those are very common issues that are addressed using the state law.
The appellant didn't specifically raise any CEQA arguments, per se, but I do think it's important to point out that your staff used the housing element EIR that this council certified.
The CEQA says that for a project that tears off of the housing element, you cannot undergo heightened environmental reviews, such as a negative declaration or an EIR, except in very narrow circumstances.
I don't think that that's been presented here.
Dealing with a site that had some soils issues several decades ago is not a unique issue.
Thank you for your time, and we're happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Did you have questions? Sorry, for both the appellant and the applicant, if you could stay nearby in case folks have questions for you.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Both of my questions are for the applicant.
If you can please come up.
Thank you.
I have two questions, one dealing with the requested waiver in regards to parking.
I see that the request is nearly, well, because we have the parking maximum ordinance in Berkeley, and so this is essentially a 200%, it's a waiver to do nearly 200% more parking.
Could you speak to how this was calculated to be a cost reduction to the project? My understanding of parking is the costs of parking are perhaps different, that they do not actually, less parking is what minimizes costs.
It actually addresses project feasibility.
These are units, much larger units than we typically build, and they're targeting older families and individuals, almost all of whom in Berkeley have at least one car.
And we're going to limit people to one car, but we also would like to make this a condominium project at some point if the state laws or city laws allow us to fee out instead of having on-site units, and it's almost impossible in Berkeley to sell a condominium without at least one parking space.
And we did surveys of over 60 individuals, and all of whom said that if they were to be induced to leave their house in the Berkeley Hills, they would need to have a place that has at least space for one car.
So it was essentially a market feasibility issue.
Thank you.
Mark, Mr.
Loper has a comment too.
Yeah, I just want to point out that a waiver does not need to demonstrate any more state laws change.
So with a waiver, you don't need to demonstrate any cost reductions in a project that's only for a concession or an incentive.
Thank you.
I didn't know that.
That's good to know.
Thank you, Council Member.
Did you have your question answered? This one was.
I have a second question.
It's around the waiver for public art or the 1% for the art.
And my question is simply, I mean, staff in their presentation and Q&A provided the two different avenues under the POTOS ordinance.
Can you speak to the, just the thinking behind the request to waive either avenue? Yeah, I can address this.
This is a concession.
And so what we need to do is show that with the concession, the project is cheaper to build.
That's what the state legislature has said.
And we get up to three, we're only using two.
So we're only using two cost reduction measures and a fee that's required as part of the construction costs.
If you eliminate that fee, it's cheaper to build the project.
I think that answers your question legally.
Maybe you'd like us to talk a little bit about, you know, how the ground floor plane works and stuff like that.
Or do you feel like you've got your question answered? I would be interested in just like specifically.
I'm not going to ask you to pull out a pro forma, but can you speak to just order of magnitude of the reduction? I'm just trying to better understand the basis for the request.
Yeah, sure.
So it's a percentage of the construction costs, and I think staff said it's about 0.08.
So I think the estimate we heard was around 800,000, maybe a little more.
But again, I want to be clear, and I don't mean to be uncharitable.
But the state law says we get up to three concessions.
We get up to three exceptions from things that make the project cheaper to build.
And getting out of the art requirement makes the project cheaper to build.
Thank you, Council Member Trekup.
That's your finished.
Vice Mayor Lunapara.
Thank you.
I have a quick question about the waiver for parking.
If a waiver is supposed to be for development standard that physically precludes the project.
Can you talk a little more about why more exceeding the maximum number of off street parking does fit that definition? So this is where state law, I think, might get a little funky.
A couple of years ago, the state legislature, which works really hard to produce housing, gave projects that invoke the density bonus more discretion when it comes to the amount of parking that they're allowed to have in the project.
And I think that that might be part of how the project is able to justify the number of spots.
And I also think the second thing is that by getting rid..
So the project is invoking a density bonus, which allows it to have the number of units that it's getting.
And one way of thinking about the waiver that we're requesting is by going up to essentially double the number of units.
If we waive the parking requirement, then that allows the density bonus units to be treated the same as the base units when it comes to the number of parking spaces.
So I know that's a little bit of a wonky answer, and it's kind of two things.
I think what he's saying is 55 spaces would have been allowed with a project of 55 units, but now that we've doubled it, we can get 55 spaces.
But on the issue of parking, I've been a big proponent of car-free housing for 30 years.
In fact, the last 10 projects I built had no parking for residents.
But the economic realities are for this demographic, i.e.
older Berkelians, they want to keep their cars.
And we have to defer to that judgment if we're going to make the project economically possible to finance.
Our banks won't finance empty nester housing if we don't have at least one space for each of the units.
It's just an economic reality.
We're doing a seven-story project down the street and we have no parking, but that's largely for students.
Okay, thank you.
I want to just clarify with the planning department how the parking structure works, because it was my understanding that it was 0.5 to 1.
And so if they had a 55-unit building, it would be half.
I just don't remember the policy.
I just want to clarify.
Yeah, the standard in the BMC is that the parking maximum is half a space to each unit.
And so it would be half the number of total units that is allowed.
Okay, thank you.
That's it.
Thank you.
Council Member Casarwani.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
Thank you to our staff for the presentation.
Thank you to the appellants and the applicant.
You know, I just wanted to explain something about this density bonus law.
First, I wanted to confirm that the project is taking advantage of a relatively new modification to density bonus law, AB1287, which gives greater density for, you could say, I guess, less affordable units.
And so density bonus law is very complicated.
But I just want to acknowledge what the appellants are saying.
This is quite unusual, in my experience, to have a three-story base zoning become an eight-story project.
And it's because it's 100% density bonus, correct? And it's done with essentially 30% affordable units, as you noted, 15% very low income.
That means the area median income is 30% to 50% of the area median income.
And then it's another 15%.
So it's nine units of very low income and then another nine units of middle income.
What that means in terms of the area median income, it's 80% to 120%.
I know that might not mean much of anything to folks, but it's more like a middle class type of salary.
We don't actually, typically, the below market rate units on site don't serve 80% to 120% of the area median income.
To my knowledge, we rarely, if ever, have units at that income level, correct? Yeah, that's right.
I believe in the entire fifth cycle housing element period, in that eight-year period, I believe we permitted fewer than 100 moderate income units for that entire eight years.
It's very rare for those middle income units to be built.
And I think that was the policy motivation behind AB1287.
Yes, and I know it's hard to discern what the policy motivation might be, but it seems like you venture to do that.
And I think it's trying to incentivize this middle income housing, giving a greater density bonus.
So I just wanted to acknowledge that that's what's happening here.
And it will be the tallest building when constructed in sort of this corridor.
And it's driven by the state law.
It's not something that the city of Berkeley has control over.
And I think as Council Member Blackabee had noted, we also don't have the discretion to reduce the density because it's provided by the state density bonus.
So I just wanted to explain that this is a bit of a quirk because there's a newer law that's used to give greater density.
So I don't have any further questions or comments.
I'm ready to vote.
Thank you.
Thanks.
So we haven't heard public comment yet, so we have some more things to do.
But Council Member O'Keefe.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I have a question for Mr.
Kennedy, if you don't mind.
Back to the art thing.
And I prefer if you could answer if possible.
Could you just let us know? I understand that the civic art concession saves the project money.
That makes sense.
Why? I imagine there are a number of concessions you could have asked for.
And I'm wondering why you chose that one.
And I have a follow up question, which is, do you plan to put any art at all or any sort of anything of that nature in the building, even though I guess it wouldn't be required to under this concession? Yes, we are planning to do significant bulb out on the street, which will provide seating for probably another 15 or 20 people.
And the building itself, I hope, will be an aesthetic contribution to the city.
But specifically, other artwork, we're not planning any right now.
It's very hard to get any projects financed right now.
So every, you know, a million dollars here, a million dollars there, makes a big difference on whether a project proceeds or doesn't proceed.
And this was a significant reduction in the fees from the city.
And you picked it just because it was the most significant reduction you could ask for at a concession? Is that why? I still didn't get an answer to my question as to how you chose to ask for this particular concession.
It was the most significant one that reduced the total construction costs.
I didn't realize we had overlooked a third concession, frankly.
It's too late.
Yeah, but, you know, as Council Member Keserwani said, the law is changing quite a bit all the time.
But in any case, it was necessary in order for us to try to get this project financed.
Okay.
And I just, I guess this isn't quite a question, but one of the reasons I'm motivated to push on this is, is it true that you'll be covering up a really, really significant mural on the adjoining building? I believe that won't be visible once this is constructed.
Am I wrong about the geometry of that? Which is, I'm not sure which, I have not noticed the significant mural.
You haven't noticed the big mural? No.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you, Council Member Traikup.
Did you have another question? Actually, I'm sorry, I'm going to go to Council Member Blackaby because he has not asked a question yet.
Great.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
One question, a couple questions, one for the applicant, one for the appellant, one for staff.
I guess that's three.
I noticed in the appellant's presentation, and this is for the applicant, they contend that the environmental review was not sufficient, that the phase two environmental assessment is not a substitute.
Just talk about, from your perspective, why your belief that what you did present is sufficient, you met the standard.
Can you just talk us through that discrepancy or disagreement? Let me defer to Mr.
Loper here, he's got better expertise on this subject.
Thank you, Council Member, that's a very good question.
Typically how infill housing projects work on sites that at one point had some sort of remediation activity is that you start with something called a phase one, which is basically a desktop study that involves looking at the history of the site and the cleanup activities that took place.
This site already underwent a significant effort to clean it up, and it received a closure and no action letter, and staff probably has all the details in front of them on the computers.
And so a phase one looks at things from a desktop perspective, and a phase two involves a more serious and in-depth look at the actual conditions on the ground, and sometimes that involves doing sampling and boring and testing.
And then a phase one and a phase two get discussed and baked into the CEQA clearance document, which here was a consistency determination with the housing element EIR.
And as I mentioned earlier, this is not a unique condition to housing development sites, so I expect that the housing element EIR talked about this approach at length.
And then the final thing, and I mentioned this during my presentation, but I'll just mention it again, that's not the end of the show.
If you look at the approval conditions from ZAB, there are four conditions that the city will work with the applicant and the developer on to ensure that when construction takes place, all proper local, state, and federal laws relating to site remediation are followed.
Okay.
Does staff agree that this project meets that environmental review threshold? Yes.
And just to follow up on that point, when this project comes in for a building permit, it is routed through our Toxics Management Division, and so they continue that deep dive review of the reports, the measures that are taking place as part of the construction to abate that condition.
Okay.
Thank you.
Also to staff, and then after that, one question to the appellant.
The other main issue in the presentation to the appellant was whether or not the applicant documented cost reductions associated with the waivers.
And again, we've heard some discussion about that.
Are they obligated to do that? Are they not obligated to do that? Have we met that standard in this process? The contention here in the presentation is that the city didn't ask the applicant to document.
They need to, the reductions associated with waivers and concessions.
As far as waivers are concerned, there is no requirement to provide documentation to justify the waiver concessions as well.
Actually, there is case law that forbids staff from asking for documentation of the cost reduction.
So we could not ask for that.
Staff can ask.
Okay.
And one question for the appellant, if you're near a microphone, real quick.
Thank you.
Coming back to, I think, where we started the conversation, again, what I'm really trying to drive into is, again, what is the council's discretion? And what we've heard a couple of times from staff and also from the applicant is to reach a finding that there is significant, quantifiable, specific adverse impact on health and safety.
So I think my question for the appellant is, how would you, you know, out of all this, how would you distill that? What's the claim there that you think is appealable? Thank you, Council Member Black.
This is James Hendry for the appellant.
Well, first off, on the issue of concessions versus waivers, there's two issues.
Waivers are less off the table.
Concessions, however, under the Berkeley planning code, you're asked for substantial documentation if you want to, and the planning staff did not do that.
They rely on the court case.
Brierley, we discussed this extensively.
It says you can't ask for concessions.
You can't ask for the documentation of concessions, and they did not do that.
They seem to be confusing going a step further, which is what the court case involves, which is dealing with the issue of making applicants prove a project is profitable or due performance.
But the state law is clear that you can ask them to document what the concessions are.
What you do with them then is up to you.
But in this case, you violate the planning code by not even asking or getting this documentation, which you're allowed to do under state law.
And for the adverse, I believe there's also a code section, and maybe it got taken out in the last revision, but it's also on page three of our applicant.
It says you can deny a project if you make written findings upon substantial evidence that the concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions consistent with subdivision K to provide for affordable housing costs.
So this is the second tier of looking at economics.
That probably is also a very high bar, too.
And that one is one that seemed to have been ignored also in the analysis.
As for the waiver of public health, that clearly is a high bar, but we do feel there are toxic issues.
We're happy to talk about the environmental issues and the failure of the city planning staff to address them, which we might argue, and I think it may be a good argument to make that, yes, those environmental issues are sufficient to raise a question about the viability of the project and whether it should be approved.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So your concern articulated is a process concern about the documentation or request for documentation.
So you're leaning into that more than the higher bar of finding a specific adverse impact on health and safety? I think so.
I think the adverse issues of health and safety addressed in the environmental issues, we're happy to talk to you about that.
There are adverse public health effects, we believe.
OK, thank you.
That's all my questions.
Thank you.
OK, Council Member Trako.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I have a follow-up question for the applicant, if you can please come up.
So I appreciate the cost of construction right now, and I appreciate the work you would be doing on the bulb out.
But I have to ask, have you considered or might you consider a partial contribution to the city's public arts fund as a gesture of goodwill? I will consider it, but not tonight.
And I'd like to remind you of the difficulty.
We have 19 stalled projects in Berkeley right now that have been approved at various stages, and we're facing headwinds on construction costs, interest costs, and a whole host of other things.
I'm well aware.
They're all in my district.
Thank you.
You've answered the question, and I appreciate it.
Thank you.
OK, any other questions from Council Members? OK, we will take public comment.
Actually, do we want to take a very quick stretch break? Yeah, let's take it.
We're going to take a five-minute stretch break, but be prepared to start public comment right afterwards.
Thank you.
Recording stopped.

Segment 5

The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Hi, I have somebody who's ceding a minute to me over here, so I'd like to have two minutes on the clock.
Oh, thank you.
Okay, I want to say first of all, I don't know anybody who wants to move from their homes in Berkeley into a very expensive rental unit on Shattuck Avenue.
Okay, I've lived in Berkeley a long time.
I have a partner who left and lived in three different buildings in downtown Berkeley during his time there before he went to assisted living, because that was the next route.
And he said it was full of students, always.
There were a few people in transition in these buildings, but it's student housing.
The building on Francisco had six minutes to campus on it, but they took that sign down now, because that's student housing.
This may not be student housing, but it's not going to be housing the people that you want to house.
Because again, I think as Keserwani said, what is medium and low in the Bay Area is still out of the reach for most people who are working at minimum or other wages around the city.
I'd like to address the issue of a waiver.
A waiver is a giving up of a legitimate right.
And in Berkeley, I'm quoting from the city manager's housing element in general plan report.
The waivers have been given in 24, I believe, 83% of the waivers were approved.
And before that, I think close to 90% were approved.
So it's not an exception.
It seems to be a rule here.
And I want to know why.
The other thing I want to know about is we have large developers who are building here.
They're the only ones who can do this.
And the other thing is, look at Center Street.
What is going to happen to Center Street? We're not going to be able to attract anybody to Berkeley until we clean up what's going on in downtown Berkeley.
We talk about the arts, et cetera.
Thank you.
But we've got a mess on our hands.
Thanks for your comment.
I'm going to sell my home, pay a huge capital gain, give up my garden, give up my neighbors and move into a high rise? No effing way.
Find me two people, two names that will do that.
And they'll be two fools.
When I walk around the corner and have a monolith instead of a cute restaurant, that affects my health.
There's been no measure of people's mental health impacts.
Go get it.
Measure the impact.
I didn't even know about this until November.
I didn't write a letter.
I'm here today.
The tour bus, there'll be an impact on the health of money because no tour bus wants to park in front of a monolith to go to the cheese board or Chez Panisse.
They'll try to blind their people to get them in.
Think about those impacts.
Thank you.
I'll give Jim a minute.
And Melinda's giving me a minute.
I believe I have three minutes.
Thank you.
Good evening, council members.
My name is James Hendry.
I want to begin by noting that, as we discussed, there's a difference between concessions and waivers.
You're obligated under the code to look at concessions and figure out what they cost.
And you have great benefits of being lost to the city of Berkeley, particularly on the issue we talked about, the loss of the public arts fee.
Now, the developer says that in part it's needed to make the project profitable.
But he also came into this council last week and asked for it to be waived in 1752 Shattuck, which has already been built and already financed.
So are we talking about modifications necessary to build a project or modifications necessary just to make more profit? Second, I have to clear up a major misconception that everybody seems to be operating under.
The planning department and the applicants seem to be saying this is a toxic waste site and we chose to build on it anyway.
That is incorrect.
The housing element environmental impact report looked at every toxic waste site in Berkeley, including this project.
And if they'd looked in the website, what they would have found, it said the project has been mitigated and you can build on it.
So the project had been mitigated and could build on it unless you had a win-win.
Former toxic waste site, opportunity zone.
Now, sadly, that mitigation effect was done in 1987 and new technologies and new requirements, new measuring techniques now found out there's toxics on the site.
Lead, benzene, chloroform, total petroleum hydrocarbons, all located next to one of the largest pediatric clinics in Berkeley.
And so the question then becomes, you know, and even the planning department now keeps saying, oh, no, we knew it was toxic.
Even though if you read the report, they're still claiming, relying on this 1987 report and their staff report that, oh, no, it's harmless.
There's no problem to it.
So it's a misconception to say that we knew it was a toxic site.
We thought it wasn't.
It turns out it was.
Now, how do you deal with it? So the housing element EIR says you're supposed to remediate sites.
Remediate is a term of art, meaning take all the toxic dirt, get rid of it, remediate the site to residential standards.
Residential standards is a requirement that's in the infill environmental checklist.
So instead of remediation, the applicant is proposing mitigation.
What is mitigation? Mitigation is basically a vapor intrusion barrier, e.g., a large tarp put over the toxic waste to keep it allegedly in.
Whether it would work or not, we don't know.
The entire documents in the report consist of three statements.
A sales offer from the consultant saying, hey, we'll sell you one.
A one-sentence statement in the case to environmental assessment saying we think it might work.
And a statement from the developer saying he'll voluntarily put it in, which, since it's not mandatory, does not mean it necessarily meets the enforcement requirements you want under CEQA.
So the question then becomes, we need to mitigate this, and how do we do that? And it does not meet the environmental goals under the EIR.
Thanks for your comment.
Good evening, everybody.
Can you hear me? I'm not used to this.
Thank you for the chance to speak.
I want to talk about ‑‑ oh, yeah, I have a minute.
Thank you.
Two minutes is what I need.
I want to talk about eroding trust in our elective officials, which is very disappointing to me.
I feel like the permitting process is very opaque to us citizens.
And I also want to talk about pedestrian safety, which is close to my heart because I walk everywhere.
Right now the public process does not feel transparent.
There's very little time to ask questions or get real answers in these meetings.
Presentations often feel vague and downright misleading.
We hear heightened set of stories.
Everything keeps moving around.
Some visuals in the room are not readable or even ADA compliant on occasion.
And we've had meeting notices more than once with incorrect dates.
It creates more confusion.
Traffic and pedestrian safety is a very serious problem in our neck of the woods.
For example, somebody just got hit, a 95‑year‑old woman, at the corner of our street.
And every other day I seem to almost see something happen on either Virginia or Cedar.
And definitely it's Shattuck and Cedar.
So I feel like the traffic there is not going to be helped by entering all these cars, entering in and out of this building.
But I support housing.
If there's some place that this very tall building could come down a little bit, it could go back a little bit, there could be steps up and then, you hear, well, it doesn't pencil out for the developer.
And I think the weight of the council seems to be well behind the developers and not behind your citizens so much.
And that really is disappointing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening, Mayor and council members.
My name is Mike Apte.
I'm a Berkeley resident and a board member of Save Berkeley Shops.
I support new housing in Berkeley, including affordable housing.
We're not opposing housing.
And compliance with binding voter-adopted law.
Berkeley voters adopted the 1982 Neighborhood Commercial Preservation Ordinance, that's 22.12.
It's never been repealed or amended.
That ordinance requires explicit findings before demolishing an existing commercial building, including findings that demolition is not materially detrimental to neighborhood commercial needs and that replacement development appropriately harmonizes with its surroundings.
After reviewing the administrative record for use permit ZP 2024-66, I found no citation analysis or findings under that ordinance under the related voter-adopted neighborhood preservation anti-demolition measures.
Instead, the approval relies on zoning provisions and state housing law.
If voter-adopted ordinances no longer apply, that conclusion must be stated clearly and supported in the record.
Silence is not compliance.
This submission fits a broader pattern of selective engagement in the city's rezoning work.
For example, a city commission study on zoning impacts on businesses did not include interviews with business owners.
And business owners have not been consulted about rezoning plans affecting commercial corridors.
Council is not being asked to re-decide the project or deny housing.
You are being asked to ensure that approvals rest on a complete and legally sufficient record and that laws adopted by Berkeley voters are not effectively nullified through omission.
Thanks.
Thank you.
I've made these comments before.
At the second corridors workshop for North Shattuck College and Solano Avenues, city presenters repeatedly assured us that developers would only ask for 50%, or most likely only ask for 50% density bonus.
This is now the third project that has been requesting or has been granted 100% density bonus.
Could the city possibly be more disingenuous and duplicitous about the zoning updates? It's an outrage.
50%? None of these projects are asking for 50%.
This is for Solano Avenue, where, again, every slide that the city presented showed only eight stories.
And, in fact, 11 stories were measured for 100% density bonus.
But you assured us that's never going to happen.
It is happening.
Three times.
Thank you.
I'm here to talk about why you're not obeying the city ordinances.
You have the Neighborhood Commercial Preservation Ordinance 2212, which says that you should only have buildings of scale, density of use, or design that's appropriately harmonizing with structures in the area.
Well, that doesn't do it.
It significantly will increase the amount of auto traffic congestion or auto-related pollution.
That violates your municipal code.
And also, it will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the city.
That's in your city code, too.
You're supposed to follow.
I thought you were supposed to follow your regulations.
Thank you.
Can I have a minute? I think people have given their minutes.
So, I'm sorry.
We have to go to the next person.
We have to go to the next speaker.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay, hello, Council.
Thank you for having me today.
I believe the property on 2109 Virginia Street should be allowed to be constructed because at this time, most of the city of Berkeley is owned by UC Berkeley.
Other establishments other than the University of Berkeley should be allowed to build.
And the city is not just for students.
It is in America, and the city of Berkeley is also for families.
Also, I appreciate how this building is going to provide parking, which is greatly needed in Berkeley.
Scarce parking is here.
Furthermore, the way the city of Berkeley is currently operating gives the impression as if it is a neighborhood only for the wealthy, and the poor are not tolerated.
Another proof of this is with the recent removal of People's Park, which was a huge, huge sad moment for the people of Berkeley that were from here and that grew up here and that lost their businesses during COVID, and people are still suffering, and this would give people a place to live that have nowhere to live right now because they can't afford it anymore.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'd also like to mention that you have 17..
I'm sorry, but you've already spoken, so you can't speak again.
You've already had your minute.
Well, you told me I could come after this person.
No.
I was saying that the next person needed to come up.
I had somebody give me a minute.
I'm sorry.
You've already spoken.
You're so democratic.
Art Goldberg.
I've lived here for 58 years.
I mean, there's been an orgy of construction, and I understand we've already met the state mandate, so why is construction going on kind of mindlessly? As to this specific building, in North Shattuck, we don't want it.
We spoke up in 2008, 2009 when they proposed the North Shattuck Plaza.
It was overwhelmingly rejected, and the council listened to that.
We don't want high-rise buildings in that area.
It's doing very well.
Chez Panisse just opened up a bar.
The cheese board is remodeling.
These high-rise buildings will kill it, and there are other places to put housing.
The university is starting to build all over the place, so I think you people are not representing us, the citizens.
You're representing the developers, and I think it's time that you tried to represent what we want.
Thank you.
Hi again, and I have an extra minute for my friend back there.
Change is the only constant, right? We certainly need housing, but this housing is not affordable.
For the majority of people, we already have gentrification.
We already have the elimination of people that have lived here for so very, very long, and I understand developers and development, and I understand, but the whole notion of profit means I give less than I get, and I'm really concerned that we're getting out of balance here in Berkeley.
Just like my body, if certain cells did not stay in harmony with the others, I'd be dying of cancer right now.
It's like we have to be thoughtful.
I got an emergency notice today about how the wellness centers are closing.
BACS is cutting its staff and eliminating its programs.
Food is drying up all over the place.
Remember, I deal in the general public.
I once was opulent, but again, I chose to care about everyone because none of us are going to be okay if we continue this inequality and this calloused, unintended consequence proliferation of Mayor Berkeley was first.
I don't want it to end up being last in terms of the care for the community that it can be, and I'm really, really concerned.
So please, I know people want to make money, but people need to live.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are there any public comments online? Yes.
So this is the time for public comment on Item 14, the appeal on 2109 Virginia.
So if you are on Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand to speak.
There's currently 13 raised hands.
The first speaker is Wilhelmina.
Wilhelmina, you should be able to unmute.
Hi.
Thank you very much.
I am very disturbed about the hypocrisy around this low-income housing.
You're justifying what would basically is a monstrosity in the middle of our neighborhood, five stories higher, four stories higher than it needs to be under this low-income housing justification.
The reality is that's not low-income housing.
Anybody who's working at Starbucks, anybody that's a minimum wage worker is not going to live there.
You have a legacy here.
Look at what you're doing to our city.
In the end, we will have a housing problem, but you will have destroyed our neighborhoods one after another.
You did it downtown, all the empty buildings.
You rezone and then no buildings go in.
This is a mistake.
Nobody, I've talked to hundreds of my neighbors, nobody wants this.
You are pro-development.
Your time is up.
Thank you.
Next is Amelia.
Hi.
While we wish that everyone would take public transportation, you've cut our buses, bike safety on the corridors is terrifying, and you have incentivized landlords to kill our local businesses with short-term leases and the promise of upzoning cash outs.
My new neighbors will be using cars and ordering delivery.
I just want to make sure everyone can do so as safely as possible.
I've seen accidents, traffic jams, and near-death experiences with cars pulling into the Shattuck garage of the apartments across the street.
Is there any chance of a ride share and delivery cut-in or a designated entrance on Virginia? I'd also like to thank Councilmember Trageb for the attempted shakedown on behalf of the Arts Fund.
We love to see it.
Honestly, seeing you guys stand up to developers on even the smallest token feels like a miracle at this point.
Thank you so much.

Segment 6

Thank you.
Next is Rohini.
Hi, I hope you can hear me.
I'd like the Council to know that if you vote to go ahead and vote against this appeal, you're telling me that you completely understand the remediation and the environmental risks.
You're voting to tell me that there is no risk from the benzene in the soil to the pediatric clinic that's right behind this building, and Berkeley Arts Magnet School, which is right across from it.
It means that you've understood all the impacts and you're okay with it.
Frankly, I don't believe that's the case.
I don't think you've done your homework.
I think you've rubber-stamped this or you've rubber-stamped everything else.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, next is Kelly Hammergren.
Hello.
I picked up one of my old composition notebooks with notes to speak at the Landmarks Preservation Commission from July 16, 2015.
And in those notes, I've got, Berkeley City Council passed as a goal 50% rooftop solar by 2030.
Why don't we have objective standards for solar? What happened to that? What happened to this sustainability that we used to be committed to? How things change? Yesterday at the agenda committee, I asked that you schedule a special meeting, special council meeting on state laws on housing and land use and how those have changed and how those affect our city.
We've got four more.
Thanks, Kelly.
I'm sorry, your time is up.
Thanks, Kelly.
Next is Sherry Washburn.
Hi.
I'm assuming you can hear me.
I just want to make it really clear from the start.
I support more housing in our city.
We need it.
It's very clear we do.
But this particular project fails to deliver what our community actually needs.
I understand from listening tonight that the developer is using density bonus law to justify eight stories and 110 units.
But in exchange, we're only getting 18 affordable, in air quotes, units.
At income levels that still aren't affordable for many working families here, the law sets minimums, not maximums.
Other California cities negotiate 25 to 30% affordability for projects of this size.
You have the discretion to require more or to reject a project with insufficient public benefit.
I'm not going to get into parking.
I think everyone in the neighborhood knows there's not enough parking, and I can't imagine what it would be like to live next door to this behemoth of a building.
But does this project justify its scale and its impacts? The developer is asking for maximum density, but they're offering minimum affordability.
I'm sorry.
Your time's up.
Thanks for your comment.
Next is a phone number ending in 000.
I'm definitely against any high-rise in Berkeley.
We already have enough of them.
I emailed you last couple of weeks about earthquakes.
There was a strong earthquake in San Ramon, California.
This is a bad, bad, bad sign.
The big one is coming.
The Hayward Fault is waking up.
We are going huge earthquake.
All of this cheap-built box apartment building was beautiful.
Very smart students in Berkeley are going to be dead if seven or eight magnitude earthquake takes over.
It's from a scientific point of view.
On the other hand, we don't have to worry, because with Trump had access to the nuclear football, we're going to go to World War III.
In fact, the Doomsday Clock was advanced just last week by several seconds.
Have a good night.
Do not approve high-rise in Berkeley anymore.
All these boxes are going to collapse in seven plus magnitude Hayward Fault earthquake.
Thank you, and have a good night.
Thank you.
Next is Tony.
Good evening.
This is Tony Mester from D2.
I have two points about this project.
Number one, what makes this project particularly for senior citizens, as Mr.
Kennedy mentioned? I don't see anything in your interim.
I looked at the layout, and I didn't see anything that said this is for seniors.
And I also suggest that you hold a public meeting exploring how the density bonus is computed by the planning department.
It is opaque, and I doubt that you even understand it.
And I really think a council workshop on this subject is needed in this city.
Thank you for considering my ideas.
Thank you, Tony.
Next is Nancy Rader.
Good evening.
Hi, Nancy Rader, D6.
First, I appreciate the developers designed the building for three minutes.
I hope they're considerably larger than the time to install apartments we've seen, and more affordable, fitting to new demographics.
I also appreciate the parking space, because it will reduce the number of emergency delivery vehicles, having to find a way to meet quality congestion.
On the negative side, if this massive building can be built in its current zoning, it's a great way to advertise against the further up-selling or consuming up-selling process.
In that process, staff is offering development standards that can be applied, including building setbacks, to help reduce the building's negative impacts on the neighborhood.
But here we see many, if not all, of those setback economies being waived, reducing sidewalk space.
So I don't know what meaning those standards have.
To have any review opportunity or discretion there, please use it.
Thank you.
Thanks, Nancy.
Okay.
Next is Cheryl Davila, former council member.
Hold on.
One moment.
I didn't think you were going to send the link.
Thank you.
So I can't see the clock, so I can't know my time.
Can you start it over and put it in a place where I can see it? But so far, people are saying, like, what does this, why is this happening? And the weight is towards developers.
Concessions are minimal.
There are no concessions.
I don't know about the concessions, but it seems like every time the developer gets what they want, they get the density bonus.
They get you're not abiding by the city ordinances.
Planning just approves these monstrosities.
Someone said it was an orgy of construction.
The hypocrisy of low-income housing justification.
Hundreds of neighbors don't want this.
And it's on toxic land.
And the objective for solar, no commitment.
Public benefits are minimal.
18 units is nothing.
And they're not affordable.
Thanks for your comment.
Next is Tova Solomon.
Hello.
I want to mention about the 19 stalled other projects.
And I just want to point out that if those were built and brought in new residents, then that would help ease some of the financial concerns people are having about this project.
And as always with realty, there's location, location, location.
So down by San Pablo and University, three of the four stores on that corner are closed.
And so, you know, if we were to build a larger building housing down here, that wouldn't be interfering with the.
Quaint neighborhood.
And the students that would be moving in their world-class students.
They know how to take a bus up to campus.
Putting this building.
In this location is just the wrong place.
It's absolutely absurd.
Next is Cleo.
Hi.
So I want to come to the defense of the city council a little bit here.
In the sense that actually.
All of these regulations are allowed by the state of California and the laws of the state of California supersede the laws that we can pass at Berkeley.
So in reality, The developer is doing what's legally possible.
But I do want to point out two things that the city of Berkeley is passing a lot of its own regulations.
And what I've noticed is repeatedly it does.
So without paying attention to what the state of California is really doing, or not paying sufficient attention to what the state of California is doing.
And so we end up with these unintended consequences where.
Yeah, we've allowed, we've designated this site.
As a housing element.
In the housing element to creating additional.
Density.
Authorization for it.
And, and now I think nobody really wants what's happening.
But we don't have the choice and it's fair for the developer to be looking at the housing element and saying.
I'm a lot.
Next is Walnut.
So I'm going to talk a little bit about this building.
This is a building that has the mural that our.
Applicant doesn't know about.
I teach kids with learning disabilities.
Building.
Construction of this magnitude that will take so long is going to be so detrimental to my students and to my coworkers, especially when, no.
When it stalls.
And you have to say, oh, you're against construction.
Oh, you're against housing.
Oh, you don't care about past redlining.
These are not going to be for sale.
These units, they are not going to be affordable.
I will be a renter the rest of my life.
I won't be able to live in one of these.
Make them all affordable.
Put your money where your mouth is.
Don't claim.
That this is all out of altruism.
When it's about making money.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you all for your public comments.
Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Some moves.
Can we take the role please? Clerk.
Okay.
To close the public hearing council member.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
So, council deliberations starting with vice mayor.
Thank you.
I just want to say something really quickly.
The Berkeley minimum wage right now is $19.18 an hour.
And as a full-time job, that makes $39,894.40.
Which is obviously way below cost of living.
The nine very low income units designated here will be deed restricted affordable for residents that are 30 to 50% of the area.
Median income.
30% area median income in Berkeley for a one-person household is $33,600.
And for a two-person household is $38,400.
This means that these low-income units, which will sit on a lot that currently has no housing at all, will quite literally be affordable for people making minimum wage in Berkeley.
These are units for low-income residents that otherwise will not exist.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council member Trago.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And thank you to everyone who came here tonight.
As well as to staff for their diligence.
I certainly heard from many neighbors leading up to and including tonight.
And appreciate the labor time and effort that it takes to participate in this process.
I also understand this is the place you call home.
And what is happening directly next to your home affects you more than any of us sitting here.
So I have listened.
And I appreciate it.
And unfortunately as in many circumstances we are faced with some tough choices.
On the one hand, understandably, some members of the community have expressed concerns and desire for additional features.
Such as more affordable housing, higher labor standards, and keeping the 1% for the arts provision.
On the other hand, this application includes 110 dwelling units.
Including nine very low-income units.
Which to Vice Mayor Luna-Pavez's point, will in fact be affordable to many making minimum wage.
As well as nine moderate income density bonus qualifying units.
Which is basically workforce housing for working families.
And even in the face of a nearly $35 million budget deficit our city faces.
I'm personally deeply committed.
And I think I speak for everyone on this body actually in saying this.
In supporting funding civic and public arts.
And demanding that the residential projects built in Berkeley are done with the workforce.
Not on the backs of it.
And including units that are affordable for those who build them.
And that said, we desperately need housing.
Especially around and in the near vicinity of transit rich corridors.
And like all of my colleagues, I'm committed to trying to do my part in addressing our housing unaffordability crisis.
Despite how challenging it may be to find appropriate locations.
Appropriate conditions.
Appropriate unit price point in development.
That will satisfy all Berkeley constituents.
As has been mentioned, several projects have stalled in Berkeley.
Most of them are in my district.
And we are unfortunately not receiving much needed housing elsewhere.
Furthermore, state laws have dramatically limited the level of discretion available to quasi-judicial entities.
Such as the ZAB and the city council.
And in this case, based on everything that I'm aware of in the state housing law landscape.
As well as everything we've heard from staff.
We don't have much discretion either.
But even before these state laws were passed.
And between the ZAB and city council, I have been absorbing the landscape for the last 14 years.
Even prior to this, it would have been challenging and legally risky to demand something of an applicant.
Unless they themselves agreed to something that goes above and beyond local or state requirements.
Now it's next to impossible.
And all we can do is voluntarily ask.
And we did.
For all these reasons.
And based on my close review of the appeal packet and staff responses.
I will be supporting approval of this project.
To the community members here tonight.
That may disagree with this vote.
Please know that tomorrow, my office and I will get back to working alongside of you.
On the issues that we have been working on.
Including revitalizing our downtown and commercial spaces.
And addressing street safety for all.
Together, we will continue to endeavor to create a Berkeley we can all call home.
Thank you.
Council Member Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I want to begin by saying that I understand where the neighbors of this proposed project are coming from.
It's a big change.
There's no way around that.
It will mean less privacy, less light, and a big change in view.
All else being equal, being unhappy about these things is perfectly justifiable and understandable.
I don't condemn you for that.
However, at the same time, we as a city should act according to our principles.
And above all, we must follow the law.
Our principles are that we need to allow for more housing to help make homes more affordable.
And available to people at all income levels.
And this project will do that.
And be a city that can welcome all.
Including immigrants and the workers who keep our city running.
We also need to follow our principles of maximizing new homes near jobs and transit.
To support local businesses, shorten commutes, encourage alternatives to driving.
And thereby help protect our climate.
And this project checks those boxes as well.
And finally, and most importantly, we must comply with state housing law.
And allow projects that meet all applicable development standards.
And particularly with respect to density bonus projects.
Our staff and all voting members of the Zoning Adjustments Board are in agreement that this project meets applicable standards.
Absent additional evidence to the contrary, and I've heard none.
I'm compelled to affirm the decision of the Zoning Adjustments Board.
And vote to dismiss the appeal.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member Bartlett.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And I want to thank the staff for your presentation.
And thank the applicants here, well the community, for your efforts.
Your diligent efforts.
And while I sympathize with you, I empathize with you.
I don't see any real basis to deny the project.
And further, I want to encourage this project.
Because although it will be a difference in your life, it will also be a positive difference in the lives of many other people.
Particularly those who live in the building.
The decades that we have stopped housing in Berkeley have led to the scarcity that has driven so many people out of town.
And so many people who have become accidental millionaires, homeowners, who are benefiting from the scarcity.
None of that's equitable.
And too much of the development has been borne by other districts.
And so there is a larger equitable argument here to be made that this project is kind of benefiting our efforts to make an equitable development seen in Berkeley.
And just so you know, the district that we're in right now for this building here is the only district that has experienced an increase in racial diversity because it has built the most apartments.
So this is where we're at.
This is a necessary thing to increase our conference of the city because these are tax revenue tax revenue generating entities and also higher culture, more equity, lower rents, more opportunity.
And ultimately your neighborhood will benefit from this.
And I want to thank you for your diligent efforts.
And I'll be voting to approve the building.
Thank you, Council Member Keith.
I believe that Council Member Taplin has his hand up before me and I wouldn't mind an extra minute if that's okay.
Yes, that's fine.
Council Member Taplin.
Sure, thank you very much.
I mean, I don't want to belabor or drag this out, but I'm not going to bring hands, but it's pretty straightforward.
I just have to say that this is not a low density neighborhood.
There are many apartments in this neighborhood.
I think on this single block, there are probably more apartments in my entire neighborhood combined.
And it's on a major corridor.
And those are things I think make this area attractive and appealing.
I think it's a fine location for multi-family housing.
I'm excited for the opportunity for older homeowners to downsize.
And like Council Member Bartlett was saying, a lot of our districts, a lot of our neighborhoods have been building housing, have been constructing housing for years and decades.
And it's not.
There's no.
Like, we should not see new neighbors or the growth of our neighborhoods as some kind of burden.
These are people who are part of the fabric of our community.
And these homes are going to be part of the fabric of our neighborhoods.
I'll be going to deny appeal.
Thank you, Council Member Blackaby.
Sorry, I'm sorry.
Going back to you, Council Member O'Keefe.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Yeah, I'm ready now.
Appreciate that.
Well, I did want to state briefly, it's already been stated, but it's important to really reiterate that we don't really have the option of upholding this appeal legally.
There's many dimensions of state law that I play that make that not an option.
But if that was my only response, I think that would be a cop out.
Actually, I'm going to say more.
The fact is, I'm happy to support this project and to deny the appeal.
Even if I had leeway to deny it, I wouldn't.
I am, I identify as a pro-housing council member.
I was very openly pro-housing when I ran for this position, and I was elected with 75 percent of the vote.
I make that point, not to brag, but there's a sentiment that this sort of approving this sort of project is somehow against the will of the voters.
And it's not democratic.
And I have to push back against that.
It's just not the way I see it.
I think it's clear from the makeup of the council that the people of Berkeley, and also people who don't live in Berkeley, by the way, who wish to, want more housing.
And they want housing projects like this one that are close to transit.
It's not displacing anyone or any businesses.
It is displacing a mural, and I'm salty about that.
But overall, it's a good project.
And it also includes a really meaningful amount of actual mathematically affordable housing.
A very significant amount.
With all the respect to the appellants, most of the arguments in the appeal, many of them demand that our staff go above and beyond following their own established procedures.
Which, if we were to agree to that, I think it would be a huge blow to fairness and equity.
That's a really important value of running a city.
And a number of the other appeal points.
I don't want to dismiss, I don't mean to dismiss the importance of them.
They make sense.
They're real complaints.
But having been on the zoning board for more than 10 years, these same complaints, these objections are raised for almost every single large housing project.
Construction impact, shadows, traffic and parking.
These things are brought up every single time.
If we denied projects based on these factors, we would have built almost no housing in the last 15 years.
And that, as I mentioned at the beginning, would be unacceptable to me.
Because I want more housing in the city, and I'm going to continue to support more housing.
Thank you, Council Member.
Council Member Blackaby.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
I'll be brief.
We've all had a lot of time to express our comments.
So, to be clear, like Council Member O'Keefe mentioned, I also was elected, pretty clearly, because I do support development of new housing in Berkeley.
Of all types.
We've made a lot of progress as a community over the last few years.
But we know that there's a lot more to do.
Not just, by the way, on the rental housing, but also on condos and housing for purchase.
It's also why I was so appreciative of the work we've done on the ADU ordinance, where people can now..
We're making that available for ADUs to be purchased separately as a potential starter home for folks who need housing at that price point.
So, transit-oriented development, middle housing, our ADU policy, that's all part of this housing solution.
This kind of mix of different tactics that are in the arrows and the quiver, as it were.
And projects like this are also part of the solution.
I do appreciate the concerns that have been raised by the appellants.
And it's why I kept coming back to ideas that my colleagues have also mentioned, which is, you know, what's the standard? What is our discretion? Like, what's the threshold that we would need to determine to say that it rose to a level where we would need to somehow move this back to ZAB or support the appeal? But given, in my view, that it appears, as I've read the record, that the environmental review process steps have been met, I don't see how this meets the level of specific adverse impact on health and safety.
That's a very high standard, as other people have said.
That's, to me, the prong that the appellants are asking us to rely upon.
And I'm sympathetic and I understand the concerns, but I don't see that it rises to that level as I do my analysis.
One other point, I also do appreciate the feedback that folks have given about the corridors project.
You know, I'm very sensitive to the argument that current zoning and the current density bonus already support developments of seven or eight stories along Shattuck.
And so, it does raise the question, what is the point of doing further zoning if we're already ending up with housing at the level of seven or eight stories, which feels appropriate to me? And so, as we move forward, again, I'm in a dialogue with a lot of folks on this subject.
I've met with the business owners a couple of times and meeting with residents in District 6 and nearby.
You know, I want us to be sensitive and thoughtful about this process because, again, we are continuing to move forward on the development of new housing.
And I think that is the right path, absolutely the right path as a community.
I also just want to make sure that we strike the right balance as we move forward beyond this project.
And so, as we continue on that path, I want to sort of articulate that as well because I think this is a great project.
And I'm really, I think this will do a lot of good.
And I think this feels appropriate for this neighborhood.
But it feels like it also may be about, at least from my perspective and from neighbors I've talked to, that may be about the limit of maybe what's appropriate in this quarter.
So, again, I just want us to be sensitive and thoughtful about what this means moving forward because under existing zoning, we're ending up with a really good project in this neighborhood.
And I just, I appreciate that fact and I appreciate the feedback that some others have shared about that tonight.
So I will be supporting the project, I will vote to deny the appeal, but I at least wanted to get some of my thoughts on the record.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council Member Casarwani.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
I just wanted to, I don't typically respond to the public commenters.
I want to thank the public commenters.
I did want to respond to one point that was made, which is sort of question.

Segment 7

Why Would Anyone Who Owns a Home in the Hills Ever Think About Downsizing? I just need to help explain why that might be.
As people age, it's no longer safe for them to drive.
As people age, they may lose their vision.
They may lose their hearing.
We have people with disabilities who aren't able to drive.
So it is very important that we think of the full array of people who live in our city and make sure we think about opportunities for people to be able to, if they want to, downsize and live in a neighborhood that is more walkable.
I mean, this is at the corner of Virginia and Shattuck.
It's walkable to multiple grocery stores.
It's a public transit corridor.
So it's really an important resource to be able to locate housing here.
And somebody said, you know, why would you do that on a financial basis? Well, there's now Prop 19 that allows homeowners over the age of 55 who have disabilities or who are victims of wildfire to transfer their tax base anywhere in the state.
So there are a lot of reasons why for aging homeowners in the hills who can no longer drive down to get their gallon of milk, this makes a lot of sense for them.
And Council Member Blackaby talked about it.
We are trying to actually provide other opportunities for people to downsize and own a starter home or a downsized home across the city.
So we are going to now, with the second reading that I recused from, have accessory dwelling units for sale as starter homes or a downsizing opportunity.
I think next meeting we're going to look at subdivision as it relates to middle housing so that there can be multiple small cottages on a lot.
And I have an item that's going to be heard by the Land Use Policy Committee to look at a local density bonus so that we could make it easier to create some of these larger condo projects in the downtown or in other public transit corridors for this very reason.
And the reason why I think it's so important is because Berkeley, the Thousand Oaks neighborhood, it's the oldest neighborhood in the Bay Area.
And so we have a very aging population.
And you think of the Thousand Oaks neighborhood, parts of that neighborhood are not necessarily walkable to grocery stores.
So I think this is really important to be able to provide this opportunity for people.
It doesn't make sense for everybody.
It does make sense for some people, and some people are really telling us that they want these opportunities to downsize and stay in the community that they know and love.
And so I just wanted to make that point and thank all my colleagues, thank the staff, and thank the public commenters for all of your comments.
Thank you, Council, for your comments.
I do just want to add that I know some folks are saying that they feel like this process can be confusing and they feel like the information is difficult to get and to understand.
And so I just want to say that we are working to continuously make these processes more transparent and clearer.
And I really want to thank staff because I know you also answer a lot of questions for folks in the community, but also from Council members.
And thank you for the presentation as well.
I didn't get to say that earlier.
Okay.
So is there a motion? I move approval of the staff recommendation.
Second.
Claire, can you please take the roll? Okay.
To deny the appeal and affirm the Zoning Adjustments Board decision on use permit ZP2024-0066, Council Member Kastorwani? Yes.
Taplin? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Trigub? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? Yes.
Lunapara? Yes.
Humbert? Aye.
Okay.
Motion carries.
Thank you.
Thank you, everyone.
Okay.
We are now moving on to public comment for items not listed on the agenda.
Is there anyone online? Yes.
There's two hands raised for non-agenda public comments.
Okay.
First is Tony.
Yes.
I'd like to talk about the upgrade that's recommended, that's being suggested for the carters.
And I tend to agree that if..
Sorry, Tony.
Give me one second.
Could you pause? Okay.
I'm going to pause so that we can hear from the public commenters.
Thank you.
Sorry, Tony.
Go ahead.
I just want to say that it seems ridiculous to up-zone more, because if we can get seven or eight stories with the current corridor zoning, including San Pablo Avenue, why would we risk not getting the affordable housing units that we get with the density bonus? If we can't get seven or eight stories, we're not going to get affordable housing under the density bonus.
And so it seems counterintuitive and counterproductive to up-zone when we're already getting benefits.
Thank you, Tony.
Okay.
And last public commenter is Ede.
Go ahead.
Hi.
You know, when you walk or drive through Berkeley, it looks like really pretty much a boxed town.
It wasn't like that.
Beautiful town.
It was in the 60s, 70s, and even the 80s.
This high rises, they all make the city very ugly.
And the more built, the more rent increases.
A one-bedroom now goes in Berkeley for over $2,000.
That is disgusting.
The fact is the mega landfords, one of which David Ruig, there was a bicycle shop owner, a small tiny bicycle shop when I had my big business.
They have controlled the new Berkeley, the Berkeley Hall, Mayor Aragon, and many others.
It is wrong.
It is wrong.
These big rise boxes are very big risk and big risk of quakes, which are coming.
Also doesn't help anybody.
We need to go forward.
I wish everybody well.
Again, my phone number is my company phone number.
848-5000.
52 years old phone number.
I wish everybody well, but it's.
There was just one more speaker.
Cheryl Davila, former council member.
Is this a public comment after the meeting? I can't hear you.
Yes, it is.
Okay.
Can you start my clock over please? Yeah, so.
It's interesting that, you know, the people.
Are against something or for something and you'd never vote the way that the people.
Both to me, that sounds like.
Collusion possibly corruption.
Possibly a monetary gain of some sort.
In order to get these developers to achieve the goals that they want to achieve and not listen to the people.
And the fact that you still don't care about Palestine, Palestinians.
People dying every day, still being martyred.
There was no ceasefire.
So free Palestine.
Thank you.
And, you know, how are you preparing for.
Thank you.
1 more.
This is the last.
The last speaker after the note hand went down.
Okay, that's it.
Thank you all for your public comment on non agenda items.
I will now entertain a motion to adjourn to adjourn.
2nd, can you take the role please? Wait.
Council member.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Hi.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you everyone.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Berkeley Community Media.
Recording stopped.