Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2026-02-26 21:31:30 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_e3753c53-398b-41b7-a2d4-0b7adde3b3b2.ogg

Segment 1

Hello.
Oh, there it goes.
It's working now.
Very good.
All right.
Hi, everyone.
Good evening.
I'm calling to order the Berkeley City Council meeting.
Today is Tuesday, February 24th, 2026, and it is 6 o 3 p.m.
Clerk, can you please take the roll? Okay, Councilmember Kesarwani is absent.
Taplin? Present.
Bartlett? Here.
Tregub? Present.
O'Keefe? Here.
Blackabee? Here.
Lunaparra? Here.
Humbert? Present.
And Mayor Ishii? Here.
Okay, quorum is present.
Very good.
Thank you very much.
So on our ceremonial calendar, we have a number of different things.
The first being that today, well, February 2026, is Heart Month.
So the American Heart Association made a request, and I believe Mary might be here.
Mary Gersten? Ah, come on up.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Maya misread it.
Come on up.
Welcome.
Commemorating American Heart Month 2026, whereas cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death worldwide, with 350,000 cardiac arrests occurring yearly outside of hospitals in the United States, resulting in approximately 10 percent of people surviving, and whereas often the first people to witness out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are family members making this the first and most crucial link for survival, and whereas immediate cardiopulmonary resuscitation can double or even triple a person's chance of survival, yet only about 41 percent of people who experience cardiac arrest receive immediate CPR from someone nearby, and fewer than 12 percent receive aid from an automated external defibrillator, AED, before advanced help arrives, and whereas for adults and teens, hands-only CPR, calling 9-1-1, and pushing hard and fast in the center of the chest can double or triple the chance of survival, while infants and children require CPR with rescue breaths to restore oxygen and circulation, and whereas studies show that women are less likely to receive CPR than men due to miseducation and lack of awareness, resulting in the American Heart Association, oh, the American Heart Association has set a bold goal to double survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests by 2030 through its National Nation of Lifesavers initiative, and now therefore be it resolved that I, Adina Ishii, Mayor of the City of Berkeley, do hereby declare February 2026 to be American Heart Month.
Would you like to say a few words? All right, thank you.
So, hi, my name is Maya Gertzen, and I'm a Senior Development Director with the American Heart Association.
Thank you so much for recognizing February as American Heart Month this year, and for supporting our mission of saving lives from heart disease and stroke.
This year, we're once again focused on building a nation of lifesavers and spreading the powerful message that you are the first responder until help arrives, so that all of us can be prepared to react to a cardiac emergency by calling 911 and knowing how to perform CPR.
As the Mayor mentioned, over 350,000 people experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest every year in this country, and 90% of those are fatal, so we have a bold goal to double cardiac arrest survival by the year 2030.
So, as a Berkeley resident, as a parent of two BUSD students, and a member of the Heart Association's Bay Area team, I urge the people of Berkeley to learn CPR.
I learned, and so can you.
We've also been proud to work in coalition with community partners to support the passage of Measure Z last November to extend the City of Berkeley's sugary drink tax, and we look forward to continuing to reinforce the City's public health efforts.
The American Heart Association gratefully accepts this proclamation and Berkeley's continued support of its work.
Thank you.
Thank you.
As a former soda tax commissioner, I appreciate your help on that, and I'm also someone who learned adult, child, and infant CPR, so very important tools that we should all have.
Who knows, we may need it someday.
All right, next, there is a proclamation and adjournment in memory that was requested by Councilmember Bartlett's office, and so I will pass it over to him so he can read the proclamation.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I see Janna's family's here.
Mary, how are you? Good to see you.
Janna was a dear friend of mine, and my neighbor, and my constant co-creator, if you will, like she was many people in our in our team together these last nine years, and I'm really sad to see her go, and she's in my prayers, and so are you.
We talked the last time, right, again, and I miss her a lot.
I'm gonna read this for you, for the community, and Janna's name, and it's not in here, but let's just say for the record, Janna was Italian nobility.
She was a duchess or a countess? Which one is it? She was a countess, and the title was in her, we have different fathers, and her, I'm potato fam and Irish, I used to tease her, and her family title was granted in the 1100s, so it's a very old Italian home family.
Wow, amazing.
Only the life and legacy of Janna Renuzzi.
Born, whereas, born October 30th, 1950 in Los Angeles, California, Janna led a life defined by creativity, cultural exchange, public service, and deep community engagement, and whereas she received her early education from Our Lady of Good Counsel Catholic Church and School, spent her formative years on her family's ranch in Montana, earned a degree in Italian literature from University of Montana, then studying abroad in Taiwan, she taught English and completed Montessori training, which she was on my daughter, by the way, in Italy under Maria Montessori's final student, as Maria Montessori's final student, and whereas she made Berkeley her home by cultivating a life rooted in creativity, travel, and entrepreneurship, although a transformative jewelry business that connected artisans from China, Guatemala, Cuba, Algeria, Italy, and beyond to Berkeley, and whereas Janna became a vital steward of Berkeley's cultural life with her work on Telegraph Avenue and the Telegraph Area Business Association, notably serving as a promoter and manager of the Berkeley World Music Festival, and whereas committed to Berkeley's civic engagement by serving the board of LeConte Homeward Association and LeConte Neighborhood Association as president for many years, which we know, and the Parks, Rec, and Waterfront Commissions, and whereas Janna passed away on January 3rd, 2026, leaving behind a legacy of joy, creativity, service, and global connection, and a survivor, her sister Mary Cunningham, extended family in Bologna, Italy, and her many friends across the world.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Mayor of the City of Berkeley honors and celebrates the life and legacy of Janna Renuzzi, expresses deep gratitude for extraordinary contributions to the cultural, artistic, and civic life of our community, and extends heartfelt condolences to her family, friends, and all those whose lives she enriched.
That Janna Renuzzi's life remind us of the power of creativity, cultural exchange, and joyful service in building a vibrant and compassionate community.
You're here.
She loved Berkeley and the opportunities it provided, and long-term resident, and on her behalf, I thank you all.
Okay, thank you all very much.
I appreciate you all being here and listening, especially these stories about people's lives.
I think it's, it's really important to know who's in our community, and these people, you know, who impact us every day.
Councilmember Trago has also asked that we take a moment of silence tonight to mark the lives lost in the four years since Ukraine was invaded.
Today is the anniversary of the war in Ukraine, and so, if we can also just take a moment of silence as well.
Thank you all.
That concludes our ceremonial matters for this evening.
I will see if the City Manager has any comments.
No comments, Madam Mayor.
Thank you, and I will now see if our City Auditor has any comments this evening.
Okay, good evening, Mayor and Council.
I just want to wish everyone a happy Lunar New Year, and tonight, we are going to be celebrating I just want to wish everyone a happy Lunar New Year, and tonight, I wanted to just give a brief update on item 24, the restaurant inspections audit follow-up.
Of our eight recommendations, two are now fully implemented, so thank you so much for that work.
This includes our recommendation for the Division to create a plan to ensure timely response to complaints involving alleged foodborne illness.
The Division has strengthened its policy for addressing these complaints by clarifying the turnaround time and staff responsibilities to ensure complaints are received and prioritized within one business day.
Four recommendations are now partly implemented, and one highlight is that the Division is now using program-specific codes to track revenues and expenditures related to food facility inspections.
During our audit, we found that that information was not able to be tracked because of the way that the system was designed, so our team will reassess the recommendation once that report is available in 2026, later in 2026.
Another highlight is that in response to our recommendation about updating the restaurant inspections data, the Division has strengthened its requirements for data management and monitoring, and the Division estimates their new database will be live in June 2026, so I'm really looking forward to that.
In our next follow-up, we will check whether they can produce an accurate list of facilities that is prioritized by the last inspection date, and the Division has also taken steps in response to developing a plan to start window placards.
According to the Division, the recent fee study helps to clarify the resources needed for this placarding program, so I'm really excited that we can start looking at one day having placards in Berkeley, and the training has been completed, so they can help support the design of an evidence-based placarding program, but that will need additional time and effort in ensuring that the program is the best fit for Berkeley.
And finally, the Division has not yet uploaded the inspections data online after it was taken down.
The Division updated its webpage to include instructions for requesting individual inspection reports from the Environmental Health Division, and they are estimating that the data will be back online in summer of 2026, so I just want to thank the Environmental Health Division for this update, and thank you very much, and I believe there's another one of my reports that will hopefully get moved to action so we can discuss performance measures.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
We will now take public comment on non-agenda matters.
Five cards, the card, and you can come up speak in any order.
You'll have one minute per person.
Margot Murtaugh, Stephen Alpert, James Arnold, Celeste Marks, Rhonda Gruszka.
What's your name? So, okay.
Other folks, if you heard your name called, you can stand up.
Good evening.
I'm Dr.
Stephen Alpert.
Last night, the Council voted to deny an appeal to local building trades to reject a proposal for a 20-story project at 2425 Durant.
The basis for that appeal was that developer Mark Rhodes and Laconia Development asserted that concessions and state-density bonus law permit them to buy Berkeley's hard hat ordinance.
That measure, passed in May of 2023, requires developers of large projects to provide health insurance, apprenticeship training, and fair prevailing rate pay to construction workers.
Lawyers for the Trade Council argued that allowing developers to bypass local standards was a misuse of density bonus law, and that no other developer statewide has previously used the vague concessions and density bonus law to negate local building standards and pay less to construction workers.
Council members all proudly proclaimed that you are pro-housing, but by your actions yesterday, instead you clearly demonstrated you are pro-development.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Rhonda Gruszka.
I'm here to serve Council Member Blackaby with an intent to recall notice.
I'm sorry, but public comment isn't supposed to be used to address a specific Council Member.
It's meant to be used to address the Council at large.
So if you have a comment.
I'll let you all know that I'm here to serve a recall, intent to recall.
I have a copy for the City Clerk.
I have a copy for the Council Member.
Today is the 24th of February.
My manner of service is in person.
I have my name.
I have my address, my zip code, the state, and the time and date of submission.
Let's look at the clock here.
It looks like it's about, what would everyone say, 622? So anyway, just trying to dot all the i's, cross all the t's, because I have been here before, and just making sure I'm following proper protocol.
So that's why I'm here, and that's why I'm speaking tonight, to make sure there's no confusion about why I'm here.
So thank you very much.
Okay, thank you.
Did you, did you get that, Rose? I just wanted to make sure you could hear.
Someone was ceding their time.
Sorry, it can be hard to hear from this far away, so go ahead.
Hello, my name is Lilla Zerpley.
I'm a student at UC Berkeley, as well as a resident of Southside Berkeley, living at the intersection of Durbey and Warring, also known as Zachary's Corner, named after the young boy who sadly died walking across the intersection in 2009, 17 years ago.
Since 2011, there have been 11 reported accidents involving that intersection, including pedestrians being hit by a car, one of which was in 2024.
It was an 84-year-old man hit by an AC transit bus.
On Tuesday, February 10th, I was hit by a car walking in the crosswalk across that very same intersection, hit at an intersection that is known to the city of Berkeley as High Injury, yet there's been nothing done to fix it.
I'm sorry.
I understand that there have been some plans to change that intersection.
That would be done at the end of 2027, making it 18 years since Zachary was hit.
I'm going to continue if that's okay.
Is there someone who, someone is ceding you some time.
Go ahead.
Okay, thank you.
Giving a full other year of opportunity for a person to be hit, when we fully know that at this point, it is not an if, but a when.
And when that occurs, it will fall in the city's hands, and it will be the city's fault.
Because by now, it is very clear that none of these accidents should have happened.
If the city had put in even a blinking pedestrian light in the meantime, and at the very least repainted the crosswalk that has now been faded for many years, then accidents, including mine, could have been prevented.
I am lucky, and I understand that.
I'm lucky to be up here angry, angry that I have immense back pain, and multiple x-rays and MRI showed that I have spinal and vertebrae damage that I will have to deal with and pay for.
I know that I'm lucky to be alive, but being alive should not be the bare minimum expectation when crossing the street in your own neighborhood.
I'm angry that the city that I love allowed an accident that should not have happened.
I'm not asking you, I'm telling you, there needs to be an immediate change.
Whether that be a pedestrian blinking light, or something more, but it needs to be done now, and not in a year.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm so sorry that happened to you, and I really appreciate you being here and sharing that with us today.
James Arnold is the, okay.
I've been here once before about animal rights and cow killing, and I'm telling y'all, you open up another campus burger on Hay Street, and you can go to my website, animalrights74.wordpress.com, and you can learn about why you're not supposed to do that, and you've got a city of Berkeley, and you've got a damn government, and you should say, we don't want no more animal killers, we've got enough animal killers in the city of Berkeley, and you open a new restaurant in Berkeley, you open a vegetarian hamburger spot, veggie burger spot, and you get with it, because people can't change their diets on their own.
They need scientists to change what's in their food, before they get sick, changing their diets on their own, they listen to a chat, GPT, tell them how to change their diet, and they get iron deficiency, they go blind, or they get other health problems, and I'm telling y'all, the government's supposed to step up, and regulate the animal killing out of existence, and replace it with ethical food.
Thank you.
There's one online commenter, that's a phone number ending in 211.
Hi, good evening, so our company manager handed you some paper today, please read it all.
A bit of update, well obviously, Diane Early wanted the place rented by black tenants only, African American tenants only, which is what happened, with the help of a councilman, that's shameful, that's shameful.
I went to Florida State University during the horrible time when black people treated like no words, so at the same time, we are hiring a new attorney, and we're raising our claim against the city for 1 million point 2 to 5 million dollars.
This does not belong to this city, city of Berkeley, state of freedom.
I was there in 1970s, 1960s and 70s, during the free speech movement.
Shame on you, councilman, that ignored us.
Shame on the mayor, who had this, she went against his wish and demand, he also went against her boss, Liam Garland, he was a very good man, Liam Garland was a very good man.
Next, well there's another one, Maria Sol.
Yes, thank you very much, and I think we need a moment of silence to just breathe.
It's all that we're trying to do, given the disparity and complexity and diversity of this beautiful community, but I'm wanting to address housing, because while we heard last week of the 19th, really indicate to me the affordability of money for a blanket, I'm really most concerned about the people that I was with today, that are already in buildings that are being neglected by management companies, like the Howard Mabel, Alcatraz, and Sacramento, their elevators have been down for a month, the people in wheelchairs are trapped, and they can't get out, so let's take care of what we've got.
Thanks, Maria.
All right, thank you.
That was just seven speakers, we do have a couple more cards in here.
We have, and this is only for people who haven't spoken already, Lola Zirpoli.
She spoke.
She's just, okay, Richard Woods, so okay, well, all right, but that that concludes non-agenda public comments.
Thank you.
Okay, we will move on now to our consent calendar, so at this time, if there are any council members who have comments on consent, can you please press your button? Thank you, Vice Mayor Lunapara.
Thank you.
On item 19, resolution urging Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to enact an eviction moratorium to prevent displacement during the ongoing ICBP terror campaign, I want to thank my co-sponsors, Council Member Bartlett, Trigub, and Blackbee for their support, and Rent Board Chair Solly Alpert for his partnership in drafting the initial item that we passed at the 4x4 committee.
We introduced this item at the urging of members of the Minneapolis and Saint Paul City Councils, which both unanimously passed their own resolutions in January.
Essentially, eviction moratoriums in the state of Minnesota operate differently than in California, where the state has to authorize an eviction moratorium for it to be put in place.
I would also like to give $200 to items 16 and 17, respectively.
Thank you to those authors, and I also want to mark that February 19th is the day of remembrance of the internment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans under Executive Order 9066, signed by President Roosevelt in 1942, and it's important to take a moment to honor those who were stripped of their rights at this time.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Appreciate you bringing in the ancestors.
Can we move on to Council Member Blackbee, please? Thanks, Madam Mayor.
As the auditor mentioned, I'd ask colleagues if we could move item 25, which was the information report on performance metrics, and move that as the first item on the action calendar.
So if I had support from a couple colleagues to do that, I'd appreciate that.
I will.
I support.
I think that's three total, but so we're good.
Thank you.
I look forward to talking about that in a moment.
I'd like to add $250 from our office account to the Waterside Workshops Community Spring Flinging in item 16.
Thank you for bringing that forward to Mary Shee and Council Member Taplin.
And then on item 17, similarly $250 for the Burke Unified School District Historical Study, thanks to Council Member Bartlett bringing that forward.
And then brief comment on information items 22 and 23, which was the investment returns on the city portfolio from Q4 and Q1.
Just note, and we've been having some discussions in the Budget Committee and in other places about, you know, ways to identify additional revenue.
At the same time, we're heading into this sort of major budget crunch and had some conversations with finance staff.
I'll note that the reports mentioned that our returns about 117 basis points in the recent quarter, 127 basis points in the Q4 quarter below the state benchmark, partially based on the duration of what we hold in the portfolio, but also I think some policies that we've set as a council in past years that also constrain what the finance team can do.
And so I look forward to looking at that and as a potential source of additional revenue, if we can, again, sort of give the finance team more tools to invest our portfolio carefully, but also in a way that's going to generate a larger return over time.
So I think that's going to be an important thing that we look at in the Budget Committee and in other places as we go forward.
And that's my comments.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Council Member.
Moving on to Council Member Taplin.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Good evening, everyone.
On item 17, I would like to be reported as relinquishing $500, and I request to be added as a co-sponsor if Council Member is amenable.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Moving on to Council Member Tracob.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
On item 16, I wish to relinquish $250 from my G13 account for Waterside Workshops, Communities, Spring Fling, and thank the Mayor for bringing forward this item.
On item 17, I wish to again relinquish $250 from my G13 account to support the BUSD Historical Study and would be honored to be added in as a co-sponsor with the permission of the author and my gratitude for this item.
On item 18, I would like to thank the Land Use, Housing, and Economic Development Committee, the 4x4 Committee, and my co-sponsors, Council Member Bartlett and Council Member Taplin, for this referral, which would remove an on-site manager exemption loophole for certain multifamily properties that are adjacent to each other and or share the same common area, which has been an issue in some properties, not just around habitability and level of services provided to the tenants, but also has at times become led to trash being pulled outside without any collection because there's no on-site manager, which has become an eyesore at best and sometimes has led to code enforcement in actions in such properties.
On item 19, I would like to thank Vice Mayor Lunaparra for this resolution and it was an honor to be a co-sponsor to this item and those are my comments.
Thanks so much.
Thank you, Council Member.
Moving on to Council Member Bartlett.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I'd like to contribute $250 to item 16, the Waterside Workshops.
Spring Fling.
Thank you for bringing that up, Madam Mayor and Council Member Taplin.
It's a lot of fun and then I'd like to obviously thank the Vice Mayor for your item around the eviction moratorium request in Minnesota.
I think evictions are bad everywhere all the time, but it's one good chance to put it out there in the ether and I'd like to thank everyone for item 17.
This is the BUSD effort to achieve a reparation sort of framework and so this resolution comes to us because people are asking for support to help the college kids do the research on it on history part, so happy to help and it's close to home because I got to tell you with great tragedy that I must tell you that we did fail in delivering reparations that this office authored and this council passed a couple of years ago.
It is not happening and where I'm unable to deliver that, at least I can support our neighbors in the BUSD in making it happen.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Council Member.
Council Member O'Keefe.
Oh, I'd like to be recorded as donating $250 to item 16 and also to item 17.
Thank you very much.
Council Member.
Oh, okay.
Sorry, the parliamentarian is glitching.
I'm going to go with Council Member Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I'd like to donate $250 on item 16 to the wonderful Waterside Workshops for their community spring fling.
They do such good work.
Thank you to the Mayor and Council Member Taplin for bringing this one.
On 17, $250 also from our.

Segment 2

Office Budget to Supporting the Research for the Historical Study.
I think that's very important.
And then number 19, thank you Vice Mayor Lunaparra for authoring this and to all the co-sponsors.
I think it's critically important to provide some relief to tenants in Minneapolis in the wake of the terror campaign.
So thank you so much.
Thank you.
Speaking of, going back to Vice Mayor Lunaparra.
Thank you.
I actually, I wanted to change my discretionary fund donation to item 17 to $500.
Please.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you all so much.
I have a few comments as well.
I really want to express my appreciation to city staff for working in partnership with the Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAG, and the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, SFEP, in partnership with the cities of Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, and Oakland to secure $2,240,000 of which $223,000 will be for Berkeley over two and a half years for the East Bay Crescent Subregional Vulnerability Assessment and Shoreline Adaptation Planning Project.
Adaptation to sea level rise is a challenge and we must face across, that we must face across all of our jurisdictions.
So always like to highlight when staff bring in more funding into our city.
And of course I want to thank the Waterside Workshop and for all the work that they do to support our community and thank you to all the council members who contributed to item 16, their spring fling, and of course to Council Member Taplin who brought this item with me and also it's of course in his district.
Thank you to Council Member Bartlett for allowing me also to be on item number 17 which is the BUSD historical study and my office is relinquishing $250 to this study and this is particularly important since I was on the BUSD reparations task force and was involved in the community group that from 2020 to the time where we actually got the task force advocated for that task force to exist and one of the parts of the report the request that came out of it was this historical study.
So it's very exciting to see that the district is moving forward on this and that we're able to contribute to that effort.
Lastly I want to express appreciation for the Safe Streets Oversight Committee and the Department of Public Works for all the work they've been doing to ensure the voter approved Measure FF tax dollars are being utilized effectively and efficiently.
This accountability is baked into the tax measure and I look forward to seeing future presentations and execution of the project of projects under Measure FF.
We really think it's important to bring it back to folks and make sure they know that we're using this money wisely so thank you all very much and I will now open us up for public comment if there's any public comments on consent calendar information items only.
Carol come on up.
So because I heard the budget referenced I am wondering how AB 339 is going to impact our budget.
I mean this is clearly between staff and council council and the unions but given that this is relates to our contractors whether they're new contractors or contractors that are have up for renewal of contracts it seems as if it might be wise to involve commissions to the extent that that's feasible with some advisory input in terms of the contractors that we've been working with.
Thank you.
Thanks Carol.
Hi Rebecca Grove Director of Waterside Workshops just here to say thank you all for supporting our spring fling.
We are launching our street level cycling club so if you want to join a cycling club they'll be taking off at 8 a.m.
and then our cookout starts at noon and the mayor's going to speak.
We're doing tsunami preparedness and awareness as well collaborated with that off of the emergency preparedness office so thanks again.
It's great thank you thank you so much.
Anyone online for public comment for consent consent calendar information items only? Okay there's one raised hand for public comments on zoom it's a phone number ending in 000.
Hi good evening now let's talk about the situation you know the city should be offered for immigrants.
Immigrants made this country while 1.3 million Americans died from COVID because Trump first administration he denied it they called it China hoax they called it all kind of stupid thing.
Immigrants built this country the man who brought us the vaccine one is Greek American maternal one is Lebanese American.
Is this something on consent calendar or information items? Yes consent consent item 19 Sanction City Sanction City so we need right now we have a monastery in the White House as I said before now you're going after immigrants is going after everybody me you and everybody it is a totally disgusting situation.
Have a good night.
Thank you anyone else online? No that's it.
Okay very good is there a motion to approve the consent calendar? So moved.
Second.
Is there any opposition to approving the consent calendar? All right I'll have us all marked as ayes and the consent calendar has been approved.
Thank you all very much.
All right moving on to our action calendar so we have moved an item from the excuse me from the information items onto the action calendar.
So I will ask our auditor I know you're getting set up right now but if you can also present whenever you're ready.
All right good evening and thank you for having me here today.
On February 5th my office released a special report titled a guide to measuring performance in the city of Berkeley.
I will provide an overview of that report including the report purpose research process and opportunities for management consideration on Berkeley's performance measures from the report.
So our purpose we developed this report in response to a request from council member Blockaby asking our office to conduct benchmarking and best practice research on outcome-based budget metrics.
This was following a related item he authored requesting the city manager to develop 10 to 20 measurable goals and metrics that reflect key priorities in the city.
Our purpose was to provide a framework for developing quality performance measures in Berkeley.
What is a performance measure? Those of you who are not in the world that I you know in on this on this information the a performance measure is really just a qualitative or quantitative assessment of an agency's work.
In other words performance measures can tell you how much or how well a program or service is doing.
This can help prioritize the limited resources on specific goals during a budget deficit period.
The report also summarizes best practice research and information from other cities.
It also provides opportunities for management consideration and regarding performance measurement in Berkeley.
The report provides a framework for developing these measures.
What does this mean? Well this starts with identifying the people served by a department or program as well as that population's needs.
Understanding who the primary audience is helps to clarify what success should look like.
Departments should then identify desired outcomes based on those needs and determine how to measure those outcomes.
One question to ask during this process is how will people know whether something is successful? Further steps include developing a data collection process for outcomes, establishing baselines and targets, as well as a reporting method.
This process should result in clear measurable outcomes representing the issues that matter most to the Berkeley community.
A comprehensive process to develop quality measures can take some time.
I want to make sure to acknowledge that and may require additional resources.
However, identifying one or two measures in each department that addresses the most important priorities and impacts could be a great starting point to this work.
For more information on how to implement this framework you can take a look at our report on our website.
The report also provides an overview of performance measurement in Berkeley.
The city first reported on performance measures in fiscal year 2022 budget book and continue to report measures in two following budgets.
The budget book is the most centralized location to access performance measurement data currently in Berkeley.
We selected three city departments to highlight given the limited amount of time we just looked at three city or three departments.
IT, parks, rec and waterfront and police.
The report includes tables showing their performance reporting from the past three budgets.
We also interviewed leadership from these departments to understand their process for measuring performance.
Our analysis includes a review of other cities as well where we identified common themes and how other cities measure and report performance.
There's some common performance measures reported in other cities.
For example, one common measure in other IT departments is the number or percent of service requests completed in a given time frame.
Other parks departments often measure the customer satisfaction rating for parks or recreation programming.
A common measure in other police departments is the average response times for emergency services.
Berkeley police report average 911 call response times in their annual report though this is not included in the budget book.
So we're seeing things in other places but having it in a centralized place could be helpful.
We provide other examples of common measures in our report.
We also found common themes and how other cities report their data.
For example, some most cities use standardized reporting periods and report performance at least annually.
Most cities also include this data from previous years in their budget books.
Some benchmark cities also follow an innovative process known as outcome based budgeting which means they make budget decisions and allocate resources based on key goals or outcomes.
Lastly, we identified opportunities for management consideration based on best practices and insights from comparable cities.
First, management could consider organizing and streamlining performance measure reporting efforts.
Maintaining the same measures over time and using standard reporting periods could support comparability across years.
Additionally, the city could revisit the strategic plan goals and alignment of these performance measures.
Finally, management could explore outcome-based budgeting.
While this process typically requires additional resources, departments could implement outcome-based budgeting on a smaller scale.
For example, departments could develop more outcome-oriented measures and relate those measures to their overall goals and they could also assess how much of their budget is allocated towards achieving those goals.
Over time, this work can strengthen the connection between resources, activities, and results.
We'd like to thank the department staff and leadership in IT, police, and parks, rec, and waterfront for their assistance in this report.
Thank you to Council Member Brockaby for this request and to my team, Kendall Coochley and Erin Mullen and we're happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Thanks so much for your presentation.
I'm glad you're able to give a more in-depth look into your audit.
I know that we have some questions so I'll go to Council Member Brockaby.
Thanks Madam Mayor and thanks to the auditor and your team for doing this really important work in such a short time frame.
I know it's not a full audit, it was just some guideposts for us to follow so I appreciate your partnership and support.
In December, as the auditor mentioned, our office authored an item called Setting Measurable Goals and Metrics for Key City Priorities, emphasizing the importance of creating performance measures that reflect what matters most to our residents and clearly demonstrate both the impact of city government and overall quality life in our community.
We've started the process of moving through the committee process.
I appreciate the feedback by the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity, and Community Committee.
We'll be bringing the item back in the coming weeks to the Council so you'll see it, but we've got some good feedback from that process as well.
The research in this report from the auditor, Benchmarking Our Practices Against Peer Cities, outlining best practices and performance measurement overall and offering forward-looking recommendations provides a strong foundation for this work.
It's going to be an invaluable resource for staff as we move forward toward a more data-driven, transparent, and outcomes-focused budgeting process.
I also want to thank the City Manager and his team.
We've already had a wide range of conversations on this topic and as we're moving into the budget period, I know that a lot of this work is already beginning and so I just want to appreciate what the City Manager is doing and his willingness to embark with us on this journey.
A couple questions for the auditor.
You mentioned it before, I mean, this could be a very broad project.
I don't think any of us wants this to be a boil the ocean kind of project.
We really, especially in the short term, want to get to something that's usable quickly and you kind of mentioned that as you looked at each of the departments, there's, you know, a given department may have a lot of different performance metrics that they're looking at, but the idea here at some point is to bubble up a few things from each department to become something that the city can look at.
I just wanted you to maybe kind of comment on that.
Is that the right way maybe to be thinking about this? Because again, I don't think any of us want this to be a two-year exercise.
This is, let's get something that's usable sooner.
Yeah, I think we, you know, I studied performance measurement and metrics back in grad school and I did some of this work when I was in New York City and so to do a really robust effort, it does take more time and more effort and more resources.
My recommendation for the time being is to really look at what's, you know, what's one or two metrics that can really help you not only capture the work you do, but communicate that work to the public.
You know, as I mentioned in the police department, being able to communicate what those 911 response times are and that was something that we actually looked at in a previous audit on response times and through that we're able to communicate when we were not hitting the targets and that also can sometimes jeopardize additional funding.
So I think honing in on one or two metrics in each department.
Of course, some departments are much bigger, so they're going to need more metrics to really tell their story and be able to share what they do, but I think at the very, at the start, really honing in on one or two can be really helpful.
Any thought, like there may also be things that we value as a community that may not be directly tied to a department specifically.
It may just be that we want to, well this one may not be a good example, but we want to build more units of affordable housing.
We may not have the direct ability to do that.
We can set the circumstances and the process in place to move it, but at some point market forces and other things.
Is there also some value in having a few of those other things or was your recommendation sort of sticking towards something that's more directly tied to department output? I think it really depends on what is the value for this community and sometimes, as you know, a metric is not directly tied to just one department or not specifically within one department's control and sometimes there are external forces that are not within the control as well.
So, I think it's a really a matter of deciding what is of most importance and being able to track that.
If the metric is not something that is going to be, you know, that government is not able to actually address, then it's probably a nice to have, but not something that will, you know, be meaningful.
Ultimately, this is about designing meaningful metrics so that you can really show what and being able to tease out what is within a department's control and what isn't.
You know, that's a whole other exercise too.
So, again, a lot of this will take more effort and more energy, but I'm hopeful that, you know, that conversation is happening going forward.
Great.
You mentioned a few jurisdictions in the report.
I mean, are there any particular jurisdictions that we would hold up and say, wow, we want to be like X? I mean, or do you think it's kind of a mix and different people are doing it well in different ways? I mean, but is there one or two that we should just try and emulate or is this kind of breaking some ground here? Yeah, we didn't look at this in that level of detail.
I mean, Kendall did a lot of really great research throughout this, but I think it really depends on what specific metric you're looking at.
You know, I think in different jurisdictions will also report out on their metrics differently.
I think Oakland has a data dashboard, but, you know, is that right? They have a data dashboard.
Pasadena.
Oh, Pasadena, I'm sorry, has the data dashboard.
I think Oakland has their budget in a dashboard so that you can look at it that way.
So there are other jurisdictions that report it out in different ways, but I think one of the things that I think we can really add value to is just capturing the same metrics over time so then you can see the trend line and you can see, oh, how has something changed? When you add a new metric, but then you don't include the data from the previous metric, then you can't really see what the differences are in the trends.
So, yeah, I think if we had more time, we would get you a lot more information.
Yeah, going back to the earlier conversation we had about with on the health report, I mean, what I love about this is we're looking, we're looking, we're trying to go and trace this all the way through the outcomes, like not just what are we doing, but what's actually happening as a result of the work, and that's what I really love about this.
A couple last things just for the city manager.
From the auditor's report, the great thing is already many, if not all, departments are doing some amount of this work, which is fantastic, and so I think the question for the city manager is, you know, is that kind of a good foundation to build upon? It's not necessarily that we're reinventing the wheel, it's just that we're trying to elevate and synthesize.
I mean, is that the right way to think about it? It is, and each of the departments is currently working on delivering up to five outcome measures to me to be able to look at those and kind of, you know, go through them and pick a couple for each department, so that'd be 24.
There's 12 departments that we can report on regularly, and as you're saying, try to connect them up to, okay, here's what we're doing, and here's the result of are people better off as a result of it.
Awesome, okay.
Last thing, and back to the scope and scale question, I know, again, we want to do this right, we want to be transparent, we want to be outcome-oriented, but we also know that we want to, let's start somewhere and not, again, over-think it, and let's kind of put something in place just to get moving.
Any thoughts on sort of the scale scope, you know, question about this? A couple thoughts.
One, we want to be mindful of, in a budget environment where we're reducing revenue, we're reducing and cutting expenses, we have to be thoughtful about how much more work we are giving to staff and, like, what's the trade-off between giving staff assignments to come up with outcome measures as opposed to giving them assignments to actually do the work.
So being thoughtful about that balance is one thing.
Another is, and this is connected to that, but being careful about selecting outcomes that we're not trying to create new data for.
Like, if we're not currently collecting this data, that's probably not a good place for us to start, because that's a longer-term sort of project.
It may be an important thing, and those are things we can surface, but I think we should start with, like, we collect tons of data, and let's focus on within that data what's most important and what can we track over time and report that, again, makes life better for people.
Great, thank you.
Again, I just appreciate the collaboration and the spirit with which I think everyone's moved forward here.
Again, just being transparent, outcome-oriented, accountable, something that, you know, I know we've all heard from constituents, and to the extent that we can sort of demonstrate that and live those values and have a way of communicating, I think is really going to put us in a better position, especially as we're going through tough budget times.
We're going to have to, you know, communicate some of the trade-offs that may be being made when it comes to costs and services.
So thanks, Auditor.
Thanks to the City Manager, and thanks, Mayor, for giving us a little time to talk through this.
Thank you very much.
Council Member Bartlett has some questions as well.
Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Leckie, for calling for this, and thank you, Madam Auditor and team, for delivering a great report.
A question just about the outcomes-based budgeting.
Is that related to the pay for success models, or is it more just a reporting framework? Can you elaborate on that model that you're describing? Yeah, so pay for success, we passed something to this effect a while ago.
It's related to sort of you, the contractor wins if they succeed in our goal, right? So it's like impact bonds.
And there are similar languages, there's similar language around outcomes-based models.
I'm just curious if that's related in your research at all.
Yeah, I'll have to do a little more research on this other model that you're describing, but the outcome-based modeling is really aimed at, you know, there are a variety of different types of measures that you can look at, and you can look at outputs, for example, but that it may not necessarily be the same as outcome-based.
And so one of the, you know, when I studied this, and did some of this work previously, looking at it from an outcome-based perspective is obviously much better, because you're really looking at what is the ultimate outcome that you're trying to achieve? What is the goal, and what are you trying to achieve? And outputs can sometimes get you to a portion there, it can give you a piece of data, but it may not necessarily get you to the actual outcome you're trying to achieve.
So it sounds like this model might be related in some way, and I'm happy to discuss more at a future meeting.
Thank you.
Council Member Trakop.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Appreciate you and Council Member Blockoby's efforts in moving this up for, so we can discuss it, and thank you so much, Madam Auditor, for this report.
Several of my questions did also get asked by Council Member Blockoby, so I'm not going to ask them.
Just very broad strokes, I appreciate the reports honing in on the three recommendations, particularly I appreciate the focus on performance-based budgeting.
This is something that I used to do in my first career, and I found it to be very beneficial.
And one thing that I remember that was kind of ingrained in that is looking at the critical view, what are these cross-cutting metrics that are objective and really help us see the trend lines, but are so high level that they provide meaningful data while not distracting us from having a lot of noise in the data or a lot of different other metrics.
So I just had two questions.
So I just talked about these roll-ups.
I was wondering, Madam Auditor, if you have any recommendations for us as the City potentially moves to doing more cross-cutting metrics, looking at these critical view data points.
But there's going to be a gap because this will be a change in methodology, perhaps, or at least a change in presentation of the data.
Are there any best practices you might recommend or that other jurisdictions are using around how do you go back and fill in those gaps when you adjust to a new measurement system? So that's one question.
And the second one is just any best practices around having departments come together on cross-cutting metrics that are meaningful for the City, for the Council, to the City Manager, while also providing meaning to the departments themselves as they have information that rolls up into these cross-cutting metrics.
Yeah, thank you for your questions, Council Member Tragoop.
So on the first point with regards to filling in the gap when you have new data or you, I think what you were asking is perhaps you get new data or a new measure.
You know, that's why it's really important to really think through what are the most important measures and think about how you might be able to make sure that make sure that that measure is consistently tracked across future years.
Obviously, you can't, we can't see the total future, but really thinking through, okay, what programs have been in existence in the past and in the present, and what do we think might be going on in the future, and then tracking that all the way through.
So again, you know, I've talked about this, really doing a robust dive into this area is going to take time and effort and energy.
And so, you know, obviously, and obviously you're going to have situations in which you get new information and new measures, and you just have to adjust for that.
So it's not going to be perfect.
You might get some additional new things that come up, but I think really sitting down, engaging staff, and so that's the part that is going to take more effort.
Who are the folks that are working on the ground in collecting this information or delivering the actual service?.

Segment 3

And so ensuring that you're identifying the right measures is going to take some time and effort.
But, and then your second question about cross-cutting measures, that is something that I think, you know, I'm seeing a lot more engagement on the measures at least, you know, during this budget cycle.
And so I'm really glad to see that there's sharing of information across different departments.
And so I think just learning about what other departments are capturing in terms of their measures, and knowing that some might affect your department and being cognizant of what other departments are capturing is going to be really important.
And then communicating that information so that you're understanding how those measures can cut across from one department to another.
So I think it's just, you know, making sure there's adequate communication and adequate transparency and information.
Thank you very much.
Any other questions from my council colleagues? Is there any public comment on this item? Hi.
Can you hear me? Hi, Mayor and Council.
My name is Steve Cromer.
I appreciate Council Member Blackabay bringing this so we could talk about it.
And I really appreciate the report.
Jenny, it's great to see this.
It's a little bit of deja vu.
I think Brent, I mean, Council Member Burtlett, you're the only person that was on the dais when I stood up here like eight years ago and said, why can't we be radical Berkeley and do radical transparency? And I've always felt bad about that because I thought it was sort of stupid.
But now it's here we are back and it's like, it's great to see that there's this effort to, again, follow up on it.
But I think a lot of citizens like myself feel like we want more information so we can just see what decisions are being made and what's the basis for it.
And communication from you all to staff, it's clear and open.
And then to auditor, to the auditor can come back.
You can all work together.
It's like gears in a system, right? She can help you with all assessing what's the first and earliest measures and you can all help work this all out.
So that's the that's the big picture.
Thanks for that.
We all hear about the structural deficit.
So there's like the oh, no, no, no structural deficit.
Well, the first thing anybody else does with a structural deficit is prioritize.
And I realize, Paul, it's more information they have to collect to help do that prioritization.
But some stuff's probably going to have to, like, get shoved off the thing.
This is going to give you all the tools to support that.
Like, here's a clear way to say how you're going to prioritize.
Further, I was honored to be asked to be one of the people that reviewed your bond issue coming.
Parks Director Scott Paris, and you did a great job, Terry and Mayor Ishii.
And we looked through a bunch of stuff there.
My question was, how are we going to prove any of this is working? How are we going to bake into your bond issue and the money you're going to ask for us from the rate payers? How are we going to know what's working and what's not? We're in this situation because we haven't done that very well in the past.
And everyone recognizes that for 50, 60 years, we haven't done this.
So it's a great time to start.
It's just a start.
A long way to go.
But, yeah, great.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name's Paul Matthew.
And thank you for this opportunity to speak.
I came up here because I want to strongly support the recommendations of this report.
And I want to commend Auditor Wong as well as Council Member Blackbee and the other council members that are supporting this effort.
Again, from my view, performance metrics are not nice to have.
I mean, they're a must have.
They're essential.
It blows my mind that, you know, this is even a discussion point, actually.
We should be having these well-baked already for, what's it, an $800 million budget.
I mean, and I think it's especially essential now for sound decision making with voter concerns about tax increases, where I'm just dreading the new taxes that are coming down the pike here, likely, and the quality versus the quality and cost of public services.
And there's a limit to how much you can just keep asking property owners to keep coughing up more and more and more without services improving.
So I think it's really important for voters as well as for you in terms of decision making and tradeoffs.
Three suggestions as you move forward with this.
A, the metrics should really focus on outcomes and cost efficiency, not just activity.
I noticed, like, in the report, the Parks Department has a metric that is number of community meetings attended.
I mean, fine.
That's good at some level.
But really, the outcome we want is, you know, cleanliness of parks and things like that.
We want really citizen-oriented metrics.
Likewise, number of miles of street paved, dollars per mile of street paved.
How does it compare to Pleasanton, which has very nice roads, I would say.
Not that I want to live in Pleasanton, but, you know, I do.
When I go there and see the roads, it's like, wow, why can't we do that? So that's the first one.
The second one is that benchmark against pure cities.
Just as I said, Pasadena, I've seen their dashboard.
It's pretty neat, actually.
They really have a nice system up there.
And finally, I think this was mentioned by Auditor Wong as well as Council Member Blackaby.
Let's not try and boil the ocean.
Let's start with something small.
Maybe just three departments.
Like, things that matter to citizens are public safety.
Thank you.
So, yeah, let's start with a few.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Is there other public comment on this item here in person or perhaps online? Is there a public comment? Okay, very good.
Well, are there any comments from my council colleagues? Yes, Vice Mayor Lunapara.
Thank you.
I just really want to thank the Auditor and her team for this work.
And I'm excited to continue working on it.
Thank you.
And also Council Member Blackaby for bringing it forward.
Okay.
Any other comments from council colleagues? Okay.
I also want to appreciate your report.
Thank you very much.
And also thank you to our City Manager for working to implement already some of these pieces.
So, thank you.
All right.
We are moving on to, oh, actually, we should move on to the next item.
But I do want us to take, like, a ten-minute stretch break.
So, we will be back in ten minutes with item number 20.
And that will also give them time to set up.
So, thank you.
Hello.
Okay.
We're on.
We're live.
All right, everyone.
Thank you very much for your patience.
We are starting back the Berkeley City Council meeting.
And we're moving on to, excuse me, item number 20, Amendments to Title 21, the Subdivisions Ordinance, and Title 23, Zoning Ordinance, to implement Senate Bill SB684.
I'll pass it over to Jordan Klein.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mayor Ishii, and good evening, Council Members.
I'm Jordan Klein.
I'm Director of Planning and Development.
And I'm joined here at the staff table by Ann Hertz, the Land Use Planning Manager, Justin Horner, Principal Planner, and Branka Tatarevich, Associate Planner with the Policy Team.
Before I turn it over to Branka to present, I want to pull up the slide deck.
I want to call your attention to revised materials that we have submitted and are requesting that you accept for consideration this evening.
Yesterday, we received input from staff at the Rent Stabilization Board who expressed concern about the wording of the definition of protected units.
And so we reviewed their feedback and wanted to incorporate changes that address those concerns.
And so that's the purpose of these revised agenda materials.
We don't believe that it constitutes any substantive policy change, but it does clarify the language.
So we hope that you will take action to accept this material.
Do we need to do that before? Yeah.
If you wouldn't mind doing it now, that'd be great.
Is there a motion to..
So moved.
Second.
Thank you.
Is there any opposition? Okay.
We will review this revised material this evening.
Thank you.
Excuse me.
Mr.
Clerk, does that require..
I think that's required to be a roll call vote.
Two-thirds.
No.
Yes.
All right.
We will take the roll.
Thank you.
Okay.
To accept the revised material, Council Member Kesarwani? Yes.
Kaplan? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Tregub? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? Yes.
Lunapara? Yes.
Okay.
Very good.
Thank you very much.
Now you know we're all awake.
We're all here.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Mayor Ishii and the members of the City Council.
My name is Branka Todaric, and I'm an Associate Planner with the Land Use Planning Division.
Tonight, I'm presenting an ordinance that amends Titles 21 and 23 to implement Senate Bill 684.
The ordinance establishes a ministerial SB 684-compliant pathway for small lot subdivisions and the related housing development, and it also creates a streamlined local parcel map option for lower-density infill projects that don't qualify under SB 684.
The Planning Commission reviewed the SB 684 small lot subdivision item in the summer and fall of the last year.
The Commission first discussed SB 684 in July, and then in October, it recommended adoption of the amendments to Title 21 subdivisions and Title 23 zoning to implement the small lot subdivision processes.
The policy intent beyond SB 684 is to ministerially approve qualifying small lot subdivisions and the related housing development, reduce procedural barriers for ownership-oriented infill on service sites, and retain objective standards and health and safety protections.
In Berkeley, the implementation context is that the City's middle housing zoning updates increased maximum densities in several districts.
SB 684 requires projects to meet 66% of the maximum allowable density, and with those higher maximums, smaller projects are unintentionally disqualified.
The reason to include a local parcel map middle housing infill project path is to provide a streamlined option for smaller infill that still meets minimum density.
Because SB 684 projects include both a subdivision and housing development, the amendments to Titles 21 and 23 are designed to work together.
Title 21 changes cover the subdivision side, procedures, completeness, the eligibility screens, and the subdivision-related development standards.
Title 23 changes cover the zoning side, including zoning district permissions and the objective development standards.
This slide summarizes the new Chapter 2130 small lot subdivisions middle housing infill project in Title 21, which is the main SB 684 implementation section.
The first section sets the SB 684 implementation purpose and establishes the two pathways.
Section 2130.020 definitions then defines a single project type, the middle housing infill project.
This definition is important because it links to the zoning code.
The section also codifies the parent parcel rule, which requires that zoning requirements, including inclusionary standards and other applicable city regulations, be reviewed at the original pre-subdivision parcel level.
The next three sections cover the application requirements and procedures and the subdivision side requirements and standards.
The last two subsections cover the approval and recordation sequencing and expiration enforcement and the standard savings and severability clause.
This slide explains the parent parcel rule.
A parent parcel is a parcel that exists prior to a subdivision creating a middle housing infill project.
In the image, we see two development envelopes on a 5,000 square foot original lot that conform to SB 684 and R2 zoning standards for height and setbacks.
Both envelopes could be permitted as middle housing projects, even without any subdivision of ownership.
In SB 684, the envelope on the left is then subdivided into six condominiums and the envelope on the right is subdivided into four fee simple lots.
But in both cases, the zoning standards are applied at the parent parcel level before the subdivision happens.
This slide summarizes the zoning code changes.
First, the ordinance permits middle housing infill projects where multifamily use is allowed across residential and commercial districts, including the MUR district.
Second, in the general development standards section, the ordinance codifies the parent parcel rule and establishes the objective middle housing infill project zoning standards set.
The parent parcel concept is also defined in Title 21 in Section 2130.020, so the subdivision and zoning codes are aligned.
And finally, Title 23 cross-references the Title 21 middle housing infill project definition to ensure the subdivision and zoning review are consistent.
This slide summarizes the additional Title 21 changes that are primarily about state law compliance with the Subdivision Map Act.
These are mostly cleanup and alignment items, improving code readability, resolving internal conflicts, clarifying approval authority, and streamlining processing for certain Subdivision Map Act exemptions.
Finally, staff recommends that the City Council hold the public hearing and adopt the first reading of the ordinance to implement SB 684 by establishing a ministerial SB 684 compliant path for small lot subdivisions and related housing, and a local parcel map path for projects that do not qualify under SB 684.
That concludes my presentation.
Thank you, and I'm available for questions.
Thank you very much, Branka.
Oh, you got applause.
That's great.
Yes.
So thank you very much for your presentation.
And so I want to ask, of course, we've opened the public hearing, but ask if there are any questions from my council colleagues.
No questions.
Okay, very good.
Is there any public comment? Nope.
Yes, there is.
Go ahead.
I was going to go later, but since no one else went first, then I have to go first.
Okay.
Real quick questions on the staff report, bottom page four and also page five.
There's some adjustment or application of this in very high fire hazard severity zones and high fire hazard severity zones where some of this may or may not apply differently.
Could you just talk a little bit about that just to make sure that's clear? Yes.
So only the projects that are in very high fire severity zone are excluded from SB 684, and that's the provision under the state law.
Okay.
We just and we saw there was some language in government code 66199 that you referenced here where they also said or within a high or very high fire hazard zone, as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry.
So I think our, as our office was looking at this, is it just the very high or is it high and very high where the exemption happens? It is only very high, and we clarified that with Deputy Chief Arnold.
So there are two different state codes and the city of Berkeley, because it has local jurisdiction over creating the maps, only applies one of them.
And in that case, only very high fire severity zone applies.
Okay.
So we got that information.
And that's true whether you apply the government code 66499 standard or the SB 684, because I think both of them refer to high or very high.
So our local path will not be applicable in the hills.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member Casarwani.
Yes.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for the presentation.
I'm really pleased that this is coming back to the council after the referral that I put forward last year.
And I just want to remind folks that this is a companion to the middle housing ordinance that this council unanimously adopted.
So this will give folks an opportunity to own that small cottage that middle housing will now make possible.
So I did just want to clarify, because your example showed for each split lot one unit.
But is it the case that you can have more than one unit on each lot up to the maximum under state law, which is 10 units? Yes.
So you can have 10 dwelling units and 10 ownership units.
So ownership units can be regular parcels.
They're called fee simple parcels or condominiums.
So any combination of the number of units up to 10 and ownership units up to 10 is allowable.
So you can have a parcel map that, let's say, splits the lot into two fee simple lots, but each lot can have two four plexes.
So that would be eight units, but only two ownership units.
Or then those four plexes can be condominiums.
So all of these combinations are allowed as long as the maximum number of units is 10 and the maximum number of ownership units is 10.
So just to clarify, so are you saying one ownership unit per lot or no? So lot is an ownership unit.
Okay.
It can be either a condominium or a fee simple lot.
They are the same under the subdivision effect.
Okay.
Okay.
I think that is all I have.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there any public comment on this item? Oh, you have a question.
Okay.
Sorry.
Sometimes our parliamentarian system isn't working.
Go ahead.
Council Member Trajko.
Parliamentarian wasn't following procedure.
I just wanted to thank you so much for the presentation.
I just wanted to clarify two things.
The local parcel map path, would that be non-ministerial? So that would be like the second option? Yes.
The second option cannot be ministerial because SB 684 is carved out within subdivision map act to actually allow ministerial subdivision.
Other than that, subdivisions are kind of discretionary, sometimes administrative.
So parcel maps are mostly administrative.
So the decision is made within the department.
And yeah, so we couldn't create a ministerial process because of the preclusion of the subdivision map act.
But we did whatever we could to make it streamlined and as administrative as possible.
Okay.
Okay.
And then when we approved middle housing, I think there was one, maybe I think just one zoning district where there was a minimum density standard for a particular lot.
And I was wondering if this recommendation has, if there's any bearing between those two or are these apples and oranges? We do require minimum density per zoning if it is stated in the zoning development standards for a particular district.
And across middle housing, I think the lowest is 20, right? And then as the density increases, they're a little higher, up to 40, I think.
But for middle housing infill projects, the project proponent has to propose at least one unit.
So in most cases, that's pretty much enough to satisfy the minimum density, especially if there's already existing units because they're counted towards the density as well.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Public comment on this item.
We are on item number 20 amendments to title 21 subdivisions ordinance and title 23 zoning ordinance to implement Senate bill SB 684.
Good evening council members.
My name is Brianna Morales and I am with the Housing Action Coalition.
We are a member supported organization that advocates for housing at all levels of income.
And HAC was proud to sponsor SB 684 because it creates a clear practical pathway to deliver small scale ownership housing with the kind of density that already fits into existing neighborhoods and gives working families a real shot at home ownership.
The next step is really about implementation, taking the state law and making it usable here in Berkeley.
By establishing a ministerial objective approval process for small lot subdivisions and creating a complimentary local path for projects that meet requirements, the city can provide clarity and predictability.
And that predictability is not a small thing.
Our members who build the housing, tell us all the time how much they struggle, especially when they're a small infill project.
Because the process was uncertain there was delays discretionary and over complex pathways that they had to take that uncertainty simply causes risk that they cannot afford and those builders walk away.
When that happens, the kinds of homes that can be attainable to middle income households never get built.
And so for HAC, successful implementation means paving the way to allow builders to build the homes that Berkeley desperately needs in a housing crisis.
So we urge you to pass legislation that allows projects to move forward, demonstrating not only that Berkeley supports housing in principle, but also through practice.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thanks for being here.
Is there anyone online who would like to make public comment on this item? Three hands raised.
First is Cleo.
Cleo, you should be able to.
Hold on.
Cleo you should be able to unmute.
There you go.
Thank you.
Hi.
So first off, SB 684 was actually replaced by bill SB 1123 on July 1st, 2025.
So it's not clear to me why we're adding an obsolete deal to the Berkeley code when we should be adding the current California bill instead.
Secondly, the proposed local alternative to SB 684 doesn't actually offer an equivalent to the California bill.
This means that the de facto ability to parcel split and smaller residential lots has been inadvertently removed completely by the new bill housing zoning legislation.
I would like to see today the city council adopt the part of the recommendation that does implement SB 684, but to hold off on implementing anything for an alternative pathway for the small housing lots that have been excluded, because it is my belief that we can find a better option that would actually allow those lots to benefit from a streamlined ministerial approval in the future.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Debbie Sanderson.
Hi, thank you.
This proposed ordinance does one really good thing.
And that's in section 7 of the ordinance.
It updates chapter 21 to be consistent with SB 684.
So, I'm clear that we should adopt.
Section 7 of the proposed ordinance.
The first six sections modify our parcel map process.
And I don't think any of those amendments are really substantive.
They don't address any of the particular problems we face now when we want to subdivide a parcel.
Then the last four sections, I thought were to update our zoning ordinance to be compliant with SB 684.
But I don't think they do that.
In particular, section 3 creates new zoning standards for MHIPs.
And some of those standards conflict with SB 684.
So, if we want to help owners of small lots that don't meet the SB 684 standards, if we want to make it easier for them to subdivide, then I think we need to go back to the drawing board.
Because I don't see anything in this ordinance that makes that issue easier.
So, let's adopt section 7.
And then we'll be in compliance with 684.
And go back to the drawing board for the other two parts.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That's it.
There was just two speakers.
That's it.
There was just two speakers.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
If you could address those, there are a couple of comments online that I think I'd like you all to address.
And then I know you have comments as well or questions.
Sure.
I'll take a stab at it.
I'm not totally sure what other commenters referenced to the problems that people are having subdividing.
And I'm not sure what specific problems are being referred to.
So, it's hard for me to respond to that.
A larger issue that I am aware of that's been raised, that we're trying to address through this process, is that when city council adopted middle housing standards that set higher maximum densities, it made it more difficult for projects that wanted to take advantage of SB 684 to meet the requirements of hitting the minimum of two-thirds of the maximum density in order to qualify for SB 684.
Say if they only wanted to build two or three units, and in order to qualify, they'd be required to build four or five units.
So, I'm not sure how common that problem is, but it's definitely a possible outcome.
And so, that's the purpose of our local path that Branka described.
Our local parcel map path is to create a more streamlined process for projects that do meet our minimum density requirements, but don't meet the requirements to qualify for SB 684.
As Branka noted in, I think, the Q&A, that doesn't quite match the ministerial process enabled under SB 684, because our understanding of the Subdivision Map Act is that we are precluded from doing that.
We're precluded from offering a ministerial pathway.
So, what we've presented to you, as streamlined as a pathway, as we could come up with, and we think that's what we're recommending to you this evening.
City Council could potentially consider and explore reconsideration of the maximum densities adopted under middle housing as a way to restore the accessibility of SB 684.
But that wasn't the assignment before us for this project.
So, we certainly looked at this really closely, in close collaboration with the City Attorney's Office.

Segment 4

Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Vice Mayor Lunaparra.
Thank you.
I just have a quick follow-up to that.
If Council had adopted no density maximums, then how would 684 apply? So if there is no stated maximum density, then the density under SB 684 state would be the default metropolitan area density, which is 30 dwelling units per acre for Alameda County and Berkeley.
And I think it's 66% of that, which is 20 dwelling units per acre.
And that is the minimum density in the lowest middle housing zoning district.
Thanks.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Council deliberations are..
Actually, let's close the public hearing.
Is there a motion to close the public hearing? So moved.
Second.
Okay.
Is there any opposition to close the public hearing? Okay.
Public hearing is closed.
All right.
Council deliberations.
Council member Keserwani.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
Thank you again to staff for the ordinance.
So I just, for the purposes of moving this along, I had two considerations that I wanted to suggest to my colleagues.
Very minor changes to two numbers.
So if you have the packet open, this 96-page packet that includes the ordinance, on page 15, the bottom of 15 and the top of 16, there is language around the minimum lot size for the lot split.
So in the multifamily zones, it's 600 square feet.
So that's essentially all of the flats where the middle housing ordinance now applies.
If you want to do a lot split, it has to be at least 600 square feet for you to get a little cottage on it.
And then in the HOZ, the hillside overlay zone, that's the only zone that remains a single-family zone.
State law says it only applies to vacant single-family parcels.
So that's going to be very few.
Here we said 1,200 square feet is the minimum lot size.
And the question I asked earlier was relevant because that is not a restriction on the number of units that can be built on that vacant single-family parcel.
You can still get up to 10.
It's just that the opportunities for the fee simple ownership will be restricted because it's a higher minimum lot size of 1,200.
So what I was going to suggest, just to maintain flexibility for the ownership, again, there's maybe very, very few vacant single-family parcels in the hills.
But to the extent that there might be a couple, I was going to suggest we just equalize it.
So just say 600 square feet for both.
So we have the same rule citywide, and it doesn't increase the number of units.
It just allows the fee simple ownership to be easier if somebody wanted to do that.
So that was one suggestion.
I'm interested in my colleague's input.
Apologies.
Is it possible to put this on the screen so that we can? Yeah.
Oh, you want to see? Yeah, it might just be helpful for transparency so folks know.
Oh, okay.
It's going to take me a moment to share my screen.
Maybe staff can help us while you're going through.
Oh, maybe you all can share the screen because I'm just looking at the coordinates.
Thank you.
So that was one thing.
And then on page 20 of 96 pages, which I think we're going to show, there is a requirement for open space, which is really important.
It says a minimum of 200 square feet per unit.
Our middle housing ordinance, if you will recall, it said 150 square feet per 1,000 square feet of residential square footage, which in my mind is roughly a unit.
So just for the purposes of keeping things aligned with the middle housing ordinance and just slightly reducing this requirement, I was going to suggest we change 200 to 150.
All it does, if you think about what are the ramifications of that, it just makes it a little easier to comply.
It's my feeling that 150 square feet is a good amount of open space per unit, and that's what we did in the middle housing ordinance.
So those are the two numeric suggestions.
So I can make a motion to approve the ordinance as proposed by staff with those two numeric changes.
The minimum lot size for the vacant single family homes will be 600 square feet and the minimum square feet of usable open space will change from 200 to 150.
That's the motion.
And I'll second that.
Okay, thank you.
Okay.
Are you able to pull that up? Yeah, if not, no, I understand.
It can take a while to pull up that document.
Okay, are there other comments then? Council Member, Vice Mayor Lunaparra, please.
Thank you.
I'm wondering if staff has any thoughts on those amendments proposed, or specifically I'm curious about the reason for the state law having a different size for single family home versus multi-unit.
I think that's ported from SB9, which is a subdivision ministerial process for single family zoned parcels, referring to 1,200 square feet lot size.
I don't think there's more to that than just being consistent with SB9.
That's helpful.
Thank you.
And do you have any other thoughts on those amendments? No.
I mean, as Council Member Cassarani already stated, it doesn't increase the number of units, so it doesn't really increase density.
It does increase the number of ownership, fee simple ownership units potentially.
I think that's consistent with the policy intent where, you know, we are trying to find options for increasing affordable, naturally affordable home ownership options.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Other comments from my Council colleagues? Okay.
Well, we have a motion on the floor, so I think we should take roll, please.
Do you have a comment? Yeah, go ahead.
I want to express a little discomfort.
I was trying to form a question still.
I guess, you know, since this change is really only going to affect hillside overlay, which my district has a lot of, it's only going to affect, we're just saying that we can make the lot smaller in vacant lots.
And Council Member, it's only for a vacant.
Right, I understand.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I understand we're not like, this isn't like a run around density.
I get that.
But I guess I'm just, I'm a little uncomfortable with this, not getting to vet this beforehand.
That's my discomfort.
So I'm not sure how to, maybe I'll just have that be the reason for my vote.
I don't even know what question to ask, which is not a comfortable place for me.
That's my concern.
It's probably, it seems fine.
I can't think of a reason against it right now, but I just, I want more time to think about it.
If that makes sense.
Okay.
Council Member Trageb.
Yeah.
So, sorry to be dense, no pun intended.
So this could potentially apply to R1H now, as long as it's not a very high fire severity zone, correct? Is that the issue at hand that's leading to? This is not a change.
The ordinance always applied to the hillside overlay zone.
Okay.
Yeah.
It's just, all we did was change 1200 to 600 square feet in the hillside overlay zone, but it was always applying to the hillside overlay zone.
Okay.
Thanks for, thanks for helping me remember what we voted on before.
Thanks.
And just if it helps at all with your discomfort, Council Member, we're trying to increase the ability of people to have ownership.
And so that's the kind of piece here, right? So hopefully that helps a little bit.
Council Member Blackaby.
If you wanted to follow up and then.
I just want to say it does seem reasonable on its face.
I just, it's kind of sudden.
I'd like to think things through.
That's all.
Sure.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
My question.
Again, help us understand the, so lot sizes on vacant parcels.
Will be reduced.
But density doesn't change again.
Just help me.
Walk up a little bit.
And I actually.
Discovered this in talking to director Klein.
Yeah.
So, so, and.
You know, when we're talking about middle of housing ordinance, It's a.
It's a little bit more complicated.
And I don't know if you're going to agree with it.
I don't think it's that likely, but there's a vacant parcel in the hills.
Let's say maybe for this example is better to think of like a smaller, something on a smaller side name.
It's only 3000 square feet.
This change would matter because it's saying, well, your minimum lot for your split could be as little as 600 square feet.
Okay.
That's still allowable.
Nothing we did here changes that.
What we are trying to do here is simply say, well, if you want to do.
For.
Ownership units.
It'll now be a little easier because your lot size can be smaller.
1200 is, is rather large.
Relative to what we're doing for the rest of the city, but it's still the same for the whole city.
And the controlling kind of legislation around the density in the hillside overlay is still what we did with middle housing.
So, so it's, it's not, it's do you.
Do you want to explain? Because, because remember hillside overlays is a little confusing because hillside overlay doesn't have middle housing density.
It just has our one.
Right.
So it defaults to what the state law says, which is two thirds of the R one density.
Which do you want to explain what that would be? It is actually two thirds of the state.
Oh, it's it's 30 dwelling units per acre.
Cause it doesn't make sense.
Two thirds of one unit.
It's two thirds of a unit.
So, so it's.
It's two thirds of 30 dwelling units breaker, which is what the state law says.
So you'd have to do the math 30 dwelling units per acre.
What does that like four units on a 5,000 square foot lot? So you can do two thirds of four units.
Yeah, that's two units.
So, so that's the minimum required.
I think you're asking about the maximum.
Yeah.
So the maximum is 10 and that's established by SB 684.
That's established by six.
That's that's state law.
Right.
So whether we implement any ordinance, or not, that, that, that would still be allowable.
Just under the provisions of the state law.
This comes back to the earlier question was, was, but then how does the very high fire hazard severity zone piece come into play? The lots that are within that zone are just automatically disqualified.
Right.
So, so then thinking all the way through again, I'm just thinking of the different strips.
So if you're in the very high fire hazard severity zone, bless you.
Yeah.
You can't subdivide.
Right.
If you are in the hillside overlay zone, you are not covered by middle housing, but you are covered now by this.
If it's a, regardless of this legislation, if it's a vacant lot.
Correct.
Only for vacant lot.
If it is a lot with a current single family home or duplex or something on it, this does not.
SB 9.
Also, I just want to note, I'm sorry to complicate things, but I mean, this is true of R1H.
There are multi unit.
Yeah.
R1H.
I'm sorry.
Yeah.
You're right.
Right.
So keep that going.
So keep the through line other than that piece.
But so if you're R1H in the high fire hazard severity zone, the 20 dwelling unit per acre density applies.
No, that's not at maximum.
That's the minimum in order to comply in order to be eligible for SB 684.
The maximum number of units is 10.
Okay.
So that's true.
Okay.
But again, just on vacant lots, vacant R1H lots.
Yeah.
Correct.
And I would also, I'd like to add that.
So when there is a map for subdividing the lot into fee, simple lots, there are subdivision map act requirements that still apply.
So the fire code, the access, access easements, all kinds of things need to be complied with in order to subdivide into fee simple.
So reducing the minimum lot size is not an option.
So reducing the lot size is not automatically making it so much easier because there are all of these other requirements that might even be harder to be achievable with a smaller lot size.
So, yeah.
So the lot size isn't the rate limiting factor.
No.
Yeah.
In that part.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Council member O'Keefe.
Yeah, this is kind of random, but I actually just sort of realized I have a sort of, I don't think I have a legal conflict here, but there's sort of a, I think I'm going to abstain.
I think I have a, I have a little bit of a self interest in this that makes me uncomfortable.
I don't think I need to recuse.
I can go check with FEMA.
I'm almost positive.
It's not a requirement.
I just, it's like a personal comfort thing.
So I'm just saying I'm going to abstain for that reason.
Okay.
So just so we all know, and I can talk about, if FEMA says I have to say more, I will, but I don't think I do.
I think you two should have a conversation.
Okay.
Well, this is highly unusual.
So please give us a moment while we wait for them to return.
Okay.
So we're going to take the roll.
A second from council member Humbert.
Okay.
So it's the ordinance as proposed by staff, including the amendments and the revised materials, and then the minimum lot size for multifamily lots at 600 square foot minimum, and then useful open space at 150 square foot minimum.
Yes.
Mr.
City clerk.
It was the, it's the vacant single family zoned parent parcel that ships from 1200 to 600.
You said multifamily.
Oh, so, so would that change? That's the motion.
And can I clarify that includes the, the reflects the sub three materials? Yes.
And the sub three materials.
Yes.
That's fine.
Thank you.
Okay.
On the motion council member Kester wanting.
Yes.
Kaplan.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Traeger.
Okay.
Abstain.
Black.
Yes.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mary.
Yes.
Okay.
Motion.
Motion passes.
Thank you all so much.
Thank you for those of you who came to watch or give public comment.
I'm going to move us on to the final item for this evening, which is item number 21, the city of Berkeley's 2026 state and federal legislative platform.
As was mentioned at a previous meeting, I was able to go to Washington DC for the U S conference of mayors, as well as the mayor's innovation project.
And also had an opportunity to do some lobbying on behalf of the city with our lobbyist.
And so we are very lucky to have Niccolo de Luca here with us to answer any questions that we might have.
So typically every year, the mayor works with city staff and our state and federal advocates to set a legislative platform that guides our advocacy work.
As in previous years, our priority areas are related to homelessness, housing, economic development, infrastructure, public safety, sustainability, and the environment and health.
It takes a long time for legislation to come to fruition.
As you all know, therefore it's logical for many things to stay on the list year over year.
And so that is to say that many of the things are similar from previous years because we know that these are going to continue to be our priorities.
I know also that vice-mayor Lina Parra has some things that she would like to add as a friendly amendment and I am happy to accept them.
So if you could also pull up your additions now to share with folks, I think I'll just need whoever's sharing right now to stop sharing.
Is that city staff? Okay.
Very good.
Thank you very much.
And yeah, go ahead.
Okay.
I'm just going to read them out loud.
These are some friendly amendments, additions, support legislative and funding efforts to..
Sorry, could you make it a little bigger and close that side so that folks can read it a little better, please? Thank you.
Is that better? Okay.
Support legislative and funding efforts to assist students experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity.
Support legislation allowing municipalities to regulate autonomous vehicles locally.
Support legislative efforts to create a not-for-profit utility service to replace investor-owned utility programs.
Support funding for increased lighting on streets and sidewalks.
Support funding for seismic retrofits for affordable housing providers, including non-profit housing cooperatives and community land trusts.
Support funding for public bicycle storage.
Support funding for urban heat island mitigation.
And then a slight addition to the support legislative efforts to enhance greater access to hospitals and health care, including Medicare for All at the federal level and CalCare at the state level.
Support legislative and funding efforts to expand the availability of emergency naloxone, fentanyl strips, test strips, beverage test strips, needle exchange programs, and other harm reduction tools.
Support efforts to include information about emergency naloxone administration in the Responsible Beverage Service Training Program, Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs Program, and or other appropriate certification programs.
Support restarting and expanding the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable Supplemental Benefits Program, and support legislative efforts to more easily enable the creation of the East Bay Public Bank.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
And I know that also Councilmember Humbert has something he'd like to add as well.
Yes, thank you.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And I don't have it in written form to put up on the screen.
I mean, I have it in my notes.
I want to thank you, Mayor Ishii, and the city's lobbyists for your work on this list of legislative priorities.
There's one thing, I just have one thing, and I think it's really important for the future of ownership housing, and that's condominium construction defect liability reform.
My understanding is that Assemblymember Wicks and possibly Senator Aragine may be taking this on.
I'm confident that Assemblymember Wicks is, or at least she said she's going to.
It's going to be a political fight, I think.
So I think that adding this to our list would align with some planned efforts, and I'd like to move that we add this to the following list.
And in the language, it's just a very short blurb.
Reform condominium construction and design defect liability to reduce costs, improve feasibility, and expand ownership housing options.
So I'd like to move to add that.
Thank you.
I think it would be good for everyone who has something they want to add for them to speak now so that we can discuss it all together.
I will go to Councilmember Kaplan.
Thank you.
Under health, I wanted to offer support legislative efforts to protect access to gender-affirming care.
Thank you.
I think a great addition.
Councilmember Blackabay.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I just had two in the public safety area, and it should surprise no one they're wildfire-related.
Number 10 says currently support legislation and funding to improve fire safety, including underground and utilities.
I wanted to propose the addition as well as guaranteeing that homeowners that do fire mitigation work receive home insurance renewals, which is an important loop-closing mechanism to get the fire safety mitigation done.
The other item under funding priorities in the same section, number five, where we talk about grants to support home hardening, including low or no interest loan or grant programs, I would just want to add as well as state income tax credits to assist homeowners in clearing hazards of vegetation and hardening homes.
So those are my two additions.
And one more time, state? State income tax credits.
So again, it doesn't hit us in the county or city, and other states are doing it, but it's a state income tax credit for work that you're doing to harden your home.
Thank you.
I just want to make sure I heard you correctly.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Moving on to Councilmember Trakob.
Thank you so much.
Let me just check something.
Okay.
Two amendments under the environmental section.
Support measures to incentivize and or expand the use of and or funding for local distributed energy resources, such as rooftop solar, battery storage, virtual power plants, and community microgrids.
And then I will have this in writing, as long as you can read my chicken scratch.
Second one is support efforts to advance climate resiliency and adaptation efforts locally and regionally.
Thank you.
I'm going to ask, since there are so many here, that you all type these up and send them to maybe the clerk.
What do you think? What's best? What's the cleanest way to do this? Yes, I suppose if you want the exact wording added that I should.
I think that would be helpful.
Yes.
To me directly.
To our city clerk.
Thank you very much, everyone.
Okay.
Councilmember Bartlett.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
A few additions here.
Really to our conversation side, actually.
Under health care, expansion of Medi-Cal reimbursement amounts and service categories for community health workers.
Second, requesting state technical assistance for place-based health equity initiatives.
Three, supporting flexible grant funding to target investment in neighborhoods with measurable life expectancy gaps.
And then under homeownership, housing, support density bonus tools for affordable condominiums.
Another one is create local flexibility for inclusionary ownership.
And seven, infrastructure financing that supports entry-level affordable condominiums.
Okay.
Is that everything? Okay.
So since we are very lucky to have Niccolo here in person.
Sorry, Madam Mayor.
Yes.
Apologies.
In the spirit of transparency, I added two words on the first one.
So where it said rooftop solar, it now says distributed slash rooftop slash balcony solar.
That's all.
Okay.
Very good.
Councilmember Humbert, just so you know your mic is still on.
So as you are all typing this away and sending it to the clerk and the clerk is putting it all together, I'm going to ask if anyone has any questions for Niccolo while he's here.
Anyone? Yeah.
I'm happy to quickly give an overview.
Madam Mayor, if that's okay.
That would be great.
Right now.
So Madam Mayor, Councilmembers, Niccolo DeLuca, it's an honor to be down here.
So thank you very much.
Great seeing many familiar faces and some new ones.
We have the honor of working for the City of Berkeley in Sacramento and in D.C.
Madam Mayor, it's a blast seeing you in D.C.
And you did a great job in all those meetings.
So your constituents must be very happy.
We've had a good run with you all.
16 years, over 23 million and almost 100 bills that we've worked on specifically for the city.
So here's where things stand right now in Sacramento.
Friday was a bill introduction deadline.
There was over 1,800 bills introduced, of which about 500 are spot bills.
The bags under my eyes are because we've been reading a lot of bills and I'm also getting older.
So what we're going to start doing is sharing more of our legislative matrices on every Friday to start highlighting what's out there.
We shared one today highlighting fire safety and insurance and overall kind of what's going on in the world of local government.
It's going to be an interesting year.
We're seeing a lot of trends such as e-bike regulations, bills on illegal dumping.
There's a lot of transit sales tax measures.
A lot of cities and counties are looking at the November ballot to see what might be coming down the horizon.
Of course, housing, streamlining affordable housing.
We're doing a presentation to a budget subcommittee on the need for HAP funding.
I've been working with Senator Arreguin on his RV bill and his local health jurisdiction bill.
I want to thank the city manager and his team for all of his work there.
So a very active year already.
As you know, things don't really ramp up until March, April, May, June, July.
The budget started off last year we're looking at an $18 billion gap.
Now we're looking at a $2 billion gap.
So hopefully the budget improves.
A lot of that is through some of the AI investments that are happening.
So that's Sacramento.
D.C.
we're working with the city manager and his team on some projects to submit for community project funding, also known as earmarks, of which the city did well last year through the leadership of Congresswoman Simon to or sign into law for Ashby Bart and then for fire safety, the East Bay Training Center.
So it's been another busy year looking forward to it and just really begin to roll up our sleeves to work on legislation.
And we appreciate all the positions that you take.
The clerk has been great about always sharing positions immediately the day after you all have taken action.
And we of course share those with the author, with our delegation.
We're spoiled.
We've got a great assembly member and a great senator and of course leadership, speaker's office, pro tem's office and committee staff.
So happy to answer any questions you all may have and thank you for all the support and the strong partnership.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for your presentation, for giving us the overview.
I think it is really helpful for everyone to know what's going on and what you all are working on on behalf of the city.
Councilmember Chaplin, did you have a question? Yes.
Thank you.
I have two questions.
You mentioned bills respecting e-bike regulations.
Could you speak more about that? What kinds of things? Absolutely.
So through the mayor, council members.
So right now I think we've got about four bills out and we're expecting about 12.
It's just tighter regulations on how the e-bikes, basically their capacity, whether it's the horsepower or some of the output.
There was a study last year about overall e-bike safety and I've read reports about some of the operating room surgeons seeing high number of head trauma for young people, 16 and younger.
So what we're expecting is regulations.

Segment 5

Regulations on overall output of the e-bikes, probably starting effective 27 next year.
Maybe different types of infractions for the vehicle code.
We do know that e-bikes are a affordable way of transportation for some, but then we've also heard, when I say we, because we talked to a lot of legislators and staff, I've heard some of the horror stories of the accidents, of kind of the joyriding of the comparability to e-bikes like motorcycles.
So really looking at a handful of bills, trying to be more strict on output of the e-bikes and their overall kind of product production.
Thank you.
Yeah, I've been following some of those bills and this isn't a question, but for us to think about, as you mentioned, e-bikes are an affordable mode of transportation for many people.
And I'm concerned that efforts to adopt stringent regulations will create a barrier.
And I think, you know, we all support road safety, but there's no mystery around which vehicles are causing the most harm on the road, and it's on e-bikes.
So my second question was, are there, in the overall landscape, are you noticing any shifting headwinds? I'm thinking about public safety in particular.
You know, I think if we roll back six years, there was, I think, one headwind that started to shift a little later on.
I'm wondering if there are similar things taking place in other areas, including public safety.
Absolutely, that is a great question.
When it comes to public safety, last year, as you all may recall, I want to say, and there's an assembly bill about how you treat prostitutes and the johns and the age limit of who is soliciting sex from who and how those, what the different punishments may be, felonies, misdemeanors.
That bill was heavily discussed, and quite frankly, when I'm in my 19th year, I was a little surprised that it was signed into law.
The legislature that I'm more used to has been a little bit more progressive on kind of law and order bills.
So I was a little bit surprised that that one was signed and pushed kind of so aggressively.
There's actually now already a bill to essentially undercut that, about whether you're soliciting or loitering or how you even define that.
So we do have a new class of assembly members and senators, and I am seeing a bit of a shift, a little bit more kind of towards the middle.
There's also something to keep in mind, which isn't necessarily the tone and tenor, but this is the governor's last year, and the governor has been clear on some of his priorities.
And there's also a sense of not knowing who'd be the governor next year and who would be in the cabinet next year.
So former legislative proposals that might have been maybe waiting for next year are going to be expedited this year.
And so hopefully I'm answering your question as directly as I can, but I have seen a little bit of a shift on public safety.
None of the bills that we've looked at this week and in today really kind of stood out on the side of public safety other than an assembly bill seeking to water down or undercut the bill that was sent into law last year on prostitution and loitering.
Thank you, and I actually have one last question.
My apologies, and this is kind of a follow-up, but just from a high level, is the posture among the legislature, are we, do we think that they're in a position to advance or hold and protect? I think we're, you know, on defense against the Fed, so I'm wondering whether how much the appetite there is of the state to push for innovative new things versus fighting to keep things we currently have.
Great question.
Definitely both.
Last year there was a lot of bills towards the end of session on ice and masks.
There continues to be a handful of bills on immigration, what I should not be allowed to do in our state, things of that nature.
Continue to see the trend of pushing back against D.C.
primarily through the governor and a lot of his budget proposals, so I expect definitely pushing back, but at the same time continue to advance.
I mean, there's, you all know because you're all very well versed, I mean, there's a tremendous amount of pride in being a Californian in the California values, in everything that our state does, and that just gets louder and louder each year with a greater sense of pride, which could be whether it's a housing bill or a bill about climate change.
As you all know, the cap and invest was approved last year, a lot of good funding for housing, affordable housing, land conservation, but then also fire safety, so if you ask about trends, I'd say two trends have been really clear.
This year there's definitely a trend to address illegal dumping, handful of bills on that, and then another trend is overall fire safety and that impact, and how do you, whether it's zone zero, which you all led on, how do you do defensible space, what does that look like, and how do neighborhoods really take a stand themselves against what mother nature may deal towards you.
Thank you, thanks for your questions and for your thorough responses.
Council Member Traeger, did you have a question? Yes, I have two questions.
One, I know I've been following the legislature not as closely as you, of course, and affordability continues to be top of mind.
Any predictions or surprises thus far in the cycle around those discussions? And my second question is more pointed because it might inform one other potential amendment if the Council, our priorities of the Council, signs off on it.
We do have a no unfunded mandates language before us, I appreciate it.
In the context of the Governor's released budget, which appears to shift the burden of funding for certain mental health services to local and county jurisdictions, I'm wondering if you could I'm wondering if you could talk about that a little bit and would it be, if you were advising a city council, which you kind of are, would you feel that it might be beneficial to insert some language around making sure that there is appropriate funding and resourcing for local jurisdictions for mental health or other forms of health care? Absolutely, through the Mayor, Council Member, I would say the way that the leg platform is written now, it's clear about any impacts to local funding, whether it's to the city, to the county, or to the region, so I think you're very solid there.
You were mentioning about overall mental health funding, kind of pushing that back on the county.
Something to keep in mind and the Governor was very proud of was Prop 1 and the funding for Prop 1 and how that's tied to not just services, but also housing, so that was part of it.
Something that the Governor did towards the end of the session last year was use a cap and invest proceeds to help offset other costs that the state would take to make sure the state's general fund wasn't as negatively impacted.
Affordability, you asked, you know, I would say we're still extremely early in the legislative process and that is something a lot of us have identified and we're waiting to see what happens.
Whereas both houses, the Senate and the Assembly, have been clear they want to make the state affordable, especially for middle-class families and working-class families.
What's going to be interesting though is also lack of redevelopment, so there's not the funding that the cities have for greater flexibility to build.
There's a discussion of the housing bond, which could be up to $10 billion, which would be spent very quickly, but there's also been a push from the legislature of let locals decide how they want to handle things and so I think the rub could be what the affordability package would look like versus allowing cities and counties and others to take their destiny in their own hands.
As of right now, we don't yet have an answer on that, but affordability is a theme I will hear kind of throughout the legislation.
Thank you.
Council Member Bartlett, do you have a question? Oh, thank you.
I was curious of what's the outlook on our insurance issue? There was a handful of, the first there was an informational hearing about two weeks ago, three weeks ago, on overall housing insurance for houses, whether it's affordable housing, whether it's in a fire area, what have you.
It's getting louder and louder to make sure the insurance companies cannot increase their rates so high at the same time that they're protecting in case of a catastrophe.
We're expecting a handful of insurance bills that are substantive and are really going to try to help kind of move the needle.
I'm definitely going to flag those for the city.
There was a few last year that didn't make it to the finish line, but I know their authors are committed to doing so, so that will remain another hot topic of what does affordability for insurance look like, how do you maintain as much coverage as you possibly can, especially for single-family houses in the urban wildfire interface area.
Thank you.
Okay, so one other thing I want to make sure that I get everyone's okay on is our ability to send advocacy letters that are supported by these areas without coming to Council first, because that will allow us to move more expeditiously if things come up that we can support.
I just want to see if anyone's opposed.
Okay, all right, so we have a number of additions that have been recommended.
Personally, I'm fine with taking all of them as friendly amendments.
I just want to see if anyone has any other comments about that.
Actually, I need to take public comments, so let me do that first.
Public comments.
Hi, and I would like to thank Carol and Brianna for yielding time to me.
So, do I get a minute from each of them? Okay.
Hi, my name is Sarah Bell, and I'm speaking on behalf of Berkeley's Housing Advisory Commission.
The commission met on Thursday, February 5th, to make recommendations on the housing section of our city's legislative priorities, and as a commission, we recommended a number of edits.
I would like to emphasize that the commission voted unanimously in favor of each of our edits, so we respectfully request that Council incorporate our feedback into the final legislative priorities, which overlap with changes suggested by Council members already tonight.
You should have received a memo with the rationale for each of our edits in the agenda packet.
In other words, we did type it up, and I will attempt to summarize them now.
There are some complications around which version we started from in making our edits.
I'm happy to sort out which items we're referring to, and I would also like to thank the city's lobbyists for all of their efforts thus far.
So, starting with recommendations for tenant protections, we recommended codifying rent relief and eviction moratoria for future emergency situations, and enhancing our state code around preventing tenant harms that come from predictive algorithms.
Both of these are timely, given the changing world we inhabit.
Moving on to housing construction, we recommended personal changes to the building code, such as universal design and elevator reform to make our buildings more accessible, and allowing single-story modular construction and the use of the residential code for middle housing, that last one being very important for our city because we just passed middle housing.
We also recommended pursuing condo deposit and condo defect reform to enable multifamily for-sale housing to pencil, because despite our recent boom of rental housing, significantly less for-sale multifamily housing has been constructed in Berkeley over that same period.
In the area of funding, we suggested edits in order to be concrete in the outcomes we wish to achieve without being overly specific on the mechanism.
We also recommended expanding the item on funding seismic retrofitting to include home hardening as well, since many homes in Berkeley are at elevated risk of wildfire.
On changes to the California Constitution, the Commission recommends promoting the repeal of Article 34 to its own item, and to put a finer point on the item about lowering the voter threshold for passing affordable housing bonds, specifying 50% plus one.
We emphatically need to make it easier to approve and fund affordable housing.
The final piece of text that we recommended adding is an edit to item 9 in the Mayor's Memo and number 10 and the one that we received to expand the scope of our support for student housing and also to include education workers in that support.
As for the text that we recommended removing, the item on LIHTC changes on 9 in ours, 8 in the Mayor's Memo, did not actually, we recommended removing that because it did not actually indicate a need for any legislative changes at this time.
The item on programs to fund, which was 14 in ours and 12 in the Mayor's version, we suggested merging just into a more general item on funding.
And lastly, the item on ADU law seemed to be a holdover from years past, so we recommended removing it, and furthermore, allowing other cities to count ADUs towards the HUINA allocation could be detrimental for a city like Berkeley that takes its housing goals very seriously, and of course housing is a regional concern, and so that's another reason to remove the item on ADUs.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration of these changes, and we hope you incorporate our suggestions.
I'll make myself available to answer any questions and help track across versions, and I really appreciate, again, both our lobbyists' work and the Council's work on producing these priorities.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sarah.
I did not receive your email, so we're checking for it right now, but I don't think we received it, so it's very concerning.
So we might need to take a mini break at some point, probably after public comments, so we can go through this to make sure it's clear.
So is there any other public comment? Yes.
Hello.
I'm not taking any position on any item, but wanted to just piggyback on the question about headwinds, and I know it's not a back and forth, but in case anyone else has this question, I just recently started tracking the kind of mental health diversion efforts that have been happening at the state level around more mental health diversion in the courts, and I know today the Public Safety Committee at the state, like Senator Aragon, came out with some recommendations around a bill related to mental health diversion, and I just thought, given Berkeley's challenges, it would be nice if that subject were included on the list in some way for the city to be able to maybe lobby around, or I'd like to be interested in hearing sort of more of the headwinds around that, if that's something that the lobbyists could talk about, if someone else had that question.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other public comment on this item here in person or online? Anyone online have public comment on this item? There's no hands raised.
The letter from the HAC is in the sub two packet.
I see it.
Yeah, we found it.
Thank you.
I want to give us like five minutes just because there's a lot of different pieces of things, so if you can give us five minutes, I want to review a couple things and then come back and we can have a conversation.
Hi.
So the reviewing what was sent, the numbers don't line up with the current numbers of this, and it's very messy, and messy to combine all these different things together, and I think for the sake of transparency and making sure everyone is clear on what it is that we are voting on, I'd like to actually continue this item until another time so that we can actually take the time to rewrite it, take everyone's edits, make sure it's clear what we're all voting on, because I understand like right now I would say most of this is not controversial, but I do think it's important for us to be clear what it is we're voting on.
So I'm going to ask that we continue this item, which Mr.
State Clerk, I just want to make sure means that if we we would move this to the next council meeting, which is yes, you certainly can on March 10th.
March 10th.
Okay.
We are going to do that for the for the sake of transparency and clarity.
So I apologize.
Thank you all very much.
I really appreciate you, Niccolo, for coming to be here and answer our questions, and by next time we should have something that's a little cleaner for us to actually approve, and we'll be able to pass it forward with you.
But you know, like I said, nothing here is super controversial.
It's really more a matter of getting it getting it straight, clear.
So okay.
So with that, we won't be able to carry over any of the additions that were added tonight.
So I mean, it could be reintroduced at the next meeting.
We won't reintroduce these changes at the next meeting, all of them in together.
Yes.
Okay.
Could we, is there a way that, could we submit them as a supplemental so they could be published ahead of time? Yeah.
Instead of just read on the dais again.
I think that would be the idea, is to have it printed ahead of time, written down.
Everyone can review it and read it before.
Okay.
Okay.
Very good.
All right.
Thank you all very much for that, and that is our actual, our final item for this evening.
So I will ask if there's any public comment for items not listed on the agenda.
And thank you.
I just want to advise council that at the end of June, the mental health trauma contracts that we have will all be coming to an end.
So that's the contract to serve the African American population, the Latino immigrant population, the LGBTQ population, and those may or may not be renewed.
So as long as mental health was raised, that's that may be an additional gap in our system as we address all of these issues.
I also was sad to hear during the legislative presentation, I don't know if what that law was that was mentioned as far as sex workers and the customers, and I'm going to take a look at it, because a while ago, sex trafficking came up as a recommendation from another commission I was on, and it really is an issue in Berkeley.
It's very sad to attend an event in, am I able to keep talking? Okay.
It was very sad to attend a very well attended event in Berkeley and see a young girl who was clearly, and she was clearly underage, with her zipper down, posed on the sidewalk and passing by, and what do you do? I don't know what to do.
I mean, I want to have her arrested.
That is not a response to a young girl who's being exploited.
So I wonder, how much do we really care about addressing that issue that young girls are being trafficked? And I had mentioned previously about coming across someone in a homeless encampment was very suspect.
The man she was with was about 60 when she was clearly underage and six months pregnant.
So it is an issue in our community, and there are only..
I'm going to refer this to the city manager.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there any other public comment on items not listed on the agenda? Anyone online? There's one hand raised online.
Should be able to unmute.
Caller ending in 211.
Hi.
Last item which I must talk about, since Donald Trump rejected the nuclear test treaty that had been in effect for over 50 years, the doomsday clock was advanced seconds before midnight.
This man is crazy, and he will do it.
If we don't have nuclear war, which can happen because of Ukraine, mostly or anywhere else, 98% of humans are going to vanish within minutes or seconds or hours.
2% will die within days or weeks from very painful deaths.
That will must stop.
Must stop this crazy man.
And please watch his talking tonight and laugh.
Have a good night.
Good to talk to you.
Thank you.
Any other public comment? That's all.
Okay.
Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved.
Second.
As long as there is no opposition to adjourning, we will be adjourned for this evening.
Meeting adjourned.
Thank you all.