Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2025-02-13 22:07:14 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_d150e872-d5e6-4243-accc-6502dedcef5b.ogg

Segment 1

Okay, thank you.
Hello, good evening.
I just want to make sure staff is all ready, council members.
Okay, hello.
I would like to call to order the regular meeting of Berkeley City Council, Tuesday, February 11th, 2025.
I just want to recognize that there are a lot of folks here tonight to speak on non-agenda items, so I just want to set expectations so folks know how that works.
There's a section for public comment on non-agenda items early on in the meetings.
You must submit a card to speak before I call for public comment.
10 people will be selected from the in-person and online attendees, and each will be given a minute to speak.
If you intend to cede your time to someone, please determine that in advance just so we can keep the public comment moving.
If you aren't one of these 10 speakers, there will be an opportunity at the end of the meeting for you to submit a card to speak before I call for public comment.
I will also allow you, of course, to finish your sentence, and then I'll ask you to stop.
I know that some of you are here for the Peace and Justice Resolution.
I just want to let you know that my staff and I have been meeting with various stakeholders.
We're in the middle of this process and have more meetings set up over the next month.
We've also learned that the resolution will be brought back up at the next Peace and Justice Commission meeting.
I'm looking forward to seeing what comes back.
Thank you all for coming out to share your opinions, no matter what you're here for.
I appreciate that you're here to spend your time with us this evening, and I will pass it to the City Clerk for a roll call.
Okay, Council Member Kesarwani.
Here.
Kaplan.
Present.
Bartlett.
Here.
Trigub.
Present.
O'Keefe.
Present.
Blackabay.
Here.
Lunapara.
Here.
Humbert.
Here.
And Mayor Ishii.
Here.
Okay.
Okay, so at the first meeting of the month, we have a land acknowledgement statement, and we've agreed that each of our Council Members will take turns reading it.
So we're on Council Member Bartlett, who's going to be reading the land acknowledgement.
Council Member for District 3.
Thank you.
Vice Mayor, I'm so sorry.
Vice Mayor Bartlett.
Nobody cares.
I was kidding.
Nobody cares.
It's just a stickler for the rules, I guess.
No, no, you're right.
Absolutely.
Vice Mayor Bartlett will be reading the land acknowledgement.
Thank you.
Okay, the land acknowledgement statement.
The City of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in was built on the territory of Huchun, the ancestral and unceded land of the Chochinyo-speaking Ohlone people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County.
This land was and continues to be of great importance to all of the Ohlone tribes and descendants of the Verona Band.
As we begin our meeting tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley, the documented 5,000-year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shale Mound and the Ohlone people who continue to reside here in East Bay.
We recognize that Berkeley's residents have and continue to benefit from the use and occupation of this unceded stolen land.
Since the city's incorporation in 1878, now stewards of the laws regulating the city of Berkeley, it is not only vital that we recognize the history of this land, but also recognize that the Ohlone people are present members of Berkeley and other East Bay communities today.
The City of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the Lijian tribe and to create meaningful actions that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Vice Mayor.
So for ceremonial matters, I just wanted to let folks know that we'll be adjourning in memory of the stabbing victim from San Pablo Park and also adjourning in memory of Elise Lusk, who was a traffic violence victim at Ada Street and California Street.
Okay, City Manager, do you have comments? I do not have comments tonight, Madam Mayor.
Okay, we will be taking public comment on non-agenda matters.
And a reminder, we'll be taking 10 in person and online, and you have a minute to speak.
Oh, we're going to..
Five in person and five online.
Sorry, yes, just to be clear.
Yeah, total 10, five in person, five online.
And with an opportunity to speak again at the end.
There's a lot in here.
Okay, the five in-person speakers, and you can come up in any order, line up on this side of the room, is Jessica Prado, Carol Morozovic, Alison Labonte, Michelle Oram, and Alex Pelnez, looks like what it is.
So you can come up in any order and be one minute each.
Okay, for our first speaker, are you waiting for some folks? Okay, hi, you have a piece of paper in front of you that summarizes my point.
I grew up by Round Park, and I now live in another western quadrant of the city.
And for some reason, you have allocated $150,000 when you've spent many minutes talking about how tight the budget is to develop an improvement for a park that no one in the neighborhood has gotten together and said that they wanted.
It will not increase geographic equity goals.
This is where I take my children to play because my neighborhood doesn't have anywhere to play.
And it says it's supposed to help the growing population.
The growing population is where I am.
If you look in this corner, that is where you are opting to study for $150,000 a park.
And you can also see that that neighborhood is super diffuse.
It's not crowded.
No new housing is going in there.
And you can see how well used the park is in my pictures right here.
That's it.
Thank you for your comment.
Next speaker.
Can I start? All right.
Hello, Councilmembers, Mayor.
My name is Alex Pelez.
I'm a second-year student at UC Berkeley.
And I'm here to ask the Councilmembers who are rating referrals due January 21st, I believe, to rate Southside Complete Streets limiting cars on Telegraph a 5 out of 5.
Because as I'm sure many of you know, in 2022, the Council passed unanimously legislation to keep cars off Telegraph.
But in the years since, there has not been any progress towards that goal.
And in order to ensure that the city begins making progress, I ask that you rate the referral a 5 out of 5, Southside Complete Streets limiting cars on Telegraph.
Mr.
Blackaby, I am in your district, District 6, and I know you ran on progressive policies, including making our streets safer and bettering our transport systems.
And Telegraph is a place where thousands of pedestrians walk every day.
And I'm one of those pedestrians, and this measure would help us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So speaking to the earlier fire issue, embers do travel, which is why it's important to go through all the districts.
But I want to speak to the importance of having a registry, a volunteer registry, for the most vulnerable persons who need assistance during a fire or any disaster.
15 years ago, evacuation plans don't always work.
Looking out for your neighbor, unfortunately, doesn't always work.
15 years ago, I had had a botched surgery.
I was in a wheelchair, but I was sleeping 13 hours a day because just the pain would knock me out.
One day, I hear a fire alarm, and I look up.
I'm hearing this persistent fire alarm that wakens me up.
And I look out the window, and my whole apartment building is across the street.
But I'm on the fourth floor with no way to get out, not knowing what's going on.
I go outside, and I call the fire department.
I realize I can't leave the fourth floor.
I'm finishing.
Can't leave the fourth floor, and I call the fire department.
Unfortunately, they had the fire under control.
This is an example.
When it comes to an actual disaster, people think of themselves first.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening, council members.
My name is Allison Labonte, and I'm a Berkeley resident and a LGBTQIA plus ally.
I'm here for public comment regarding Berkeley's sanctuary city status.
Since the devastating results of the presidential election, I've pledged alongside other community members as well as elected officials like council member Trageb to show up and protect the rights and safety and dignity of people in my community.
I'm aware and very grateful to this council for your action in the January city council meeting to reaffirm Berkeley as a sanctuary city.
I, along with others in the circle locally that I formed as part of showing up for racial justice, have learned today that there are cities like Olympia, most recently, I think, that have extended their sanctuary statuses to include trans and queer people.
I reviewed the Berkeley city sanctuary resolution from last month, and it appeared to only be for immigrants.
I encourage you and urge you to expand, and I'd be happy to share the resolution from Olympia City with you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for your comment.
Recording in progress.
Hello.
Okay, now we can hear.
Thank you.
My name is Jessica Prado, and I am here to raise serious concerns about the city of Berkeley's failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and its treatment of unhoused residents.
The city's ADA process is broken, inaccessible, and designed to deny accommodations rather than provide them.
Over the past few weeks, the Berkeley Homeless Union has submitted over 16 ADA accommodation requests on behalf of disabled encampment residents.
All of them were denied without a meaningful review.
The city's ADA coordinator, Thomas Gregory, has outright refused to engage in the interactive process as required by law.
Moreover, his response to the legitimate requests have been hostile, dismissive, and legally insufficient.
The city claims that it's following the ADA, yet it has offered no ADA-compliant shelter or alternative housing to residents facing eviction at 8 and Harrison Streets.
Instead, disabled people are being pushed into the streets into dangerous conditions with an atmospheric river storm coming tomorrow without any plan to where they can go.
Because the city has ignored its obligations, we were forced to take legal action today.
We filed an emergency temporary restraining order to prevent the imminent statements of disencampment residents.
I'm sorry, can you finish your comment? Yeah, but we're still here, willing to collaborate.
Over the past few weeks, camp residents and volunteers have been moving- I'm sorry, your time is actually up, but I'm just finishing up.
I understand, but I'm really trying to be very strict about the comments and being consistent across the board.
Yeah, so- Well, I'm just trying to ask that, you know, please be legally compliant with the ADA.
People are actually just waiting for help, and please don't displace the residents of 8 and Harrison this week, or, you know.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Okay.
Okay, and the first five raised hands on Zoom.
The first one is- oh, there was five.
I believe so.
Yes, I believe we've had five comments, and so we'll take five online now.
The first is Stacy Zolt-Hara.
Thank you very much.
My name is Stacy Zolt-Hara, and I'm a resident in District 5.
I have a senior at VHS and an eighth grader at King.
I appreciate the City Council's focus on the encampment next to Berkeley High, but I'm here because I feel these efforts have been wholly inadequate, and that they fail to demonstrate the decisive leadership needed to meet the urgency of the moment.
Governing is about choices.
We understand that the situation facing Nunn House is incredibly complicated, as the last speaker spoke about, but this is not a hypothetical or potential risk.
It is a very real danger that has already resulted in the sexual assault of a student, a dog attacking a VHS security officer, and countless kids enduring harassment every single day.
The ongoing plight of Unhouse people is tragic, and it requires a long-term solution, but this is an immediate danger to our students.
Governing, again, is about choices, and we look to our elected officials to balance the rights of all citizens.
The City's failure to shut down the encampment is choosing the community of Unhouse people over our children.
I understand that there is a plan to address the Unhouse situation on Harrison.
I urge you to reallocate those resources.
And next is a phone number ending in 191.
Press star six to unmute.
Good evening.
My assistant will give you a bunch of data.
If you read it, for the City of Berkeley, our company is about to sue the City of Berkeley, but give them a claim for $1,080,000 for the damage it did to us.
Never mind the damage it did to you, as nobody else does the business we did for 51 years.
Second point I'd like to make.
Everybody, terrorist taxes.
This man is imposing taxes on American people.
He's also creating a trade war across the whole world, and with that, you're going to pay more for everything.
This man should be in mental hospital, in prison, not in the White House, and we're all going to pay for it, and his claim about Gaza is an idiocy just as you did to the Council of People when you voted against to stop the butchering in Gaza.
And guess what happened? Paris lost because of that.
You were tricked by the pro-Zionist.
You were tricked, as you was, as Biden.
Yeah.
Wake up, people.
Be humans.
We're all humans.
I have no choice.
Born who? What? Parents.
Be human.
This was the death of humanity, what's happening in Gaza for the last 14, 15 months, and the whole thing was inside job created by..
And next is the speaker with a phone number ending in 538.
Oh, where'd you go? Oh, hold on.
There you go.
Phone number ending in 538.
Press star 6 to unmute.
Are you there? Phone number ending in 538.
Press star 6 to unmute.
Oh, they lowered their hand.
Okay.
Next is Madeline's iPhone.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Can you hear me? Yes.
Hi there.
My name is Madeline Rich.
I'm a Berkeley High alum from the class of 2012.
I'm calling about a matter that will be in front of you two months from now.
It's the appeal regarding the redevelopment at 2274 Shattuck Avenue otherwise known as the United Artists Cinema.
I just wanted to say this is an historically protected building.
It's on the California Register of Historic Places.
Therefore, it should absolutely not be exempt from CEQA.
So planning and ZAB issued a decision that legally is unsound.
And I will ask all the city council members to request the two peer-reviewed historical reports that were commissioned by planner Sharon Gong, both by ranking consultants on June 21st and August 2nd, those are the dates of the reports, that clearly share with planning that this is not a CEQA-exempt project whatsoever because it's historically protected.
Those reports, I might add, were not disclosed to the public despite many requests from our group, nor were they shared with ZAB, and they are nowhere to be seen in the staff report.
So for all intents and purposes, those peer reviews paid for by Berkeley taxpayers were withheld from the public and clearly demonstrate that this building..
Final speaker on Zoom is Russ.
Russ, you could unmute to speak.
Alrighty.
Hello there, folks.
Russell Bates here.
It's interesting to watch the people returning to Gaza, North Gaza, after the Zionists have destroyed and upended them over and over again, killing them, murdering them, destroying their homes and families.
Community is a wonderful thing.
And there's a community of Nathan Harrison also that has been kicked around, shoved around, and pushed around.
And they are people and they are community.
I was fortunate enough to be there Sunday documenting the help community members were given to the unhoused community there.
And I'm honored to be a part of that community.
And I would suggest very strongly that provision be made to take a look at cleanup that went on there, how community members helped, and how community members will stand by them in their times of need.
Sanctuary City should apply to unhoused people as well.
Thank you.
Okay.
That's all the non-agenda public commenters for the portion at the beginning.
Of course, there's at the end as well.
Yeah, that's exactly what I was going to say.
Thank you very much.
No, no, I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Do we have any public comment by employee unions? This also happens the first regular meeting of the month.
So this comment period is comments from unions, but not if you're speaking to an item on the agenda.
It's if you're a delegated representative of a city employee union to speak about union issues.
Okay.
Okay.
We will be moving on to the consent calendar then.
And I will now take, we will now take public comment on consent calendar and information items only.
Do the council discussion first and if anything wants to be moved on or off.
Thank you.
Yes.
Shall we? Do folks have comments? Okay.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
I didn't have, oh, Mayor, I guess there's a, the union representative who's on Zoom, but I don't.
Oh, Jocelyn DeSena.
Okay.
Thank you, Sarah.
Sorry.
So we missed a comment from a union representative on Zoom.
So folks, we will be hearing from that union representative.
Okay.
Jocelyn DeSena, you should be able to unmute.
Thank you so much.
Can you hear me? Yes.
Okay.
Great.
My name is Jocelyn.
I am the COPE coordinator for the CSU PTRLA chapter of SEIU 1021 and I'm a Berkeley community member and I'm a Jewish person of conscience.
And while I'm proud to be a public health worker here in the city of Berkeley, I'm not speaking in my capacity as a city employee.
What I am expressing is about the Peace and Justice Commission's resolution, and this is the official position of my local SEIU 1021, which represents about 60,000 workers in Northern California in healthcare, public sector, libraries, education, et cetera.
We have a proud history of standing with oppressed people worldwide, and we are committed to using our union power to further justice and collective liberation.
We are unflagging in our solidarity with the people of Palestine, Congo, Sudan, and Haiti, and we do not plan to dial back or tone down any of that anytime soon.
These are SEIU 1021's core values.
Some of you who have been here for a while have noticed that my chapter has dedicated a portion of our union comments month after month to urge the Berkeley City Council to take a principled stance and adopt a basic ceasefire resolution.
When back in December 2023, SEIU 1021 passed our resolution calling for a ceasefire, humanitarian aid, and an end to the occupation of Palestine, part of what we resolved is to use our union power to hold our elected officials accountable.
Since that time, we have not rested.
SEIU 1021 passed a resolution to divest our union dues from fossil fuels, weapons manufacturing, and private prisons, and we adopted that as an ethical investment policy.
Our rank and file members, political staff, and executive board have joined with other unions and the Alameda Labor Council to play an instrumental role in the Alameda County Supervisor's historic decision to direct their treasurer to create an ethical investment policy and in his decision to divest from Caterpillar.
We have passed a ceasefire resolution at the level of SEIU International, which represents 2 million workers, and SEIU International has joined with some of the other major unions to call for an arms embargo.
I list these accomplishments not to brag, although I am very proud of my union, but to demonstrate that our members are determined and steadfast, and we're not going anywhere on this.
Mayor Ishii, I appreciate that in our Alameda County COPE interview with you, you spoke frankly that a resolution on Palestine should have happened a long time ago, and myself and other SEIU 1021 members would love to meet with you and talk about how we can work together to get a true principled resolution passed, which the Peace and Justice Commission has already laid out for you.
Berkeley has fallen pretty embarrassingly behind on this.
Frankly, the prior mayor and council have sullied our legacy of taking a bold stance on apartheid South Africa, and they've allowed us to fall further and further onto the wrong side of history.
Thankfully, the Peace and Justice Commission has the moral courage to try to right Berkeley's course on this as late as we are to the game at this point, so I am urging you, this current council, to remedy this.
Make this a priority and act swiftly.
Do not carve up this resolution by bowing to the misguided bullies who will try to insert language that normalizes apartheid.
Council members, I can assure you that SEIU 1021 will continue to show up and put on the pressure.
You have seen us fill this room with a sea of purple to capacity and into the overflow room to stand up for the rights of city workers, and we will stand up for the rights of workers worldwide.
We are organized.
We are not going anywhere.
SEIU 1021 will continue to fight on this, and when we fight, we win.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
We've added you to our list.
Appreciate it.
Council member? Yes.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
I am number two, though, so I don't want to..
I called on you earlier.
Oh, okay, so we're going to do it.
Okay, so I don't have any comments on the consent calendar, but I would like to ask that we also adjourn in memory of Gwen McNeil.
Gwendolyn McNeil, popularly known as Gwen, sadly perished as a result of an early morning fire on February 3rd at her home on 10th and Cedar Street.
Gwen and her mother, Lovie, moved to that house in 1974.
Gwen attended Berkeley schools, graduated from Berkeley High School, and later became an accountant.
Gwen raised her daughter, Tequila Warner, in that house and often cared for her grandson, Joshua, who lived there part-time as well.
The family is close, and daughter Tequila became a caretaker to her mother, Gwen, who had mobility challenges after a surgery.
Gwen also struggled with dementia.
The fire ignited in Gwen's mother's bedroom, Lovie's bedroom, and despite her burns, what's been reported is that Lovie was able to make it out of her room and wake up other family members before collapsing, and sadly, Gwen's room was in the opposite direction.
Firefighters arrived to rescue the family and were able to get them all out of the house, including their small dog, and to Highland Hospital.
Gwen and the dog ultimately did not survive, and Lovie McNeil remains in intensive care in San Jose.
Tequila, the daughter of Gwen, has set up a GoFundMe campaign to defray funeral costs for Gwen, and if you're interested in contributing, the link is available on Berkeley's side, and there's also a memorial to Gwen McNeil near the Holmes Back entrance on 10th Street for those who want to pay their respects.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much, and I am also mistaken.
I meant to also include UC Berkeley sociology professor and traffic violence victim in Oakland, Michael Buraway, so my apologies.
We unfortunately have many adjournments in memory this evening.
Yes, next we have Council Member Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I have just one comment on the consent calendar, and it has to do with item 7.
Refer to City Manager's Study of Intersections with Traffic Diverters.
After the most recent heartbreaking fatal crash which took the life of our neighbor Elise Lusk, our office and the offices of Council Members O'Keefe and Blackaby sprung into action to prepare an item requesting the review of intersections similar to the one at which Elise was killed, and may her memory be a blessing.
These are barrier intersections with no stop signs or other traffic calming measures installed.
The intersections can be perceived by drivers as functioning like slip lanes, potentially making drivers incorrectly believe that they can speed through them on a wide curve.
I see this every day in my neighborhood at Russell and Piedmont.
We need to bear down with all force to end the traffic violence on our streets.
Measure FF is a mandate in that regard.
It passed overwhelmingly, but before those funds come in, we need to continue a pace to do whatever we can to protect the lives of pedestrian cyclists and drivers as well.
This is just one more step in that direction, and our goal is Vision Zero.
Daylighting intersections pursuant to ordinance and state law is another, and in general correcting our intersections that in any respect have the potential for high-speed turns where the turn radius is too wide.
My own beloved wife Karin was almost hit, and had she been hit, she would have been seriously injured, days ago by a driver turning at speed from westbound Ashby to southbound Piedmont.
The intersection where Sharon Spence was killed so many years ago in 1999 as she crossed, she was crossing a different link of the intersection in her wheelchair.
It's a big intersection with too much asphalt and rounded corners, and we see lots of those in Berkeley, and there's an RRFB flashing beacons installed there, which took us years to get installed after Sharon was killed, but the fact that there is a marked pedestrian crossing there did not slow this driver down.
Slip right turns are another risk for people walking, usually in my view, elevating convenience and time savings for drivers over pedestrian life and limb.
I know in some cases they may be necessary for buses, but they need to be modified, and we are starting with the first level priority project of redesigning and reconstructing the slip turn at Zachary's Corner.
Thanks a lot.
That's all I have now on the consent calendar.
Thank you, Council Member.
Can I move to Council Member O'Keefe, please? Thank you, Mayor.
I also want to thank Council Member Humbert for your comments and also for authoring that item, which I'm honored to co-sponsor along with Council Member Blackaby.
It's an important but sadly too late improvement in safety that I nonetheless hope will make our streets safer for pedestrians going forward, and while I obviously support this item, I'd like to name that it's reactive rather than proactive, and I want to call for a renewed commitment to finding ways to using our resources and resources to make our streets safer and to prevent tragedies like the deaths of Elyse Lusk and of Ben Brown and so many others.
So thank you very much.
Thank you, Council Member.
Council Member Lunapara.
Thank you.
I have two quick comments.
On item 6, it's so exciting to see how many people came out to support it.

Segment 2

It is my great pleasure to be joined by Councilmember Matreya to support this item, which encourages the state to study a not-for-profit public utility model.
Shifting power back to the hands of the public ensures a community-driven approach to energy, one that puts people's needs first, not profit.
Berkeley will remain unwavering in its commitment to building a resilient state in the face of climate disaster, and thank you, Councilmember Matreya, for co-authoring this important initiative.
Thank you very much, Councilmember Tregub.
Thank you so much.
I am pleased to co-author item 6, along with Councilmember Lunaparra.
I also want to express my thanks to community members coming out today.
The failures of PG&E and the broader investor-owned utility model demonstrate the urgent need for alternatives that prioritize public interest over shareholder power.
The Golden State Energy Act was already signed into law in 2020, and was a critical first step in planning to replace investor-owned utilities such as PG&E with a more affordable, sustainable, and affordable utility model.
The Golden State Energy Act was already signed into law in 2020, and was a critical first step in planning to replace investor-owned utilities such as PG&E with a more affordable, sustainable, and public-serving utility model.
As California accelerates its transition to a clean energy future, it is imperative that the state moves beyond investor-owned utilities toward a more democratic and resilient energy model.
We have an opportunity tonight to join our neighbors in Richmond and San Francisco and other municipalities to help drive this transition forward by advocating for structural reforms and ensuring that all residents have access to safe, affordable, and clean electricity.
And just in anticipation of what might come up tonight, I just want to clarify that this is a letter to Sacramento, to our legislators in Sacramento and the governor, in support of any potential implementing legislation or study bills.
It does not propose any changes to Berkeley's specific model.
And so I just wanted to clarify that.
All clean power to the people.
Thank you.
Thank you all so much.
I also just wanted to voice my support for Item 7 and actually ask to be added as a co-sponsor as well, if that's okay with you, Council Member Humber.
Unfortunately, we have four.
Oh, you do? Oh, yes.
Thank you.
All right.
Okay.
Well, in that case, any other comments? All right.
Then I will take comments from the public specifically on consent and information items.
Excuse me.
Hello.
Oh, thank you.
I apologize for being late.
I'm not necessarily here to comment on the consent item.
I'm sorry, but this is actually the time to just speak about consent and information items.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Okay.
But I'm here to comment on the state of the city.
There's actually a time at the end where you can comment about non-agenda items.
I want to be really conscious of the fact that we have a lot of staff that are waiting to present, and it's already 7.30.
So if you can wait, please, for your comment.
This is just for consent and information items only.
Actually, I can't wait.
I can't wait because..
I would like to ask you to wait then, please.
We are in emergency.
Thank you so much for being here.
I do appreciate your..
I'm sure you can, but I really want to give folks an opportunity to speak.
I have asked my own representative, Igor, to support..
Can I ask that you have this conversation at another point? Because we have many people who are here to speak about these consent items, and I want to be respectful of their time as well.
Thank you very much.
I really appreciate you being here, and we..
I know that you've spoken to some of our staff about this before, and I'm going to ask that you actually speak with them again.
They're actually waiting right there just to speak with you, right behind you.
Excuse me, ma'am.
I'm so sorry.
Can you please..
She has not started that fund.
She has not done that for us.
Ma'am, will you please speak with our staff that are back here, please? They're waiting to speak with you.
They're trying to get your attention.
They're right here.
Why don't you sit with them, and they will chat with you.
Oh, my God.
Oh, okay.
You know what? I'm sorry, but it's not appropriate to use profanity during this meeting, and I know that our city manager has actually spoken with you already, ma'am.
I had my computer taken, and I have not been able to go and get it back.
Marion, there are many people who are waiting to speak.
I'd like to..
Same thing.
I'd like to ask that you speak with our staff.
And actually, this is Council Member Trae Gubbs, chief of staff right here, who is ready to speak with you.
So thank you so much for your comments.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you for being here.
She's going to speak with you now.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Please, I'm sure you do, and thank you for being here.
Appreciate it.
Thank you, Olga.
Maybe you can unhook the..
Thank you.
All right.
All right.
To our next speaker on consent calendar and information items only.
Thank you.
Good evening, Council.
My name is Al Fortier.
I'm a senior assistant business manager with IBEW 1245.
And I rise to speak against consent item number six and request that you move it out of consent and put it on the agenda so that you can vote on it.
The Golden State Energy Statewide Utility System, the resolution asks that the state spends valuable resources to study the plan to take over private utilities under the guise of providing better rates for customers.
The point of fact is that the increased rates in electric and gas has been largely attributed to the hardening and grid protection efforts against climate change, and the costs will still be incurred by the state, even if it does switch over to a state-owned utility.
A state takeover does nothing to address the dangers associated with climate change and, in fact, would subject the state to a huge liability that both private and public utilities face currently right now.
And so we represent 14,000 members at PG&E, and there's countless thousands of other members represented at PG&E.
It's a strong union density company.
Thank you.
And I rise to speak against consent item number six and request that you not harm union workers by taking over the state-owned, privately-owned utility.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
I'm offended by that, and I want my time back for seven, eight, nine seconds.
I want to start my time now.
So happy Berkeley.
I mean, happy Black Herstory slash History Month.
And I wanted to talk to item number six.
Yes, it's on the consent calendar, so I don't need to put that much time into that.
But we're in a heap of trouble.
We have a fascist in the White House, a Nazi salute at the inauguration.
Did you see that council member from District 3 who went to the inauguration? Did you see him do the salute? It doesn't surprise me that you went to 47 swearing in, but you have the audacity to attend the most racist fascist, not my president, who is a sex offender, has 34 felonies, and is dismantling this country's foundation, and is anti-Black, anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant, anti-disability, anti-poor, anti-homeless, anti-Palestinian.
I pray for all those, including you, that have been fooled by believing he cares about your stupid behind, because he doesn't.
Can you wrap up your sentence, please? Thank you, council member, for your comments.
You're not welcome.
I'm not done.
So I'll be done in two seconds.
I appreciate your comments.
I will really be respectful.
We're in Palestine, from the river to the sea.
Hi, there.
Can you hear me? My name's Robert Hodges.
I want to comment on item 7.
I've lived for the last 24 years in the house where Elise Lust grew up.
My kids went to school at Martin Luther King, where Ben Brown was killed a couple months ago.
I live two blocks from where Julia Elkin was killed on Oxford and Marin.
All of these places still look the same as they did when those terrible accidents took place.
So my comment on item 7 is, where are the actions that will fix this problem tomorrow? What can we do tomorrow? What can we do next week? What can we do next month that will get these problems fixed and stop people from being killed and injured? Thank you very much for allowing me to speak.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Next speaker.
Hello.
My name is Travis Shabriel.
I'm here to speak on item 6.
The investor-owned utility model is structured such that whenever PG&E builds anything, we have to pay for their profits.
A not-for-profit utility would take that out.
I just want to speak to the comment that our brother over at IBEW made about how it's anti-worker.
The vision for transitioning our utility system is worker-centered.
All benefits that workers currently enjoy would be sustained if not improved upon.
This item is really focused on studying what the possibilities are and trying to determine what is in the best interest of the people of California.
You can argue against a change that you don't like, but to get more information is a beautiful thing for a healthy democracy.
I support calling for this study and knowing that it's worker-centered.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello and good evening, Councilmembers and Mayor.
I'm speaking on item number 6.
I'm Hernando Sanchez, an energy democracy organizer with the Local Clean Energy Alliance.
I urge the City of Berkeley to pass the Golden State Energy Resolution, which will significantly benefit our community.
PG&E has consistently failed us using their public safety power shutoff program to avoid necessary repairs while leaving communities without power for weeks during high-risk conditions.
This has resulted in medical emergencies, spoiled food, lost income, and an estimated $2.5 billion cost to Californians.
Golden State Energy offers a safe, reliable alternative that prioritizes grid upgrades and infrastructure investment.
Unlike PG&E, it will not implement power shutoffs, ensuring communities can access essential services and renewable energy.
Energy is a human right, and everyone deserves equitable access.
We urge you to support Golden State Energy, which represents energy justice, democracy, and community resilience.
Thank you, and clean power to the people.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Megan, and I organize with the Party of Socialism and Liberation.
I'm also here in support of Resolution 6 in the feasibility study for Golden State Energy.
PG&E customers, I'm one of them.
We pay the highest rates in the country, and we are still reeling from the devastating impacts of previous fires.
SB 350, which is moving towards worker-owned, worker-centered Golden State Energy, this feasibility study supports that.
And we believe that energy should be owned by the people, not by the shareholders.
And we also believe that, as part of Golden State Energy, we should be responsible for the directors that oversee our ratepayer hikes.
CPUC passed six ratepayer hikes last year.
We are tired of the ratepayer hikes.
We are looking for more just, more clean, more worker-centered energy.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I think our final in-person speaker.
Hi, my name is Jeff Baker, and I'd like to speak on item number 10 that's in the information.
It is a landmark notification of decision, and I would like to ask you to please move it to the action calendar so that you can exercise your proper oversight of the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
This is an improper attempt to stall development in what will become the San Pablo Avenue specific plan, where we are undergoing two years of public comment and review in order to produce a better plan.
And then as soon as any building appears to be on the market for development, the landmarks people swoop in and landmark it.
One of the items that is supposedly landmarked in this decision is the one-story massing, which is a totally inappropriate exercise of the landmark ordinance.
So I ask you to please move it to the action calendar.
Sorry, were you referring to information report item number 10 or? 25th Avenue San Pablo.
12th.
12th, okay.
Sorry, I was just trying to figure out what item you're referring to.
Okay.
Do we have online comments? Yes.
We have nine hands raised.
The first is Samuel Siegel.
You have one minute.
Hi, I'm Sam Siegel, a Cal alum and member of Save the UA Berkeley, not commenting on anything on the agenda tonight.
Just expressing my support for the appeal of the project at 2274 Shattuck, and expressing interest in the council looking into ways to rejuvenate such a landmark into a really needed community space for opera, theater, music concerts, comedy shows, lectures, what may have you.
Hi, sorry, these are actually, it's supposed to be comments on consent and information items only.
Okay.
Next up is Ren Fitzgerald.
Good evening, Council.
Ren Fitzgerald, Transportation and Infrastructure Commission Chair and Board Member for Telegraph for People.
I'm speaking strongly in support of Council Members Humbert, O'Keefe, and Blackabay's item on traffic diverters, item 7.
As you know, the Berkeley community lost a neighbor, 66-year-old Elyse Lusk, after a driver killed her while turning at the intersection of Ada and California streets.
This intersection has a traffic diverter intended to calm traffic and keep our neighbors safe.
While it tragically took a neighbor's death to assess the efficacy of these diverters without other improvements, now is the time to act.
Please vote yes on item 7 in honor of Elyse and to save future lives.
Additionally, please vote in favor of item 6, supporting Golden State Energy, an initiative that could save lives as well and restore economic power in everyday Californians.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, I guess we have some more in-person speakers.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
I know you were standing up there earlier, so.
Is everybody who's standing against the wall in line to speak or no? Okay.
Thank you.
I hope I didn't start a trend.
Go ahead.
What were the traffic diverters? I came up to speak to somebody else with the traffic diverters.
I'm on a bicycle, and most things do not help.
I'm just waiting for the day where I'm going to hit one of those things.
Anyway, I'm really in favor of moving the energy thing to the consent.
I mean, the action agenda item thing.
I think I remember these places back east.
I think Boston was a long time ago teaching college up there.
And they had their own municipal scheme.
So you plugged into the municipal scheme, and that was your energy.
I was on campus, and there's a big dig happening.
I couldn't figure out why the dig was happening.
But actually, what they're doing there is pumping heat into the hill in the summertime and taking the heat out in the wintertime.
Amazing.
The same kind of thing.
Okay, bye.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
I'm Fran.
I'm a Berkeley resident in district 3, an organizer with East Bay Democratic Socialists of America and a PG&E rate payer.
I have a comment on resolution 6.
I am an environmental economist by training.
I've run thousands of climate model simulations.
I have a commitment to the future.
I believe that we are on the right pathway.
We will continue to experience escalating climate disasters until we dramatically reduce carbon pollution.
PG&E is one of the largest carbon polluters in California.
PG&E lobbied to gut net energy metering and California's rooftop solar industry, destroying thousands of good jobs.
I would like to start by thanking the board of trustees, she and council members.
Thank you all so much for your time and community.
My name is Colin cook Miller.
I'm communications organizer with the reclaim our power utility justice campaign.
Resolution that you all have before you to vote on this evening is a really important next step in achieving a more safe, reliable, affordable, resilient.
Equitable and just energy system.
And I just want to name that without needing to generate dividends for shareholders, a new utility that's not for profit could actually lower rates for everyone.
And I want to be crystal clear that as a campaign, and as a coalition, we are committed to ensuring that the transition to a new not for profit utility is just and worker centered.
And that is currently unionized workforce must be protected through any transition.
That working conditions and pay tensions must all be as good or better under a new utility than they have been under PG&E.
Clean power to the people.
Thank you.
Council members, thank you for your time.
I would.
My name is only John.
I'm the lead organizer with you have deep Bay area action, which is a climate advocacy group here in the Bay area.
And I just wanted to echo the sentiments of my friends and colleagues here in support of a consent item 6.
We believe that PG&E has a monopoly, has too much power, and they should not be making the profit off of our backs when we are paying for the fires and the destruction that they have caused and that we are strongly in favor of a bill or some kind of action from the state legislature.
And I just wanted to echo the sentiments of my friends and colleagues here in support of a bill or some kind of action from the state legislature that would require them to study what it would actually take to do the complicated job of transitioning us away from PG&E and towards a system that where the money came back to the community rather than going into the pockets of the shareholders and the CEO.
Thank you very much.
So, as you probably know, for PG&E, any mitigation measures that would hurt shareholder profits tend to be avoided.
And then PG&E only takes actions that it can raise rates for.
And so this results in all kinds of terrible decisions.
It results in decisions that have a really large environmental impact when there are alternatives that could, such as infrastructure improvements that could prevent wildfires much better.
And so PG&E makes terrible decisions, starts fires, creates unnecessary power shutoffs to homes, and we need a new system to avoid that.
So we're in a climate emergency, and Resolution 6 addresses or would give support to a transition that would address economic, social, and climate justice issues.
I urge you all to support that.
Thank you.
Hi, thank you for holding this council.
My name is Garrett, and I'm from UC Berkeley, and I am here to support Item 6 on PG&E's transition over to golden energy power.
I've heard so much about the wildfires that have been started by negligence or inability for PG&E to take initiative and build out protection for that and build up the infrastructure necessary in advance.
And it would be really, it would be great if there was some way to improve that process and actually transition over to a system that would incentivize more repairs and prevent those types of things from happening in the future.
All right, thank you.
Thank you.
Hello.
My name is Julian Carney, and I'm here for consent number 7.
I just came here to see about consent 7.
I'm a friend and relative of Elyse Lusk.
You know, I visited where the accident happened, and I don't know if any of you have been there.
Council Member Hubbard, you spoke on slip lanes.
I've never heard of such a thing, but when I visited, I've never experienced such a drastic set up.
And the man that was here earlier said he's seen these and they haven't changed over years.
And it's unbelievable that something like that would be set up in the city so senseless with no stops, no lights, no anything.
I think all of you should visit where this accident happened to see how devastating place that is.
Thank you and understand how senseless of a death and how many families affected by this.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
I'm so sorry for your loss.
Hi, my name is Jane and I, my husband and I live on the corner of Ada and California Street.
We heard the accident and to reiterate what Julian said, you should all go visit it.
And please, our neighborhood pleads with you to do something about it and sooner than later.
Okay, because that could have been averted that didn't need to happen.
Okay.
Thank you.
I didn't plan to speak.
So anyway, please.
I don't know why it should take so long.
There are no crosswalks there.
No stop signs, nothing and it's right by the Monterey market.
So it's a very busy intersection.
So please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
My name is Jackie and I work with the reclaim our power campaign and I want to speak in support of item 6.
And this was a 36% increase from the same period a year ago.
Got that chooses to make the most expensive, but unnecessary infrastructure investments.
Not only that, and these are just some of the reasons why I ask for your support of this resolution.
Do you realize that when you pay your bill that you're paying for their advertising and their lobbying? Thank you so much for your comments.
Thank you so much for your comments.
I know it feels really rude, but I want to be able to speak to this because they're paying for the advertising and their lobbying.
Thank you.
Through the passing of the a B10 54, Eugenie was able to pass on all wildfire mitigation costs.
Thank you so much.
I apologize for interrupting folks.
I know it feels really rude, but I want to be respectful of everyone who wants to make a comment and and also our staff who are who stay quite late for these meetings.
So, thank you so much, but please our next speaker.
You have a minute to speak.
Hi, my name's Owen brings up.
Yeah, I'm a local Berkeley resident with a long fellow middle school Berkeley high school graduate with the former JV head football coach at Berkeley.
I started yellow jacket heating and cooling services, which only installs heat pumps in the local community.
The new name is now 188 heat pumps.
And so doing this item here for PG and transitioning over would lower the cost of electricity, which would help our company grow and kind of build this.
Tool belt generation as I'd like to look at it into, like, electrification and all that.
So just want to say that part.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Enthusiastic sign waivers in the back we, I know we still have some comments online.
Could you just give me a sense of how many are left just so I can keep track currently 7 hands raised.
Thank you.
1st up is Christopher crawl.
Hi there, thank you.
I just, I won't take very long.
I just I'm here on item 6.
I want to thank council members.
It's really important that Berkeley.
Please support item 6 and encourage our representatives in Sacramento to work to create a real, a real public energy city.
The 19th century, early 20th century investor owned utility model that represents, which is not in the best interest of the people of California, much less the people of Berkeley.
So please support item 6 and encourage our representatives in Sacramento to work to create a real, a real public energy.
Entity that serves the people of California golden state energy.
Thank you very much.
Okay, next is Daniel.
Hi, my name is Daniel.
I'm the resident district 8 board member of 350 Bay area and a member of the environment and climate commission.
I'm speaking in support of item 6.
we know that 1 of the biggest impediments to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is the cost of electricity.
PG rates as other commenters mentioned are appallingly high, and this puts technologies like and heat pumps, which are otherwise incredibly energy efficient at a substantial cost disadvantage to their fossil fuel counterparts.
And given that we're decreasingly able to rely on regulation to mandate greenhouse gas.
Reductions the absolute least we can do is try to unstack the deck against the green transition.
The commenter from earlier mentioned that a lot of the cost increases are largely due to hardening and addressing climate change.
And while that may be true, the profit motive and profit structure appear here in various ways, like, opting for more expensive alternatives, like, under grounding instead of preventative maintenance, like, treatment and trimming.
Um, and so, um, you know, we see SMUD has some of the lowest rates in the state.
I think we have a good example here and I urge you to pass this resolution.
Thank you.
Next is surely Kirsten.
Okay, I want.

Segment 3

Thank Councilmember Humbert in particular for his valuable support of a stop sign installation on Hopkins McGee.
This ties into item seven, but it took a lot of years to get it.
Thank you for thanking Councilmember O'Keefe for responding to the issue of big rig delivery trucks on Hopkins illegally parking by the daylight in red lines that were blocking the stop sign.
Now it's time to continue these pivotal pedestrian safety actions for Ada and California and other traffic diverter intersections, but particularly right now for Ada, California, which is unsafe not only in the area where Elise Lusk was killed, but also the other side is just as dangerous.
So the whole area needs to be not just researched, but there needs to be immediate action.
And I thank you for taking immediate action.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next is Daniel Brownson.
Hello.
Can you hear me? Yes.
So I grew up, I'm a union man myself.
I grew up in Alameda and first rented and paid power bills there before moving into the PG&E empire.
They have public power.
My power bill in a less efficient, less modern apartment was half of what it costs in a PG&E area.
Not only that, their public utility is way greener than PG&E and unlike PG&E, hasn't killed anyone.
Which if PG&E was a person, it would be guilty of mass murder.
Let's face it.
There's no sane argument for keeping this profit-centered model around.
The guy from the IBEW is a class traitor who should be ashamed of himself for being a..
Let's keep the insults out of the comments, please.
Next is Alice Sung.
Yes.
Thank you.
Can you hear me? Yes.
My name is Alice Sung.
I'm an architect and sustainability consultant, and I'm also a PG&E rate payer here on unceded territory.
We've heard a lot about all of the harms of PG&E and investor owned utility monopolies, the rate hikes, the profit margins, utility shutoffs for non-payment, the deaths, the wildfires, the outages, the PSPS events, degrading infrastructure and connection issues, suppression of climate action and renewables and solar.
I just want to say that you have this golden opportunity and I want to thank the city council mayor for support for progressive climate change action.
And you have this opportunity to support item number six in the consent calendar tonight for the reasons, you know, half a dozen reasons for the safety that a non-profit public benefits corporation could offer us, reliability, the renewable, 100% renewable and distributed energy.
So I just want to offer my support and thank you for your leadership.
Okay.
Next is B-E-B-R.
Thank you so much.
Good evening, mayor and members of the council.
My name is Brett Bedell, and I represent PG&E along with thousands of hardworking coworkers who take pride in showing up every single day to make sure that we are serving our hometowns, right? And we do that with pride.
And, you know, PG&E, we do not support the idea of the statewide public utility.
And we really believe that this type of ownership framework would not benefit taxpayers.
It would not benefit local communities or California's economy.
And so I would really like to, you know, let you know that a state or local attempt to take over PG&E assets, especially when we're thinking about the recent wildfires in Southern California, this will mean increased state taxpayer liability in case of fires that are caused by equipment owned by a government run utility such as this.
And so to be clear, a government run utility could not access the statewide wildfire fund that protects victims right now.
It would also create a significant fiscal burden, imposing tens of billions of dollars in long-term debt.
And specifically when speaking about the city of Berkeley.
Thank you.
Next is Linda Klein.
Good evening, council members.
My name is Linda Klein.
I'm a resident of District 5.
I wanted to speak about item number 12, which was the landmark decision regarding 2500 to 2512 San Pablo Avenue.
I represent the owner of that building.
I want to echo what Mr.
Baker said that the character defining features are not well supported.
The one-story height in particular will prevent redevelopment of San Pablo Corridor, which the owner has some plans related to that.
The owner is not opposed to keeping the façade, which is a very handsome building.
Also, I just wanted to say that I filed an appeal on January 31st of a landmark decision and didn't see that mentioned in the information report.
Thank you.
Okay, the last speaker is Eduardo.
Eduardo, I see you're unmuted.
You should be able to speak.
Eduardo, you're unmuted, but we can't hear you.
Let's see.
Eduardo, are you there? Hello, can you hear me? Yes, yes, we can.
All right, thank you.
Yes, I'm calling in a Berkeley resident here urging support for item number six.
I really strongly urge the city council to support this item, and I also urge the city council not only to stop at calling for a feasibility study at the state level, but also would urge the city council to look into a feasibility study at the local level.
We see our neighbors in Alameda and in Sacramento who have municipal controlled energy systems.
They pay half the rates that we do.
I think residents are tired of seeing our bills go up with no end in sight and our leaders not doing anything about it.
So, I urge you to also take action at the local level and commission a feasibility study on Berkeley creating its own municipal power system.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
That's all the speakers.
Thank you so much.
I have council member Taplin actually on here first.
Thank you and thank you, everyone.
To the gentleman from IBEW, I would be happy to meet with you to discuss the concerns of your local if you can get in touch with my office.
I don't have any staff here, but I'm pretty easy to find.
Or if you have a card, I'm happy to take that, but I would love to discuss further your concerns and the concerns of your local.
Thank you.
Council member Casarwani.
Thank you very much.
I just want to acknowledge some of the we heard two public commenters on the 2500-12 San Pablo Avenue landmarking decision and I just want to say for the record that it has been appealed as we heard and that will be scheduled.
So, that's I just wanted to put that in the public record.
Thank you very much.
Yes, thank you very much.
So, I believe now we've finished council comments and also public comments.
Is there a motion? So moved.
Okay, to approve the consent.
To approve the consent with all the supplementals.
Thank you.
And is there a second? Second.
Okay, should we do the roll or are folks as long as there's no as long as there are no objections, I will have us listed all as ayes to approve the consent.
Okay, great.
Thank you so much.
Thank you all so much.
Thank you all for your comments.
I do want to give us like a 10-minute bio break.
I know we're really trying to model self-care and health here and so I think it's good for us to take a break, have a stretch, drink some water, go to the bathroom.
Thank you all for being here.
We're going to take a 10-minute recess.
It is recording stopped.
Hello, there we go.
Hey folks, we're going to get we're going to get started.
If folks could take their seats please.
Recording in progress.
Council members, if I could have you return.
Council Member Trageb.
Council Member.
Thank you.
All right.
Trying to get us going here.
All right.
So I'd like to call our meeting back into session.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate getting to take a little break before moving on to our action calendar.
Oh, okay.
Sorry.
So do we have any public comment? Let's hear the staff report.
Let's hear the staff report.
Thank you.
Yes.
Yes.
From our auditor's office, we have a presentation.
We are now on action calendar.
Thank you.
Item number 8, 2009.
Lisa's audit follow-up.
Yes.
And thank you for reminding me.
So our city auditor, Jenny Wong, will be presenting remotely.
So thank you so much for joining us, auditor.
Hi, good evening.
And thank you for letting me do this remotely.
I've got a not feeling well and hopefully on the mend.
So I just wanted to start and just make a quick comment that at a time of, you know, really the gutting of oversight at the federal level, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the values of this city in Berkeley that I work in, in supporting my office and the work on oversight and accountability.
And with that, I wanted to launch right into this presentation of our 2009 Lisa's audit follow-up.
And so on January 24, my office released a special follow-up report on the 2009 audit of the city's leases.
Tonight, I will some highlights from that report.
I just want to make sure that you can all still see the presentation.
I actually can no longer see it.
We were seeing it.
Oh, there we go.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you so much.
And I've got my wonderful staff members with me, Caitlin Palmer and Polly Miller, who I want to thank for working on this audit.
So tonight, I'll share some highlights from our report that includes recommendations to help the city address some of the risks that still remain 16 years after the original audit from 2009.
I will also walk through why we did this follow-up report, our objectives, some background on city leases and licenses, our findings and recommendations, and management's response.
So why did we do this follow-up work? We issued this report because according to the Public Works Department's last proposal, the city never implemented seven of the 24 recommendations from the 2009 audit.
Excuse me.
We also found that the city did not follow through with its 2002 plan to centralize lease management.
And this raised concerns that the status of some of the previously implemented recommendations may have changed.
So the objectives of this report was to assess whether the recommendations from the original 2009 audit were implemented and to identify any remaining risks to the city around lease management.
How did we do that? We selected eight recommendations that were still relevant to follow up on.
And to get an update on the status, we reviewed policies and interviewed city staff responsible for lease management as well as look at some leases.
Since this was a follow-up with a more limited scope than our typical audits, we did not look at every example and every detail in depth.
The original audit findings were already substantiated and the recommendations were agreed upon.
So our purpose and our job with this report was to assess the extent to which these recommendations were implemented or not and identify areas of risk that still remain today.
So now let me give you a little background on what are city leases and licenses.
So the city rents space through these lease and license agreements.
In our report, we provide some detail on how these rental agreements differ.
But a key difference is that lease agreements typically allow a tenant exclusive rights of space for longer periods of time, while license agreements typically allow multiple tenants to share a space for shorter periods of time.
Licenses also allow a simpler process to end the agreement.
As you can see on the table, the city currently has at least 49 lease agreements and eight license agreements for outside entities to rent city-owned property.
We were not able to confirm the exact number of leases and licenses today because the city does not currently have a complete list.
We also know that the city rents property from other entities for its own uses, but we were not able to estimate that number.
And I just wanted to note that through the presentation, I'll be using the phrase lease management to cover both leases and licenses together, which are the two different ways that the city rents out space.
So, excuse me, to kind of give you an example of what these leases include.
So, the examples of buildings that the city rents out to other entities include Old City Hall, which is the image to your left, the Veterans Building, and the Telegraph Channing Mall, which is represented in the image on the right.
The city also rents properties to hotels, restaurants, and shops at the Berkeley Marina.
An example of a tenant that the city licenses to is Dorothy Day House for use of Old City Hall to operate the emergency storm shelter.
As an example of tenants, the city leases to are the shops and organizations located in the Telegraph Channing Mall, such as Moe's Flowers, Revolution Books, and We Wield the Hammer.
While we did not estimate the number of leases and licenses in which the city is the tenant, we weren't able to do that, one example of a building that the city leases from another entity is the Adult Mental Health Clinic on University Avenue.
So, let me get into what we found.
Our first finding is that the city still lacks a clear approach to lease management.
This finding and the other two next findings, the 2009 audit.
So, we found that there is still no central oversight for lease for city leases and the city is lacking a clear approach to lease management.
The staffing model for lease management has changed since the original audit.
The city had a real property administrator formerly in charge of citywide lease management, but this position was eliminated in fiscal year 2014.
As a result, as a result, there is currently no city staff person formerly responsible for central oversight of leases.
Limited staff capacity and a lack of clear direction from city management impact the city's ability to stay on top of its rental agreements.
What we did with this one was we reopened three recommendations under this finding to bring needed clarity to the city's lease management.
Recommendations 1.1 and 1.2 ask the city to formalize the management responsibilities between departments and establish the role of real property staff.
We suggest the city manager's office take the lead on defining these roles and to work with each department in managing leases to identify where additional staffing resources are needed.
And recommendation 1.5 asks the city to communicate a property management plan with all affected city departments.
We suggest the city manager's office request resources as needed to develop a property management plan to implement this recommendation.
On to our second finding.
The second finding is that the city's lease policy still does not accurately reflect its actual practices.
We found that the city's lease policy does not align with its actual lease, with its actual practices.
This can lead to variances in agreements, which we will cover in the next slide.
The city's lease policy is Administrative Regulation 6.6.
AR 6.6 assigns oversight of lease management to public works, which includes reviewing lease requests.
It also includes negotiating leases, and it also includes preparing lease agreements for city council approval.
Based on conversations with city staff, we learned that in actual practice, public works is not always consulted in the process of establishing leases.
As a result, public works may not know about leasing decisions until it is too late to provide direction on the lease terms, like responsibility for maintenance services.
We also identified gaps in the city's policy for guidance for leases.
For example, there's no process for establishing below-market-rate rent.
It was not clear why some nonprofits receive below-market-rate rent opportunities and others do not.
Below-market-rate opportunities may help nonprofits provide services as we know in our report.
However, we heard of examples in which the city rents out its own property at significantly below-market-rate but still pays for some or all utilities and other services, like maintenance.
According to staff, responsibilities for paying utilities and other fees is not always consistent across leases.
This helps to show how, with limited policies and procedures for developing rental agreements, rental agreements may vary significantly and the process could result in actual or perceived unfairness.
There's also no guidance on when to lease versus license city-owned property.
Regarding licensing, we learned from city staff that public works is moving towards optimizing use of city property by establishing more license agreements, which could allow tenants to co-occupy space.
However, this is not an adopted city-wide approach.
To address these issues, we reopened a recommendation to help promote a consistent process for establishing and managing lease agreements.
We ask that the city update its lease policy to give clear direction for developing lease agreements.
We suggest the City Manager's Office work with the City Attorney's Office to revise Administrative Regulation 6.6 to include guidance for when to lease and license city-owned property, establishing below-market-rate rent agreements, and establishing responsibility for utility and maintenance costs.
We also suggest that AR 6.6 is linked in Contracts Online once it has been added.
So, on to our third finding.
Our third finding is that there is no complete central inventory of leases.
We found that there is still no central inventory containing all leases and licenses.
The master list of city-wide leases and licenses we reviewed in Excel format was missing the following.
Lease agreements, including some leases managed by HHCS, and of the agreement list included in the spreadsheet, there were details such as property location, contract numbers, start and end dates, rent amounts, details on whether the city or the tenant is responsible for paying utilities and maintenance costs.
In our report, we highlight some of the challenges that can arise with no complete list of city leases.
First, an incomplete list can make it hard for the city to assess the costs and benefits of renting to or from other entities.
For example, the city-owned courthouse is rented to the Judicial Court of California for $1 or less per year, while the city pays BUSD $1,200 per day to host council meetings and other city-sponsored meetings.
Keeping information like rent amount in one central location could allow the city a more holistic understanding of these costs.
Second, without a complete list of leases and licenses, the city could lose track of property it could use to provide city services.
For example, a complete list may have helped the city keep track of 1890 Alcatraz.
According to Public Works, this is a city-owned building which the city leased to an organization and lost track of it for a period of time before it wanted to use the property again.
Finally, complete details like start and end dates, the city could be missing opportunities to adjust rent amounts to better cover costs or match the market rate.
This can occur when a lease extends beyond the end date without being renewed and go into this holdover, which means that it continues on a month-to-month basis until they are updated.
So, what we did was we reopened four recommendations under this finding to ensure the city can track important information about leases and licenses.
Recommendations 4.1, 3, and 4 asked the city to determine the information needed for a central repository of lease information to include relevant details about lease terms and make the inventory available to city staff so they can use it to make informed decisions.
We suggest Public Works meet with departments that manage leases to decide what information to include in the inventory, make it accessible, and set a schedule for updating information as needed.
Recommendation 8.2 asks the city to determine if existing systems can be used for a list of city leases.
We suggest the city manager work with departments managing leases to determine what additional resources are necessary for a new lease management system.
In response, City Management and the Department of Public Works agreed with our audit findings and guidance for implementation.
They provided a corrective action plan to address the reopened recommendations.
In response to our recommendations to formalize lease management and responsibilities for lease management citywide, the city has committed to developing written direction.
Public Works also plans to lead an interdepartmental team through the process of defining all relevant information needed and oversee the implementation of the lease tracking tool.
Additionally, Public Works will work with the city attorney's office to create a summary template that will become a mandatory part of all future leases and license agreements, including the data needed for the inventory.
We understand that implementing some recommendations may depend on additional resources, but we want to stress the importance of ensuring that the most important part is to start with maintaining a complete central list of leases and licenses.
Following through on these plans will strengthen the city's ability to effectively oversee its leases and licenses.
And finally, I want to extend gratitude towards the Department of Public Works and the city manager's office for their cooperation with this follow-up report.
Excuse me.
We also worked with the city attorney's office and the Department of Parks, Recreation and Waterfront on this project and would like to thank them as well.
Thank you so much, Auditor.
I really appreciate you being here despite being, I can tell, still quite sick.
I want to give Council an opportunity to ask any clarifying questions before moving on to public comment.
Does anyone have any questions? Okay.
Did you have a question, Council? Okay.
In that case, I actually, I saw Council Member Blackaby, and then I'll move it over to Council Member Draco.
Thank you, Mayor.
Auditor Wong, one question was just, I know you had challenges assembling the data on the leases because it was incomplete data.
Is there any kind of estimate of the total value of the leases? I'm just curious about the magnitude of the dollars because obviously it would give us a sense of, if you optimize that process, is there an opportunity to improve the economics? Sorry about that.
Yeah, that's a really good question.
Because the spreadsheet that we looked at and received in response to our request for the central list of leases was missing much information, we were really limited in our ability to conduct any kind of financial analysis.
There were fields for monthly and annual rent amounts, and they were almost all missing for the public works leases, and the financial information about the HHCS leases was missing as well.
So we were unfortunately unable to estimate any revenue amounts.
What we, I think that our recommendations and the agreement from management with regards to the recommendations is to track this information in a central repository and the recommendation to establish a schedule for updating this information to make sure that the list is up to date is going to be really important.
We also identify the additional fields that would be important in this centralized repository, including the market rate value for each property and so that we can, so that the city can conduct this kind of analysis and provide you with that type of information, Council Member.
I would just say that I think would also help justify, because I think in the report there's a sense that maybe there's more staffing support needed, and I'm always hesitant to add, you know, more staff in the absence of having an economic rationale, but knowing the magnitude of what's at stake obviously might make that a much easier decision in terms of how to staff it and allocate resources, so thank you.
Thank you.
Any, Council Member Trajkub, you have questions? Yeah, thank you so much, Madam Auditor.
I think my questions are for Paul or staff.
You know, I want to thank all of you for just, you know, working so closely with the Auditor to be responsive to these recommendations and reopen them.
I was hoping that we could get a quick overview of.

Segment 4

Your, you know, the short term and longer term implementation of how to remedy these findings.
And then, specifically, I'm wondering, and this is probably echoing Councilmember Blackabee's question or comment, well, some cities have a dedicated FTE or more specific to managing a real estate portfolio owned by the city.
It sounds like this has been a little ad hoc in Berkeley, maybe kind of across different departments.
And I'm wondering, and budgets are tight, and that's why I'm phrasing this as a question, if consideration has been given to perhaps having a dedicated individual or individuals that are responsible for lease agreements and other real estate portfolio.
So, I'm wondering if there's been any discussion about that type of questions and issues.
I'll defer to our public works director and real property manager who are at the table here on the process part of your question.
I can say, over time, as the auditor said, there have been different iterations and constellations of staff in charge of leases.
So, I'm wondering if there's been any discussion about that type of questions and issues that have been brought up to where we had centralized staff, maybe a couple of people, there was a recession or whatever, so it got decentralized and pushed down to the departments and to Councilmember Blackabee's question I think we can come back during the budget process and have information about what's the total value of the lease.
And I'm wondering if there's been any discussion about that type of questions and issues that have been brought up to where we had centralized staff, maybe a couple of people, there was a recession or whatever, so it got decentralized and pushed down to the departments and to Councilmember Blackabee's question I think we can come back during the budget process and have information about what's the total value of the lease and what's the cost of having those 1 or 2 FTEs so you can kind of balance those things against each other and then think of them in the context of all the other asks like, right before this, we had a request for a fire battalion chief.
We had a request for a more OT for fire.
There's a lot of competing priorities.
So we can put all that on the table and then have that conversation to the budget process.
But to your question about how the process works, I'll defer both Terrence and Dion to get a little bit more into the details of that.
Thank you, city manager, Terrence Davis, director of public works with me is Dion early who we refer to as our real property administrator.
I think that's a working title, so I'll speak to that a little bit just in terms of the FTE that we have in public works dedicated.
So, Councilmember to your broader question in terms of the work plan that we've put forth.
That the auditor has captured in the report essentially is there are some what I would call lower hanging fruit that's administrative in nature coordination communication kind of simple stuff that as an organization, we felt that in this calendar year, we could achieve.
So, you'll see some days that might seem slightly aggressive in June, July, and later in December, and that's really around creating this repository.
And that's just a fancy way to say, like, a really good spreadsheet, but having all the information in 1 place that has the detail and then from there, we can really build and look at other tools to determine how we want to go forward, whether it's at least management system, there's references to linking it to our financial system.
Obviously, those are much longer term objectives are 6.6 that the auditor also reference is the adopted policy.
I think.
2008 goes back to 1995 when it was originally written, maybe adopted in 2005 when I glanced through it.
So there's another opportunity working with the city manager to bring other departments, parks, rec, and waterfront, HHC as fire, et cetera, who utilize leases are also entering the leases through that update of 6.6.
There's another opportunity for us to really memorialize policy.
The last piece that is in our short term plan, and we had some conversations with the city attorney's office around and and have some support as as the city manager is around what we refer to as our boiler plates.
So that's how we enter into agreements so that regardless of whether it's centralized, any city employee who is negotiating or entering into a contract before those would come to the council.
It would all look the same.
Obviously, the terms would be subject to negotiation, but the actual kind of framework for that would all be consistent.
That doesn't exist quite right now.
We're moving in that direction and our most recent license agreements and leases have kind of, I think, illustrated the format that we want to utilize.
But there are some legacy agreements that are in hold over.
There are some other agreements that as we kind of uncover the details that go back many, many, many years with certain organizations, we have to kind of bring those agreements forward.
So that's it's an opportunity and that again will take a little bit longer, but in terms of actually creating the tool, the boilerplate or the template that ensures consistency.
Um, it's not an easy task.
There's some something involved in some resources from the city attorney's office and from some of the departments, but that is something that we think we can achieve relatively short term.
Thank you so much and this, this is probably for the city manager.
Um, will there be an opportunity to have a future touch point just updating us on how staff is working through implementing these recommendations? And so when might that be? Maybe this is a question for the mayor as well.
Yeah, yes, council member, they will, but I think it's probably.
City auditor Wong could help us with that too.
These audits do come back periodically for updates and when it comes back again for an update, we'll have more information on the status of all of the items that we're working on.
Thank you.
Just wanted to again, thanks staff.
Um, I, um.
And, you know, just to reiterate, I mean, we, I see ourselves as an oversight body in a way, but the purpose is not to critique.
It is to at least the way I see it to see how we can best support you in implementing these in an actionable and expeditious way.
And so I very much, thank you for this effort.
I think the city auditor and look forward to the next update.
Can I just quickly answer the next update? Thank you have we have our next update, I believe will be in fall of 2025.
so we want to make sure to give the department time to implement some of these.
Recommendations and so that's when we ask for their updates come back to us.
Thank you.
Thanks for answering the question.
I know that council member Bartlett has a question or or maybe a few.
Thank you madam mayor.
Thank you.
Auditor Wong for your another.
Groundbreaking examination of our city processes, and I want to thank the team for being there.
We've actually gone through some lease lease work together recently as a team, and I've seen it up close and I can tell you the city is working hard to get it right.
And as a city manager knows more discussions as well, we have we have decades and decades of legacy paper systems that are hard to get our hands around.
And we've lost a lot of them over the years, and we've lost a lot of them over time.
It's it's it's proven very, very costly and difficult to go back and kind of reorganize things and digitize them when we made the new website a year or 2 ago, we lost all those beautiful items that this council's produced through the years it's very sad.
And I think we're going to continue to see a deficit this year.
1st, it's kind deficit, not not 1 of our usual infrastructure deficits.
This is a new operating budget deficit.
$13M and some of the budget Hawks in this council, like counselor, I know you're on this and customer tap when I know you're yes.
Yes, I do.
Yeah.
Bear with me here.
Bear with me here.
So, I think, you know, Illinois had an office of asset maximization back in the day when they face a similar deficit crushing pressure and it took it took these these facilities and and on these assets and and really monetize them and so I'm thinking about in the example that I mentioned the courthouse that we're we're leasing to the count to the courthouse for to the county for a $1.
You know, if that's the market rate, we're here paying the school district.
How much that's 1200 a day.
Right, so so kind of get into rationalizing our assets and making them work for us.
I think is up to our job 1 this year.
Thank you.
Thank you actually city manager if I could just ask you to address that $1.
I know that that's something that's been brought up multiple times.
I just I know a little back story.
I'd love if you could share that.
Yeah, and maybe that property manager early can add to this.
My understanding is that that least states back to the 50's and when that lease was created, there was a very low $1 a year.
Cost to it, because it was the city owned the land, but the courts built the building.
Is that right is that, you know, it seems like what the deal was is release the land for a dollar a year for this very long period.
But in return, you have to build the buildings and then after those very long lease period, then the city, I guess, would take possession.
So, you know, who knows back in the 50's up, maybe seem like a good deal.
And now we're kind of stuck with a long term 1 dollar a year deal.
Thank you appreciate that.
Are there other questions from council.
Okay, I'd like to open public comment, then if folks have any comments on this matter, anyone online.
We do we do have 3 commenters, so this is public comment on the.
Auditors report regarding the lease audit.
So that's the public comment at this time.
There is a.
2 public commenters now 1st, 1 is a phone number.
Ending in 2, 1, 1.
Press star 6 to unmute.
Hello.
Well, nothing worse than our example.
4 years ago, there was 7 empty spaces, Channing grant mall.
Well, applied to pay 1 year advance and again, give me approve the lease.
Approve the lease this woman.
I'm not going to mention her name.
By the way, some of those people work for mega landlords in Telegraph Avenue, like David.
And that is where the corruption word come from.
Kate Harrison, when she resigned.
We're out of close to 1M dollars.
We were in Berkeley and the Bay area are out.
Business that does want to do nobody left.
What other subject? I mean, really, this people should be fired.
Don't treat them.
They are not good for you.
7 places were empty 4 years ago.
Most important thing.
I care about.
I mean, break to 60 years.
My business created about 200M dollar business.
Our business slides and exceed the 60,000 dollars.
We paid a lot of taxes.
Thank you.
I'm not going to mention her name.
I'm not going to mention her name.
I'm not going to mention her name.
Thank you.
Also speaker on zoom is.
Cheryl Davila, former council member.
Yeah, so I didn't hear the report.
I was in transit leaving your.
Chambers to go home, but.
A dollar that's interesting.
To the Alameda County for a building and that seems like the kind of deal that you give to the.
You know, other like artists.
At Live Oak Park.
Well, I don't know.
It just doesn't seem like that's a good.
Thing to do and.
You still have time to.
Pass a resolution to free Palestine.
From the river to the sea.
I don't know if my comment had anything to do with that, but I'm glad you're still supporting.
But also free Palestine, free Palestine, people are still getting murdered.
The ceasefire.
Is really in jeopardy now, not that there ever was 1 because there's still bombing and.
That concludes the public comment or so on soon.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council member, Taplin has a comment.
Thank you.
I wish to thank the ma'am to the auditor and her team as well as a public works and PRW teams.
I want to highlight for the public that none of us in the diets were here.
When the 2009 audit recommendations were adopted, let alone at the time of some of these leases.
I want to highlight for the public that none of us in the diets were here.
When the 2009 audit recommendations were adopted, let alone at the time of some of these leases.
I want to highlight for me these findings underscore the importance of having clear priorities and labor focus on the strategic plan goals.
We have a new CEO manager, new public works director, and we have the opportunity to course correct.
I look forward to working with my colleagues and the same manager to ensure staff has the resources to implement the reports recommendations.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you to our city auditor and also to staff for being here.
Appreciate it.
All right, we are going to move on to item number 9, which is the proposed amendments, the building emissions savings ordinance or base.
So, and we'll start with a presentation from staff, although I know you'll need to get set up.
So.
All right.
Is it on now? Oh, there we are.
Okay.
Thank you.
And good evening, mayor and council members.
I'm Aileen Pearson.
I'm the deputy director of the planning department and I'm joined tonight by Sarah more manager of the office of energy and sustainable development.
Our office is the agency that provides the building emissions savings ordinance and we are the agency that has been working with the city to advance for your consideration amendments to the building emissions savings ordinance.
Also known as base.
So working on these amendments has been underway for several years following.
We think we've landed on a proposal that will achieve significant results in boosting resilience and reducing the carbon footprint of existing buildings without being overly burdensome on building owners.
Municipal leadership on climate climate action is arguably more important now than it has ever been before.
And this policy would represent a real achievement of Berkeley's leadership.
With that, I'm going to hand things over to to start a presentation.
Hello, my name is and Reagan and I manage Berkeley's building savings ordinance and also known as base.
So, and today we're bringing some proposed amendments.
So I'll start by going over some background and base those current requirements.
So, Berkeley has a long history with time of sale requirements in 1987.
Berkeley had the residential energy conservation ordinance also known as Rico and Rico required homeowners to complete a set of energy and water efficiency measures and upgrades.
At point of sale and remodel, we had Rico for about 30 years, but it was evident that those minimal upgrades weren't getting to our deep greenhouse gas productions.
They were very prescriptive and there's no flexibility and the measures were not meeting the standards of the current building codes.
There's also some new regional changes around building upgrades and electrification that will be starting soon.
So, the Bay Area Air District has established a zero Knox appliance rule, which will prohibit the sale and installation of new Knox emitting gas, water heaters and furnaces, which starts phasing in in 2027.
So, starting in a few years, if someone's gas, water heater or furnace burns out, they would not be able to replace it with a new one.
They would have to put in a zero Knox appliance and currently only electric heat pump systems qualify for that.
This is a new and exciting change for the Bay Area, but we also know that some homes may not be ready to electrify these systems just yet.
So, we want the next phase of BASO to help building owners prepare for their future heat pumps.
Berkeley also has strong climate action goals and some notable ones include achieving net zero emissions by 2045 and becoming a fossil fuel free city as soon as possible.
And our building sector is a 2nd largest source of emissions.
And within that sector, small residential buildings account for over a 3rd of those emissions.
In 2021, Berkeley City Council adopted Berkeley's existing buildings electrification strategy.
This strategy was developed with the community and identified a time of sale upgrade policy as 1 of the 4 primary policy strategies to decarbonize our existing buildings.
And the building emission savings ordinance, also known as BASO, is the city's primary policy focused on reducing emissions from our existing buildings.
BASO covers every building in the city, from a small single family home to a large commercial building, and it operates as 2 distinct programs with varying requirements for the different building sizes and types.
For single family homes and small buildings, BASO requires an energy and electrification assessment prior to listing a building for sale.
We shifted from RICO, which required the installation of those very prescriptive measures, to requiring a comprehensive assessment.
And the intent behind BASO was to provide owners and buyers with information on how to decrease their building's energy use, emissions, and decrease their utility costs, with the hope that buyers would voluntarily complete upgrades.
Over the last 9 years since we've had BASO, only a small number of homeowners have taken action.
We need many more buildings to start reducing their emissions in order to reach our climate action goals.
And so then in 2020, BASO was amended by City Council with a variety of updates, including developing requirements for Council's consideration.
So, over the last 2 years, we've been developing new upgrade requirements for small residential buildings to be implemented at time of sale.
And then if passed, we'd expect implementation to start in 2026.
Before we started developing the proposal, we created 6 primary policy objectives to guide the development of the new requirements.
A few key objectives include providing flexibility, ensuring a smooth sales process, promoting early compliance.
We want our homeowners to be able to voluntarily complete upgrades now, so they're ready for a future sale.
And to inform the proposed requirements, we assembled a technical advisory committee to work through what's feasible for buildings to do now and provide input on the various policy components.
This committee included people from local utilities, regional and state entities, architects, contractors, and people in the field working on small residential electrification.
We've also done extensive outreach and engagement on the proposal, including extensive engagement with the real estate community through webinars, direct office presentations, and meetings with the Bridge Association of Realtors.
We've also met with a variety of community and environmental organizations, in addition to the Environment and Climate Commission, which unanimously approved the proposal.
We also met with Council's Fights Committee in 2023.
And twice last year, we met with Council's Land Use, Housing, and Economic Development Policy Committee, which voted to forward this item on to Council with a qualified positive recommendation.
There are four recommendations, which I'll talk through later in the presentation.
And with that, I will dig into the proposed upgrade requirements.
So we're proposing to maintain the current assessment requirement, which would be completed by the seller.
And if upgrades are needed, a buyer would have three years from the date of sale to complete upgrades.
This change from two to three years was recommended by the Land Use Committee.
I also want to note that a seller is not required to complete upgrades, and the upgrade requirements only apply to buildings being sold.
If a building is not being sold, it would not be required to complete upgrades.
We're proposing a flexible resilience standard, where homeowners get to choose which upgrades they want to complete.
There will be a list of possible upgrade options, and each option would have a corresponding credit value based on the emission savings, the cost, and other resilience metrics.
Buildings would need to achieve a minimum number of credits by completing upgrades.
So by having this full list of measures that homeowners can choose from, we can accommodate the range of building conditions, as well as the range of buyers' interests.
It allows owners to prioritize which upgrades to complete in their home first.
So here's a list of potential measures and potential credits.
We developed this list with the Technical Advisory Committee.
We also created a pathway to add, update, and vet more measures as more technologies become available.
So I know this is a lot of measures to take in on the screen, so I'll walk through some compliance paths and costs.
So the simplest and cheapest way to comply would be to install a heat pump water heater.
And the average cost to install a heat pump water heater in Alameda County ranges between $7,000 and $8,000.
But there are rebates and incentives to offset that cost, including a $2,000 tax credit that's currently available and incentives through TechClean California that brings that cost down below $5,000.
These costs are based on permanent installed heat pump water heater installations in Alameda County.
and a TechClean California program whose data was provided from July 2021 through November 2024.
It's a recent installation data.
Additionally, there are also newer 120-volt models for water heaters that allow you to plug in a water heater to a standard outlet.
So this allows you to plug in a water heater to a standard outlet.
Additionally, there are also newer 120-volt models for water heaters that allow you to plug in a water heater to a standard outlet.
So this allows you to bypass additional panel upgrades or electrical service upgrades.
Another option a homeowner may choose is to complete envelope upgrades.
They might have a leaky home that they'd want to improve for increased comfort and decrease their heating and cooling costs.
So a homeowner could choose to install insulation and air seal their building instead.
And then, as mentioned earlier, starting in 2027, homeowners will not be allowed to install NOx-emitting gas water heaters and furnaces with the Air District's new appliance standards.
And we know that some homes are not ready for heat pump HVAC systems just yet.
So a homeowner could use this time to update their electrical and install outlets, so it will be a seamless transition to a heat pump when the time comes.
The proposed flexible standard carries many benefits to the homeowner, in addition to helping us achieve our climate action goals and becoming net-zero emissions by 2045.
Some upgrades, such as insulation or heat pump HVAC systems, will improve the comfort and indoor air quality.
They can help protect our residents from extreme heat and wildfire smoke events.
Many of the measures increase safety by eliminating the need for combustive gas in our homes or replacing knob and tube.
Some upgrades, such as installing solar and storage or completing envelope improvements, can also reduce utility bills.
Part of this proposal is to utilize an escrow deposit process.
This process is currently used to implement the private through a lateral program, and it's known to our local real estate community.
This way, funds for the upgrade are budgeted and set aside as part of the building sale.
The escrow deposit would be set at the minimum cost of compliance, which is around $7,000, as seen in the previous slides.
The owner would have up to three years to complete the upgrades, and then that escrow deposit would be refunded without interest once the property is compliant.
We've also provided a pathway that allows homeowners to access that escrow deposit early when they're in the process of completing upgrades.
This way, they have funds available to pay contractors.
Our goal is to have all new homeowners use their deposit to upgrade their home and not have it forfeited.
We know that there are some circumstances beyond a homeowner's control, such as utility timelines or supply chains, that can cause delays.
And so based on the recommendation from the Land Use Committee, we've included a safety valve that offers additional extensions to account for those delays.
And then if the upgrades aren't completed after many notices that are sent to the owner, the deposit would be forfeited and set aside in a separate fund that will be used for low-income electrification programs in Berkeley.
Ultimately, our goal is to get people to reduce their building's emissions, and gas, water, heating, and space heating are the bulk of those emissions.
So we've included heat pumps as an exemption pathway for buildings.
With this exemption, if a home has at least one heat pump system, the home would not need additional upgrades when the building sells.
So I'll walk through the scenarios of a home sale.
In the case that a home does not have a heat pump system, the seller would complete an assessment that would verify the building's current systems and conditions and provide a list of upgrade options and recommendations.
The home's list for sale funds to cover the upgrades would be sent to the city through an escrow deposit process.
After the sale, the buyer would then complete upgrades to achieve the minimum number of credits and utilize those funds that were set aside, and they'd have three years to do so.
If a home has a heat pump system, the seller would still complete that assessment.
That assessment confirms that a heat pump's installed and provide next steps to voluntarily further electrify the building.
Then the home's listed for sale.
Once sold, the property's compliant, and no escrow deposit is needed, and no further upgrades would be needed.
When fully implemented, this policy would cover one- to four-unit buildings, and we're planning to implement the policy in two phases.
The first phase would include single-family homes and duplexes and would start in 2026.
The second phase would expand to three- to four-unit buildings in 2028.
So previously, condominiums and ADUs were included, but based on the feedback from both the Land Use Policy Committee and others during outreach, we've excluded these from the proposed requirements.
We know that condos are the cheapest entry to home ownership in Berkeley, and they also have more complexities due to HOAs and shared systems.
For a quick analysis of impacts of this policy, each year would cover about 600 single-family homes and another 100 or so duplexes and three- to four-unit buildings.
And then we're also proposing some additional exemptions and support.
So all electric homes would continue to be exempt from BASO, as well as refinances, partial and inheritance transfers.
We also know that purchasing a home in Berkeley is a dream for many new residents, so we've included an exemption for first-time homebuyers that are participating in an income-qualified home buying program or downpayment assistance program.
We also know that some homes are already pretty efficient and want to give credit for any past work that they've completed.
So if a home has a high score in their assessment, they'll receive credit towards meeting those minimum requirements.
And finally, we know this is a pretty big change, so we'll continue to do significant outreach and education to the real estate community.
We have a dedicated help desk to help building owners with compliance, and we'll be creating comprehensive guides to make sure everything's as clear as possible.
And to end, I just want to mention that as we continue to burn fossil fuels, we will continue to experience extreme climactic events, many of which we've seen in the last few years, such as hazardous air quality from wildfire smoke events or extreme flooding from winter storms.
These events have shown us how resilient our homes need to be.
We need to both adapt our homes to our changing climate and reduce our emissions to prevent worse effects.
We know this proposal carries a cost to new homeowners, but those costs will help them prepare their homes for their future while decreasing emissions and lead to better resilience for our whole community.
With that, I want to pass it back to Aileen Pearson.
So, we want to conclude the presentation with three points that address feedback we've received since this item has been published.
So, first, we've received a number of inquiries about the actual cost of compliance.
We've seen estimates circulated that range from $15 to $30 million.

Segment 5

I'd like to begin by clarifying that the total cost of a home is approximately $30,000, but want to clarify that those ranges reflect the cost to fully electrify a home and replace all appliances.
BASO does not require full electrification.
BASO does not require replacement of all appliances.
BASO provides a menu of options homeowners can select from in order to achieve compliance and we've estimated the minimum cost of compliance to be approximately $7,000 before rebates and incentives.
So the second point we want to make is that we've received questions about the BACMED policy that will require zero emission appliances beginning in 2027 and whether those rules make BASO requirements unnecessary.
They do not.
BACMED rules take effect at the time of replacement, whereas BASO takes effect at the point of sale, the time of sale.
BASO will actually help building owners prepare for BACMED compliance in the future, giving them three years to plan ahead, shop around and make improvements so they are in less of a bind if and when their furnace or their water heater fail and needs immediate replacement.
And finally, today we were forwarded an email that claimed the escrow program is intended to create a revolving slush fund for the city to use towards budget shortfalls.
I want to address this head on because this message could not be further from the truth.
The ordinance clearly states that escrowed funds will be deposited into a city fund that can only be used for local low income building program building upgrade programs.
Our goal is for escrowed funds to be used by property owners on improvements to their own homes.
However, if property owners opt to not use these funds, monies have to be directed to low income electrification retrofit programs in Berkeley.
It's in the code.
So, with that, I'm going to conclude our presentation and we're available for questions.
Thank you all so much.
I know that so much work has gone into this, and I really want to thank you both for your presentation at 9 o'clock at night and also just to say, you know, thank you for all the work you did to get us here.
So I want to take any questions, clarifying questions from my council colleagues.
Okay, thank you.
Council member Luna par.
Thank you.
I want to thank director client and deputy director Pearson and Sarah and for the thoughtful presentation and the years of work and outreach that has gone into creating a community developed and creative strategy for decreasing our city's greenhouse gas emissions.
I'm so excited to see this ordinance finally come to council and I have been so thankful to work alongside fellow commissioners on the environment and climate commission planning staff and land use committee members to come to this version.
I had a great meeting with staff last week.
So my questions and comments are mostly focused around the supplemental material and recommendation.
Does it make sense to maybe present this up actually supplemental first? Let's do that.
Is that okay with you? Council member black because I see that you also.
Okay, question on the points in terms of between the buyer and the seller really quickly if a seller does some work, but not all work to reach the 6 point threshold for exemption.
Is it a combination of buyer and seller points to reach the 6 or is it that's 1 thing that was unclear in terms of the implementation of how that would work? Yes.
So work done within 5 years or 5 years previously would count.
So, if they get 2 points in that 5 years, that would count for great.
Because I, I'm interested in making sure there's incentives for the sellers to participate in the buyer.
Can also leverage the fact that that work has been done to reduce the amount of work they're expected to do if the sellers already done.
So, okay.
Thank you.
Great question.
Thank you.
Council member testimony.
Would you like to introduce your supplemental? Yes.
Thank you very much.
Madam mayor.
I'm going to just for transparency, share my screen because in addition to what was posted.
I've been in consultation with our city attorney's office and so have some additional tweaks to that public report and I, I want everyone to be able to see it clearly and I'll walk everyone through that.
So just give me a moment to share the screen.
So this will show up on on our computers and it should be visible to the public and I'll make it a little bigger.
Okay, well, first, I just want to thank our staff so much for all of your work on this.
I think the work began in 2020.
Is that right? Or well, it's it.
Well, you've had a version of this for decades.
So, so it's been a long time coming and and I appreciate the urgency of wanting to do this and the.
This report has some, you know, what I would argue are minor revisions to address a policy concern around 1st time homebuyers and wanting to be sensitive to the amount of funds they have to bring to a sale in terms of the down payment, closing and escrow costs.
And so in light of that concern for 1st time homebuyers trying desperately to buy into our community myself and I want to thank my co-sponsors and their thought partnership on this council members Humbert Blackaby and O'Keeffe have put forward the supplemental and we're proposing 2 things and and I'm now referencing the edited version on screen.
One is to reduce the escrow deposit slightly.
It's the staff report talks about 7,000.
We're suggesting 5,000 and putting that into the ordinance.
The reason for that is as we've explained below is because it's our understanding that with the.
The rebates and tax credits that currently exist.
The replacement of the the.
Water heater with a heat pump water heater would be under 5,000.
So we wanted the deposit to reflect that actual costs as we understand it.
And the other proposal that we are now seeking to refer to the city attorney's office is to split that.
The reason for that again is to reduce the financial burden, particularly on that 1st time homebuyer.
I'm thinking about a nurse and a firefighter or a teacher or somebody who's really saved for years and decades to try to be able to buy into our community.
That's that's really who I was thinking about with this.
So we're going to refer that concept to the city attorney.
And that would return to the council as soon as possible.
And so we still propose to pass the ordinance tonight with with that 1st time homebuyer.
I'm thinking about a nurse and a firefighter or somebody who's really saved for years and decades to try to be able to buy into our community.
And that's really who I was thinking about with this.
So we're going to refer that concept to the city attorney.
If we choose to pass this and and and think through how we might structure that 2500 on the cellar.
So we're going to refer that concept to the city attorney.
And we're going to put that issue sort of.
Under advisement with the city attorney's office and the hope is that when we do the 2nd reading that we would have that clarity to make a decision.
That's our hope.
And so we just know that as soon as possible we want to get that information.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I just want to make a comment on the idea of of changing the escrow deposit amount to 5,000 I deleted some of the prior changes we had proposed because we want to look further into that concept of asking the seller to contribute 2500 before we make any ordinance changes.
We also thought about the other costs that are incurred at the time of sale or closely in that time frame like seismic upgrades private sewer lateral increasingly we are hearing about costly home hardening improvements that have to be done for a buyer to obtain homeowners insurance and fire zones.
And so all of that, you know, quickly adds up to tens of thousands of dollars.
So, so again, that's why we were trying to be cognizant of the escrow deposit cost and in in our current.
Highly competitive environment, it is my understanding that the buyer, in order to be competitive would have to put forward would often have to put forward that full 7000 if we don't make this modification.
I also felt it was important, you know, the median home value today in Berkeley is 1.4 million.
My hope is that that would stabilize or even reduce if we are able to pass a middle housing ordinance is this prior council has expressed its intention to do so.
We also just last month passed a referral to look at subdivision.
So that we could make sure we can potentially subdivide those middle housing homes.
So we could have smaller cottages for sale.
So those are the future buyers that we have in mind and trying to control the escrow escrow costs and give those folks a chance to compete.
And so here we were talking about requiring the seller to provide 2500.
I change this to instead of being a new requirement, a concept before we, because we need to see if it can be structured so that we could do that.
So that's what I have to say on that.
And then very quickly with 2 other.
Points we wanted to to include 1 was on panel upgrades.
Some of the feedback we heard is.
Well, to do that, he pump water heater in many cases, you would have to upgrade your electrical panel to have the amps to have that water heater.
That's not true.
In all cases.
There are some water heaters that wouldn't require the upgrade, but in light of the Bay Area air quality management district.
Regulations that are going to require a phasing out of the nitrogen oxide emitting water heaters beginning in 2027 furnaces in 2029.
we wanted to make this small tweak to say the panel upgrades could get the full 6 points.
The idea here is we just want to encourage panel upgrades as soon as possible.
So people are ready in the event that their current water heater or furnace fails because.
If they don't have the capacity for whatever appliance they want to and need to install in an emergency situation that that could present an issue.
So we were told that that could be applied administratively.
This point system is going to be developed administratively.
So so that is our recommendation there.
And then finally, because this is a new program.
We also are requesting an evaluation report 3 years after implementation.
We had originally said 2 years, but we want to say 3 because.
Folks have 3 years to comply after the point of sale, so we need some time.
And so then what we're hoping is after 3 years, 3 and a half years or 4 years, whenever you get a chance, you can come back to us with the report of how this is working out.
What are the costs at that time? And we'll, you know, we'll just get a better sense of how this is working.
You know, we also are asking, you know, how many times has the escrow deposit been forfeited? You know, you know, what can we do to make sure people are taking advantage of this opportunity and we also, you know, I want to be sensitive to our budget situation we are projecting a deficit so any type of transfer taxes that we're going to be able to pay to our customers.
So we are not proposing a transfer tax rebate at this time.
But what we're saying here is once that report comes back to us, it would be good if there were some options for a future council to consider not to commit to anything, but just to have that information available based and that, you know, that decision is going to be made in the future based on the budget.
So those are the supplemental recommendations and I'm happy to take questions and look forward to the discussion.
Thank you.
Yeah, I want to go back to council member in a part and also just to let council member black be know that your mic is on to.
Thanks, thank you.
My questions are for staff.
I first have a couple of questions about the uncertainty of the status of climate resiliency funding sources.
The supplemental material says that the rebate amount should be decreased to 5000 dollars due to the currently available rebates and tax credits.
But I have some concerns.
How are these currently available rebates and tax credits financed? And how many are from the state and federal government? Thanks that is a combination of federal tax credits, which are in effect right now, but may not remain.
And then it is also in part state funding, which seems more secure at this time.
Great, thank you.
That ties into my follow up question, which is, do you have any more information about the expectation of the future of these federal funds? I mean, I can take that.
We don't we don't really unfortunately, but, like, we're chewing chewing our fingernails and watching, but we don't know.
Thank you.
The staff report says that the median cost of installing a heat pump water heater is 6700 to 7900.
the possibility of it reaching under 5000 dollars with a combination of resources and I frankly think that it would be irresponsible to base our policy on fringe circumstances and shaky ground that our federal government is handing down to us.
I have some more questions around staff's recommendation and their perspective on some of the supplementals changes.
Can you lay out the staff rationale around the 7000 rebate and any potential implications of reducing it to 5000? Yeah, I think we tried to lay out in our examples that it really is intended to be what we think is an accurate assessment of minimum cost of compliance based on a few different avenues.
Right? Whether it be envelope improvements, things like insulation, air and duct ceiling, or via a heat pump water heater.
Or electric readiness, right? Those are the 3 examples we gave.
We know that costs can go beyond that and it is possible in some circumstances it could be below right in the case where already some upgrades have occurred such that not as many points are needed for compliance is quite possible that fewer upgrades will be needed at less cost.
So, we do expect there will be quite a range, but we do think that about 7000 dollars at this current time is a reasonable estimate of a minimum cost of compliance.
If I could just add to that a little bit that as Sarah said, the.
The costing was done at the minimal compliance level and I guess part of our concern would be if it's cheaper not to comply and to comply, then we'll just have less compliance.
Thank you.
My next question is about the 5050 split between buyer and seller.
I'm curious what the, what was the feedback incorporated into staffs more flexible recommendation? And what are the potential impacts of this on on the policy after it is sent to the city attorney's office? Yeah, so the current recommendation is to allow it to be negotiated between the buyer and the seller current, which is this similar process for the current private through a lot of program, escrow deposit.
So we are mirroring that program, which is why we left it up for a negotiation.
And that mirrors what we've seen in other communities that have escrow typically related also to private, so we're lateral.
Great, thank you.
And my last question is, I'm not necessarily concerned about this, but I am curious why panel upgrades were not included in the staff recommendation as a as full compliance.
Yeah, so panel upgrades are, and so they would be 4 points and then the other 2 points to get the full compliance would be to install 240 volt outlets at the appliances where they're being installed.
And then the other 2 points to get the full compliance would be to install 240 volt outlets at the appliances where they're needed.
This way, when you're doing electrical work, you can do wiring as well to make sure that your home is actually ready for for for for your heat pumps.
But again, all of those measures, those credits are something that we, we worked on in 2023 with the technical advisory committee, and they would be re, evaluated if this is adopted.
Right? So, we've had a lot of feedback on the commission's and so there would be a reassessment and we're glad to consider additional measures as well as greater credits.
Great.
Thank you so much.
Appreciate it.
Those are questions.
Thank you councilmember checkup.
Do you have questions? Yeah, I.
I have 2 questions that have been asked by my colleague, so I have 1 remaining question and it is on this is with respect to the supplemental around the 5050 concept, which actually, I mean.
It's a good question.
I think that's one of the questions that we will be researching that's a good question.
Thank you for your question and also councilmember is next on here.
Actually, I remember that councilmember black had actually press the button earlier.
So I just want to make 2 quick points.
In response, I mean, 1, I, I appreciate by the way, I fully support the mission of this.
Part of this is I'm trying to balance the mission of getting the work done with also not trying to impede buyers are trying to get into the market.
I also think that yes, technically speaking, the escrow is negotiable between the buyer and the seller, but we all know that in this market.
It's going to be the buyer of the pace, right? I mean, that's just how this will work in the market.
So I just don't want there to be any illusion that yes, it's possible, but I don't think in reality that's going to happen.
It's going to be a 7000 dollar escrow payment by the buyer look, I've, I've only bought 1 house 20 years ago.
I may not ever buy another house.
I will say that, like, the scrimping and scraping to get to that point is real right? And every extra dollar does make a difference.
I mean, I know these are big transactions and 7000 may not seem like a lot, but it does make a difference.
So I, you know, so I'm sensitive to that concern.
I think what also appeals to me about the 5050.
On the buyer and the seller, if we can get there is that it actually encourages early compliance by a seller, right? If you wait until the transaction and then make the buyer pay the 7000 dollar escrow payment, the seller doesn't really have an incentive to do the work.
If the seller knows that they're going to be paying a 25 dollar 100 dollar escrow payment at time of sale.
Maybe that might make them think, hey, maybe I can't do that.
So, council member, did you have a question? I'm sorry, but we're taking questions still.
Oh, yeah.
What do you think about that? We love the idea of early compliance and that was a hope with the way the, the ordinance is designed.
Thanks for enforcing the rules on me there.
Appreciate that.
Yeah, thank you.
Thank you.
Council member Humber.
Actually, I don't have any questions.
I just have a statement to make, but okay, so I just want to give an opportunity to to open it to public comment on that.
Okay, thank you so much.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
Thank you for staying so late and listening to all of us so patiently.
My name is Ariella Granet.
I live in district 3 and I really applaud all of your work on base.
So I'm a really an advocate for early compliance.
My only hesitation is why can't we do it faster? I think we will never say that we went too fast with decarbonization and and climate efforts.
Every little bit helps to save lives and to save on disaster costs.
So, thank you.
Thank you so much.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
Thank you for staying so late and listening to all of us.
So patiently.
My name is Ariella Granet.
I live in district 3 and I really applaud all of your work on base.
My only hesitation is why can't we do it faster? I think we will never say that we went too fast with decarbonization and disaster costs.
I want to boast a little bit.
I live in a 4 plex and we electrified last year.
We love it.
We love our heat pumps.
The indoor air quality is so much better.
Our tenants love it.
So, I just I'm really happy that this discussion is happening and keep going.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Please go ahead.
I wanted to thank the staff for all their hard work and I wanted to lift the spirits a little bit.
I think you know where this is going.
It's time to upgrade the BESO.
It's time to upgrade the BESO.
It is good for the world and for Berkeley Institute.
It meets our climate plan goals.
It's a total breakthrough.
BESO.
It's time to upgrade the BESO.
Council.
Council.
There is no need to delay.
Council.
Council.
You can do it today.
BESO.
It's time to upgrade the.
Okay.
Okay.
That's enough.
That's enough.
Thank you.
Thank you staff for all your hard work.
Wow.
I feel like that was the best comment.
Meeting adjourned.
No, I'm just kidding.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Thank you for your comment.
Well, I don't know if I can follow that up.
That was great.
Well, I just want to thank the council.
We've been working with staff and talking about this for a while now.
I think this is a fantastic way to move Berkeley towards all electric buildings in a way that works for homeowners and home buyers.
It aligns with the Air District rules.
To introduce myself, my name is Sam Fishman.
I work with SPUR that has been working on the Air District rules for a long time now.
And it's great to see ordinances like this that are going to help bring homes into a place where they're ready to electrify along with the regulations that are already moving us in that direction.
And the great thing is there's so much happening at the state level, at the regional level to already move us towards all electric buildings that Berkeley is going to feel like they're way out ahead of what's already happening around the state.
So you're ahead of the game with this and you're going to be rewarded for it.
And I think you're going to come out on top.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next speaker.
Hi, my name is Tom Grayley and I am representing the 100 members of the Berkeley Electrification Working Group.
We're a part of the Berkeley Climate Action Coalition and we've been promoting electrification since at least 2016 where we participated in Berkeley's first electrification fairs.
And so those 100 members that I'm representing, we encourage you to pass BESO and get it implemented and get it implemented as quickly as possible.
It is this council that set the climate goals and this is the mechanism for you guys to reach those climate goals because without this, Berkeley is not going to get there.
So please, B-E-S-O.
Thank you.
Good evening again, council members.
I'm Allison Labonte, resident and Environment and Climate Commissioner.
I support the proposed amendments to the Building Emissions Savings Ordinance and the amendments ensure resilience measures are made in homes through time of sale transactions starting in 2026 and this is a proactive measure.
I've heard the concerns about the cost for first-time home buyers.
I do think that having it as a proactive measure built into this time of sales transaction could actually help save that new buyer cost down the road as far as if they are in a crisis when their water heater breaks or furnace breaks, they have to quick switch over and none of these have been done and they're forced to do this at a much higher cost without that preemptive planning.
So I support the proposed amendments to the Building Emissions Savings Ordinance and the amendments ensure resilience measures are made in home in addition to the savings that would occur if they do it earlier as far as the reduced energy costs.
Thanks, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm here also to thank the over 140 realtors, Berkeley residents that have emailed you in opposition to this proposal and I'm here to stand in strong opposition to the $7,000 escrow deposit.
This requirement places an unnecessary and unfair burden on middle income and first-time home buyers pushing homeownership further out of the reach of many in Berkeley.
At the last Council meeting, this body unanimously voted to support expanding homeownership opportunities for middle income earners.
Multi-unit housing is probably some of the more affordable units that you can buy in Berkeley and, for example, two first responders could qualify for an FHA loan if the closing costs were low enough and actually become homeowners in the city of Berkeley.
I want you all to take that into consideration before you pass this.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello again.
I'm Elizabeth Watson and I live in District 6 and I am here with my colleague, Jeffrey Needleman.
Jeffrey Needleman, I state my time to her.
Thank you.
And I am also a realtor in the city of Berkeley and I am here to oppose this as well.
As realtors, we actively encourage our clients and homeowners to improve their homes to address climate change.
We wholeheartedly support policies and programs that help and enable homeowners to reach these goals, but this proposed amendment won't do it.
$7,000 is not enough to make a difference and it burdens homeowners, especially new homeowners, enormously.
The biggest issue is that it does not touch the associated costs that come with these kinds of improvements.
Last year, I replaced my furnace and my water heater, and by the time I'd done the plumbing, the panel, and the duct work that were required to get it done, the total was $50,000.
It's never just those single items.
And these costs are only going to rise with the incredible demands on the supply chain and on labor that are going to result from the tariffs, the fires in Southern California, and with the inevitable loss of the grants that we are going to lose.
Also, the timing of this is unrealistic.
It's two years and an extension that you'll likely have to pay for.
We're still finishing some of the work on my house because PG&E takes over a year to get a permit.
The city itself is pretty slow for getting permits, so the permitting, executing, and closing out process is far too long for this to work.
You've said it's analogous to the sewer lateral, but other than in Berkeley, it's done by EVMUD.
You can do it in six months.
The cost of it actually accurately reflects the cost of getting the work done.
The cost of getting the work done is $5,000.
The cost of getting the work done, EVMUD returns your money in 48 hours.
You can pay the plumber with the money.
The credit matrix is confusing.
I got two.
You've had two minutes.
I have two.
Okay.
We have a list of alternatives, which I think we've sent to you.
And like I said, we support this, but we want it done in a way that works.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Can you vote yes, please? It's my future, and I'm scared of, like, climate change.
And, yeah, can I see the rest of my time then? Thank you, Twyla.
Thank you for being here.

Segment 6

Hi, everybody.
My name is Bhima Sheridan.
I'm a realtor in Berkeley.
I was on the Climate Action Committee before we disbanded, but I'm here in support of BESO.
I think the points I want to make, for one, I mean, let's face it, for somebody who can afford the median, you know, single family home in Berkeley, I mean, they're not going to be middle income, probably.
They're not going to be middle income.
They're not going to be middle class.
They're not going to be middle class.
They're not going to be middle class.
So anyway, there's an exemption for them as well.
So I think that's really kind of a red herring.
But so that aside, there's a lot of great options.
So I think the easiest one is the plug-in heat pump water heater.
I just checked.
I'm not sure if it's a plug-in heater.
I'm not sure if it's a plug-in heater.
I'm not sure if it's a plug-in heater.
So make sure you get the 50-gallon or bigger to get that rebate.
But I just did one at my place.
It was $6,500.
That was for a hybrid one, not including the rebate, because it's a rental.
I don't get that rebate, but so there's lots of options.
There's so many options to install these things that don't blow up your panel.
You've heard it all before.
But anyway, I'm a realtor, and I'm in support of VESA.
Thank you so much for all your work.
Thank you.
No song? I'm just kidding.
Sorry.
Go ahead.
Next comment.
Hi, my name is Matthew.
I live in district 3.
I don't have quite as long in comment, but I'm here in support.
Electrification is important for our future.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Are there comments online? There's currently 9 raised hands.
This is for.
This is for public comment on the building emission safety ordinance and you have 1 minute each and the 1st speaker is Cheryl Davila, former council member.
Thank you.
I'm here in support of VESA.
I don't have quite as long in comment, but I'm here in support.
Electrification is important for our future.
Thank you.
This is for public comment on the building emission safety ordinance and you have 1 minute each and the 1st speaker is Cheryl Davila, former council member.
Thank you.
It's hard to see the clock, so maybe you guys can remedy that and I'll take back my 9 seconds and yeah, I was so surprised to see the picture that the staff used that had a picture of my son in there from 2018.
And yeah, this is important and yeah, I live in a 4 plex.
And I have to smell gas because my landlord doesn't do very much and yeah, $7,000 isn't that much really when you're paying 1.4Million dollars.
I agree.
And you should.
Get this done.
It's important for the environment and free Palestine and shame on you Ben Bartlett for going to fucking Trump signal.
Thank you.
Please.
Yeah, we don't use profanity and public comment.
That's inappropriate.
I just want to make sure that the woman in the back is okay.
Did someone check on her? Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Okay, next is Brianna McGuire.
Hi, there folks, thanks so much for the opportunity to comment today.
My name is Brianna McGuire.
I currently serve as chair of the environment and climate commission.
I'm from district 3.
I'm speaking to my personal capacity today.
I wanted to speak out in strong support of staff's plan for these amendments to base.
So, I've gotten to thankfully be present for a lot of the meetings where we discussed all of these exciting developments and I'm so excited to see them coming to council finally.
And I'd also like to echo some sentiments that the difference between 5,000 and 7,000 for a person who can afford 1.3Million.
Not me.
I'm definitely a median income person and I couldn't afford that.
Yeah, the $2,000 difference isn't so big.
So I'm in support of maintaining the $7,000 escrow deposit.
And very grateful again to staff and to you all for the opportunity to comment.
Thanks so much.
Okay, next up is Anne Plant.
Hi, I'm also a realtor.
And when you add up all of the things that buyers have to pick up, they've got to pick up the sewer and say that's $6,000.
They've got to put in escrow some portion of $7,000.
Maybe it's only $250.
And then you've got the transfer tax, which when it was originally put in, there was a council member named Alan Goldfarb who actually thought you'd get more with a carrot than a stick.
And he's the one who instigated the half a percent for seismic.
Why not make it a carrot? Why not give people the incentive to do it rather than the stick? That's what my comment is.
Thank you.
Okay.
Next is Candace Hyde Wang.
Hi, I'm here as a realtor speaking in favor of Basel.
Just to give a little history on this, in 1989, Nancy Skinner helped Berkeley pass the RICO program.
The RICO program had mandatory measures.
Everyone had to do energy upgrades up to $7,000.
That program went on until 2016 when it stopped.
So, for some reason, we lost our mandatory measures and this new iteration of Basel will get them back and make them make it a really successful program.
I also wanted to point out that a couple of things.
One is Oakland has two point of sale mitigations.
One is the sewer and one is sidewalks.
These almost always go to the buyer and the sidewalk can easily cost $10,000.
Also, insurance now mandates that people replace their knob and tube.
So this is right in line with insurance mandates for people buying homes.
If they have knob and tube, they are going to have to take it out.
Okay, next is Daniel Tahara.
Hi, I'm Daniel Tahara.
I'm a resident of district 8.
I'm delaying putting my 2 year old to bed so I can talk about building electrification.
I want to speak in support of the time of sale upgrade requirement and I also wanted to highlight some ways in which I believe we could have gone further.
Namely, requiring that every subsequent sale of the home perform additional measures, even if they have a heat pump.
So that we're trending over time towards fully zero emissions buildings.
And generally speaking, ensuring that compliance requirements are more heavily weighted towards immediate greenhouse gas emissions reductions benefits.
Too many of the proposed measures listed right now are built in zero to no immediate reductions.
On those lines, allowing panel upgrades to count towards full compliance and suggesting supplemental would continue to undermine the stated goal, which is to reduce emissions.
At minimum, we should be following staff's recommendation.
If not going further, continuing on the lines and supplemental of escrow deposit will be forfeited.
Uh, if it costs substantially less than the cost of the upgrade, reducing the escrow to 5,000 dollars makes that more likely.
Um, in general, I'd probably recommend setting the escrow amount to be based on some, like, regular review of actual costs.
Uh, that might address some of the concerns raised in the supplemental while also ensuring that it serves as sufficient incentives to do the work.
Okay, needs to be proactive.
Please pass this measure.
Thank you.
Next is Emily Ross.
Good evening.
Counsel and community.
My name is Emily Ross.
I'm a lifelong Bay area resident who cannot afford to buy a home in this place, but I love.
I support the proposed amendments put forth in the staff report and presentation.
Appreciate your efforts towards resilience.
I'm cautious about the supplemental in part because I'm a nerd that wasn't able to review the materials, but thank you.
Council member cuts are wanting for sharing your screen.
And in part because I don't feel comfortable with the contents of it.
I don't know that first time homebuyers on the whole are most in need.
Thank you.
The 7,000 escrow deposit is not the thing that makes homeownership unattainable.
I think our emphasis on should be on exemptions for low income working class homeowners.
As opposed to this, like broad bucket that kind of captures all first time home.
First time home homeowners.
Next is and.
Hi, are you able to hear me? Yes.
Hello, mayor and council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
My name is and and I'm a safe cities at standard earth.
We work with local government leaders and advocates across the US and Canada, helping to pass policies, including ones that decrease kind of pollution and make buildings more healthy and safe.
We support these amendments to base.
So, these amendments make base.
So, a 1st of its kind policy, this approach to cutting emissions of greenhouse gases at time of sale is innovative and will have tremendous impact, both on climate pollution and also local air pollution.
Berkeley started the movement to decrease pollution and increase efficiency, safety and health and buildings.
These amendments show your continued leadership and will bring real benefits to the community and to the planet.
We hope to help many other local governments pursue this approach.
We urge passage tonight and at the final vote.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Ren Fitzgerald.
Good evening.
Council Ren Fitzgerald again.
I live in district 3.
I'm speaking in strong support of a visa ordinance.
It's a common sense life saving measure that could drastically change the threat of fires in Berkeley.
It's not hard to see the benefits of mitigating wildfire risk, also known as not having Berkeley burn to the ground.
And yet an oppositional group is pushing back out of fear that it would make homeownership more difficult to achieve.
In response, Council, I want to remind you of the ordinance you passed just last month, expanding homeownership opportunities for Berkeley residents.
As a housing advocate and renter, I'm well aware of the challenges surrounding becoming a 1st time home buyer, but I don't think the city is doing undue harm to anyone with this measure.
Rather, I applaud the progress you've already made, and I encourage you to pursue other options to make homeownership more in reach.
Also want to point out that the majority of the opposition hasn't been folks trying to buy homes, but realtors who profit from home sales, which is an important point of interest.
Secondly, I remind you that while some may say that they did not agree to these costs, the vast majority of residents did not consent to our apartments, schools, and businesses burning down because of a wildfire started in the hills.
I hope when you weigh the lives and livelihoods of residents across the city against the proposed costs, you'll realize it's a minuscule and worthy sacrifice.
Thank you, and thank you, staff, for your hard work.
Next is Alana Auerbach.
Alana.
Okay, hi.
Good evening.
I do support this item.
And we must connect the dots here because we are going to be doing something good for the environment here in Berkeley.
And, yes, that's necessary.
And there is an eco side going on in Gaza in Palestine.
The infrastructure of Gaza is devastated.
The water treatment facilities, sewage systems, rainwater harvesting systems, waste management facilities essential for safe disposal of medical and hazardous waste, all gone.
I am just trying to connect the dots, Mayor, because that it's important.
It's as important to pass BASO as it is to do something about the eco side in Gaza.
Please act.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, next is reclaim our power.
Sorry, before we take that comment, can I just say, you know, when we have comments that are supposed to be about a specific item, it's really disrespectful to staff when we speak about things that are off topic, but we're trying to make them connect.
And I understand folks want a chance to speak about that, but there is time at the end of the meeting for it.
And I really want to be respectful of staff's time since they are taking the time to be here with us at almost 10 o'clock at night.
So, please, folks, you know, when you have your comments, please keep them focused on the item that we're addressing.
Thank you.
Okay, reclaim our power.
You should be able to unmute.
Good evening, Mayor, council members, staff and community.
My name is Colin cook Miller, speaking in support of bazo as a staff collective member of reclaim our power utility justice campaign.
Thank you, council members trade group and Cecilia Potter for your leadership in co authoring the resolution that this council also passed in support of state investment away from PG and E, and other investor owned utilities towards a not for profit utility.
And we are in full support of bazo as staff presented the ordinance without amendments and supplementals.
Bazo is an exemplary measure that must be replicated across cities in California to reduce climate pollution.
We are in solidarity with low income renters and homeowners in achieving building decarbonization affordably and without displacement.
Thank you staff and council members for acting tonight and leading for climate justice.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And that concludes the online public comment.
Okay, we are going to take council comments, starting with council member take up.
Thank you.
So, I wanted to just thank staff for all of their efforts.
I remember being, I mean, I was involved back in, I think, spanning from 2014 on working with staff in an effort to come up with an enforceable mechanism around this.
And I was pleased with how at every step of the way that the staff may the faces may have changed on the staff side and on the council, but the commitment has not to really try to find the appropriate balance between.
In a time of rising home.
Crisis to still provide first time homeownership opportunities and keep homeownership costs down while responding to the ever growing climate catastrophe that we face today.
And I was particularly pleased.
I remember staff presented this when now council member and I were on the energy and climate commission.
I'm very pleased with how responsive staff has been to feedback from that commission from the now disbanded Berkeley climate action coalition.
But I remember when we used to work together to provide feedback as well.
And I really feel that this strikes the appropriate balance.
I will note, I am keenly, keenly sensitive to any upward pressure on ISIS as an aspiring first time homeowner.
I still consider myself.
I'm, I'm not sure actually on a council salary, because this did involve a pay cut, whether I might qualify as a low income or homeowner, or maybe I'm in that donut hall, just above the threshold.
But what I do know for a fact as I'm trying to just assemble the funds is this $7,000 is not going to make any substantive difference to me.
I would rather pay a little couple thousand dollars more to make sure that I have a future home that is more climate resilient in this time.
I will also note, and I just wanted to also appreciate my.
My friends in in the real estate business and really my chief of staff and I met with Kieran and we really appreciate the discussion.
I do think that along the way staff has adopted several of the recommendations that were made by the realtors.
I will, I am particularly sensitive having worked in this space in the past to things not being done due to things outside of our control, like PG&E could say, you can't go solar because we have built up all the capacity on the block and you need to pay for a new transformer upgrade.
Well, in that case, there's now an exemption.
There are exemptions for time as well for, you know, should another trade war unfortunately start in the supply chain for equipment, Titan, even more, there is an exemption for that.
And so I really think that this strikes the appropriate balance, and I am going to make a motion that I hope.
That I hope combines the best of all the different proposals.
We'll see.
Maybe my colleagues on the dice may disagree, but I'm going to move the staff recommendation except for the following changes.
We're directing staff to assess the feasibility of the 5050 buyer seller split prior to implementation of this ordinance.
This would allow staff to the intent is to allow staff to do the rest of the groundwork needed, but then come back with feasibility because I do think if there is a way to enforce it, I think it's a really interesting concept.
And then the buyer would only have to pay 3.5 K.
And I mean, they would get it back.
Should it should they get the 6 points? And then the 2nd change would be in this from council member proposal, which would be to request an evaluation report 3 years after implementation.
I just think in general, evaluating the policies we pass after some period of time is sound policymaking.
So that will be my motion.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And that would be my motion.
Second.
I'm city clerk.
I just want to confirm we have a motion a supplemental and then also actually never had actually this is the this is the this is the only pending.
Thank you.
You're right.
I'd like to make a sub motion.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm not sure if the.
5050 split is part of the.
Ordinance amendments it would be.
The idea is to not hold things up.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm not sure if there are any alternatives between the 5050 split or not with an eye towards feasibility of implementation, including whether there is a sufficiently robust enforcement mechanism.
But the 5050 split would be in the ordinance.
I'm sorry.
I'm not sure if there is a sufficient robust enforcement mechanism.
It has to be referred to the city attorney to review legality and enforcement.
So we do not have the ordinance language tonight.
So, it would, if I may, council member, I think your motion is passing the ordinance as is with that referral.
Correct.
And the evaluation report.
Yes.
Okay.
So, I would you're actually next on the queue.
So, yes, thank you.
Madam mayor.
So I'm going to make a substitute motion.
That is just to do the supplemental in full as it was shown on the screen.
So, to review that again, it's the escrow deposit of 5000, referring the concept of splitting.
The, the deposit so that the seller will.
Absorb 2500 and exploring the enforcement of that.
So, I'm going to make a substitute motion.
So, I'm going to make a substitute motion.
So, I'm going to make a substitute motion to approve the replacement of that.
Doing the panel upgrade at 6 points and the evaluation report at after 3 years.
That's my motion.
2nd, okay, I'd like to continue the conversation and because I can't put myself into the queue, I want to reserve myself a spot to speak.
Okay, let's see council member.
Thank you.
Thank you for the massive amount of work you've done.
And other members of your staff have done over the past several years and Jordan to, of course, you've done an incredible amount of technical research, community outreach and the drafting of a very complicated measure.
So, thank you for the work that you've done over the past several years, and I know that you're significantly better.
I really appreciate our collaborative work on this.
And I'll associate myself with some of the comments made by council member black of the.
I think we've got to do something here at the local level.
And this is a good thing to do.
I think I think point of sale is the right time to do it.
And I've joined with council member.
I think these tweaks are well, justified, and I don't think they frankly, in any way, undercut our commitment to climate action.
I appreciate all the hard work you put into this council member.
And thank you to council members, black and Keith, who both have hit the ground running by the way, for your cosponsorship of the item.
Thanks.
Thank you council member.
Thank you, Mary.
I am, as council member mentioned, I'm sponsoring the supplemental and I'm obviously supporting it.
I'd like to just explain my rationale for doing this.
I am, as counsel member, but mentioned, I'm cosponsoring the supplemental and I'm obviously supporting it.
I'd like to just explain my rationale.
Well, first of all, it seems that the 3 year reporting requirement and 50 50 exploring 50 cut are non-controversial if that's my read on the situation.
So, the only remaining issue is the 5000s versus 7000.
So, the reason I am more comfortable with the 5000 is I.
I am a big believer in the theory of everything bigger liberalism.
I don't know if people know what that is.
If you don't, I recommend you Google it.
It's a great essay from as our client from a little over a year ago.
And basically, the idea of it is.
Well, meaning liberals, like, all of us, I think, in Berkeley have a tendency to.
Put well, meaning small hoops and fees and little things on to.
Onto processes that individually are great and you say, oh, but it's just a, it's just another thing they have to do.
It's just another little feet for this great reason.
But what can happen is there's like a death by 1000 cuts that can actually serve to really suppress a market that we don't want to suppress.
And that's what I'm concerned about here.
And I'm, I'm just more comfortable with the lower amount.
If this wasn't such a laudable goal, I would just vote against it.
I really, I really am suspicious of this type of legislating.
However.
I really, really do think that best.
It was a great idea.
I think the staff did a great job designing a really effective program.
I think it's I really like the enforcement mechanism and I think it's very fair and reasonable.
So, and of course, climate resilience is.
The most important issue, so I'm absolutely supportive of it.
I just would like to err on the side of making it a little bit less of a barrier due to this sort of holistic approach that I, that I like to take when thinking about things like this.
Thank you.
Council member Chaplin.
Thank you very much and thank you.
Council.
I concur and I think this is a continuation of a theme.
I'm not a homeowner.
I'm not an energy expert.
I am someone who grew up here.
My folks are from here.
I am in a 2 person double income household and we're never going to be able to afford a home here.
I know that people say that if you are in a position to buy a house here, a couple of thousand dollars might not make make make or break the difference.
But for someone like me, it's what gets decided is whether I live here somewhere else.
Right.
And 1 of our goals of the city is to champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.
If there were, if we wanted to reduce the number of people who look like me in this town.
We would do that by death, like a 1000 cuts.
So I will be supporting supplemental.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Moving forward to council member Bartlett.
Thank you, madam mayor and I'd like to thank the staff for your diligent work and crafting the Jeff Bezos legislation here.
Very clever maneuvering from the court block we had before and I support the goals.
I support it all the way.
However, I do.
I do believe that.
You know, the passage of the cost of.
I guess of societal goals upon.
Ordinary people is reaching its apex.
You know, there's more plans to increase tolls in the bridge, things like this, this sort of reductive financing.
Strategies there, they're just not fun.
And so this council spent years.
Honing in on the barriers to homeownership in this community and the sheer difficulty and making the down payment and making all those all those fees and getting bought out by people by the whole thing up front side unseen.
And we have strategies that we intend to employ to make affordable homeownership reality and step by step.
We're getting there.
I think this, this, this cost this tax is an obstacle for people to become homeowners and we will be enabling that.
But I do believe it will enable a bit more of the economic expansion in this community to more than rich people.
Which is a sincere goal of my office, so I'm going to be supporting the supplemental.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I have a question for staff.
You mentioned several times that 7000.
How confident are you that if we price this at below $7,000, that we're going to be able to afford it? I have a question for staff.
You mentioned several times that $7,000 is roughly indexed to the cost of enforcement by the city.
How confident are you that if we price this at below $7,000, that the city will be equipped given our limited resources to successfully well, to to enforce this to ensure the ordinances success.
So, I think you're so we, we'd stated that we think the minimal cost of compliance is likely about 7000.
So I think you're asking if if escrow is set at 5000 instead that difference, then assumedly would come from the homeowner.

Segment 7

This meeting is being recorded and will be available at the time that they are making upgrades to comply with the BASA requirements.
Now, as we stated, there's likely a range of costs, depending on what the homeowner chooses to do, it is possible that they may be able to comply for 5,000, so they would, you know, spend what they would get back in their escrow deposit, but it is also possible that they would spend more than the escrow deposit that they would, that they would get back.
Yeah, thank you.
So I, I appreciate all of my colleagues' comments, and I, I know that we all want BASA to succeed to the extent that there are differences of opinion over $2,000 or really $1,000 per buyer.
Please just know that I think we're trying to get to the same place, and we may just have different feelings about what is the appropriate balance.
I will be voting no on the substitute motion, but I do appreciate all the thought that went into this, and I support the goals of the ordinance.
Thank you, Council Member Blackaby.
3 very final comments, no questions.
The 1st 1 is that I just appreciate the discussion.
I think this has been a really informative conversation and the spirit with which we did it.
I just appreciate it's been a pleasure to be a part of this discussion, and I thank my colleagues for that.
2nd, I want to associate myself with Council Member O'Keefe and also Council Member Taplin on the point.
Kind of the point of the fee or the escrow, because, yeah, look, I'm not, I'm not crazy enough to think that this is going to change the ultimate ability of a buyer to buy, but it might change their mind about whether they're going to buy here.
Why not buy in El Cerrito? Why not buy in Kensington? Why not buy in Oakland? Why not buy in, like, if it's easier to buy somewhere else, why not? And so I, you know, that to me is why it's important to get the balance right.
Again, I support the policy, but I just, I think if we can do it in a way that reduces the burden, I just think it's good for us.
And the last thing I think in terms of the amount, the other reason I think I support the amount, even if even if the 5,000 doesn't quite cover it, is again, thinking about my own experience, and I'm only kind of thinking about my own experience, it's a lot easier to afford these things in year 2 or year 3 of your home ownership than on day 0 when you're trying to close the deal.
So, even if the total deposit amount doesn't cover what you're going to be due, I can shell out a little bit more money in year 2 or year 3.
Maybe I've gotten that raise at work.
Maybe, you know, I've figured things out, whatever.
I just think it's easier over time to be able to ease into the additional payment than to have to upfront it as a deposit.
So I think those are the 3 things I just leave my colleagues with.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember Lunapara, and then I've reserved my spot.
Thank you.
There are a couple of things that I want to mention.
First, that because they have been mentioned a few times, the item passed by last month by Councilmember Kesewani encouraging middle income home ownership would in practice create multi-unit condos, which are exempt from this ordinance.
I also wanted to mention that because I heard it in a public comment, you would not have to pay for a 3rd year exemption if you need it.
I just wanted to clarify those things.
As I said earlier, in a time when we are seeing federal funding pulled from climate equity programs and climate change deniers in positions of federal power, I am genuinely very concerned about the rebate program being rendered impotent if the rebate is less than the total cost of the cheapest and easiest upgrade.
I'm not saying that I'm in favor of the rebate program, but I recognize that I'm in the minority in this and understand my colleagues' concerns.
Regardless, I am hopeful and proud that our city is taking meaningful steps towards reducing emissions from smaller residential buildings.
We're at a point in time where we must start thinking about our personal complicity in the destruction of the environment, and this is something very close to my heart.
I'm also very concerned about the future of our city.
We are at a point in time where we have to face some tradeoffs.
We must ask ourselves what we are willing to sacrifice for the well-being of our environment, of our neighbors, of the future, even if the future of a more equitable housing market is entirely reliant on a stable and healthy planet to live on in the first place.
I'm also very concerned about the future of our city.
I can't help but apply that here.
I'm so thankful to our staff and our community for being willing to push the needle on this, and I'm looking forward to voting affirmatively for this policy tonight.
Thank you.
I just want to check with our city clerk because we have 2 motions.
We will vote for Councilmember Kessler-Wanis first and then Councilmember Tragobs.
If the substitute motion passes, then we don't vote on the main motion.
Right.
If it passes.
Yeah.
Okay.
So, because we are going to be voting on Councilmember Kessler-Wanis first, I will be voting in support of it.
However, I have some points that I would like to make because it is really important to me that it passes and it's important to me that we're aligned on this, but I do just have some points that I want to bring up that I think are really important to say.
I know there were concerns about low-income homebuyers, and that's something I'm incredibly concerned about as well.
We know how expensive it is to live in our community, and I just want to highlight that there are exemptions for low-income homebuyers.
I know you had that on one of your slides, so I just want to make sure that that's highlighted for folks so that they know that that exists.
So, I'm a realtor.
I've been a realtor for a number of years, just from personal experience.
I have been very fortunate enough to have been able to buy a home in the last year and a half.
And so I'm actually quite familiar with what's going on with BASO and what the sewer ladder looks like and what the process is to get that reimbursement and I want to say, you know, realtor thing, right, location, location, location, like, if you want to live in Berkeley, and you're trying to live here, you will live, you will be looking for a place to live here, and I just want to bring that up because I think it's really important to me that we're aligned on this, but I do just have some points that I would like to make.
I know there were concerns about low-income homebuyers, and that's something I'm incredibly concerned about as well.
I know you had that on one of your slides, so I just want to make sure that that is clear on terms of you know, variety of materials and circumstances that's not just FGM XML or some of those, that might not stand out that much.
So I just wanted to bring that up because I think it's important to just comment on the fact that many people who are trying to live here in, this city aren't necessarily looking into our various ordinances.
And so I don't see this as a deterrent based so just generally.
And I also want to make sure that it's clear that you can use the funding in escrow if you have the permits and I have a contract for the construction, I just want to make sure that's correct.
Yes.
And I also want to make sure that I'm clear on the fact that I was not able to use funds for this is something that people could actually use the funds that are in escrow to go towards that work, which is why I'm comfortable with the $7,000 amount and and also I just want to push back a little bit I actually feel that after a couple of years of homeownership, you realize that there are actually a lot of problems and then you do actually have to pay a lot of money after a couple of years to to pay for any changes and upgrades.
So I just wanted to make sure that I was clear on that.
Let's see, yeah, just worried about that.
Going from 7,000 to 5,000 will deter people from actually making the changes and that I'm worried that this won't be enough to cover the cost because as council member brought up.
I think that's a really good point.
And I also wanted to comment on the fact that 7,000 was picked because it was the minimum cost of compliance.
I want to close by just saying, you know, we all think that climate change is so important and I really want to thank you all for again, engaging in this discussion and I really want us to be aligned on this and knowing that we are going to be voting on the supplemental 1st.
And I think that's a really good point.
Thank you.
Okay, like if our clerk could take role, please.
Okay on the substitute motion.
Council member yes.
Yes, Bartlett yes.
I would comment.
Council member yes.
Okay, yes.
Yes.
Yes, and Mary she yes.
Thank you all so much.
I really appreciate your work and thank you so much.
The staff are staying taking our questions and all the work you've done.
Thank you.
Okay.
So I should have done this earlier.
The city council met in closed session on February 3rd, 2025 pursuant to government code section 54956.9 D2 and provide a direction to outside council and approved a settlement by compromise and release without a release a future medical care as to workers compensation matter.
B, E, R, 2, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0, 3 and a WCAB case number.
A, D, J, 1, 6, 2, 9, 5, 7, 4, 0, the city council met in closed session on February 3rd, 2025 pursuant to government code section 54956.9 D2 and provide a directions to outside council and approved a settlement by compromise and release with the release of future medical care as to workers compensation matter.
B, E, R, 2, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0, 3 and a WCAB case number.
A, D, J, 3, 7, 1, 0, 7, 2, 1.
Thank you so much.
We are now moving on to information reports, but I just want to check in with council.
Do you want to just take like a 3 minute stretch or are you okay to move forward? No.
Yes.
No.
Okay, all right.
It seems like folks want to move forward.
So, if you want to take a stretch, please, please do feel free to stand up, but we do have 3 information reports and we are going to go to number 10, which is.
For year 2024, 4th quarter investment report and did June 30th, 2024 and is our presenter.
There's no presentation on these.
They're just accepted by.
Thank you.
Yes.
Okay.
Excuse me.
Okay, so you just accept.
Is there a motion to accept these and these are just.
Received and filed by the council.
There's no need for the council to take any particular action on any of the information reports.
So you don't, you know, they don't require a motion for action.
Motion to join what we have, you have the name we have public comment.
Sorry.
Can I have some more water? Please? Someone are there any other public comments for items? Not on the agenda that we didn't hear earlier in the meeting if you have non agenda, public comment, please come forward if you didn't already speak at the beginning.
Hello, mayor council, thank you for staying.
Downtown Berkeley is an embarrassment.
You've all seen it.
Plywood.
Great empty storefronts district 4.
we implore you to consider the for the Berkeley last remaining theater and downtown Berkeley doesn't look like it's been a democratic process.
There's an appeal, which you all know about.
Why is the district looking for a new theater? The way Berkeley could be restored as a live performance venue on par with Paramount and Oakland could have many possibilities.
The development proposals retain a fraction of the theater, destroying the 4 story theater itself say the Berkeley do it right guys.
Thank thank you for your comments.
Other comments in person or online.
Okay, we have a online commenters and 1st, currently 14 online commenters.
1st is Christina's iPhone.
Hi, my name's Christina.
I'm a Palestinian American who works in Berkeley.
I am calling in because I heard that the resolution that was passed by the peace and justice commission has been postponed when it should have actually been agendized for the city council to vote on just want to say that, like, you have 2 choices right now.
So, you can either support 4, or you can support 5.
There's no point in having a progressive diverse body on city council when you're just going to do things that capitulate to raise your voice and say, no, we're not going to do this.
We're not going to do this.
Or you can resist fascism and doing something stupid like tabling a resolution that is anti genocide is supporting fascism.
There's no point in having a progressive diverse body on city council when you're just going to do things that capitulate to racist apologists, genocide apologists.
I'm so disgusted by the city council that after 16 months of genocide, you can't even put a well researched resolution that is pro Palestinian liberation onto the table for y'all to vote on and expose yourselves for being racist.
Thank you for your comments, Suzanne.
Suzanne, you're the next speaker.
Hi, I would like to respectfully receive my time to Sheila.
Okay.
Okay.
Next is.
I'm there.
Please.
State your comments.
Yes.
Okay, maybe we will city clerk.
I know that.
I know that person before had a seat of their time to Sheila even.
I just want to make sure if she's on there.
I don't see a raised.
Hand for somebody named Sheila, so I don't.
I'm sure that's okay.
Just when she comes back up, I just want to make sure we didn't lose track.
Hello, this is George.
Am I on yes, please.
Yeah.
As a former member of peace and justice commission who participated in the majority vote for this resolution, it's being discussed.
I was distressed to hear that the ceasefire resolution will not be heard.
And in the, in the clear campaign to remove pro human rights commissioners from peace and justice and to send it back there at this point is pretty clearly a step to say, we don't want any resolution.
Do I have a minute or.
1 minute, so you don't need or should not need a commission resolution to take a stand.
Against the killing of 200,000 guys and Palestinians, whether directly or indirectly through starvation.
The comments, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's been, it's, it's clear that the council does not want to take anything on.
But now that your, your president has been replaced by Trump, and you didn't want to take a stand against contradiction to your democratic leader, but now it's next is oh, there's Suzanne.
There's no, no, we haven't another's another Susan.
She was at the very bottom.
Okay, Sheila, you have 2 minutes.
Can you hear me? Yes.
Hi, thank you so much for letting me speak.
I just wanted to say that I'm disappointed to hear that there was a comment made at the beginning of this meeting, indicating that this resolution that was passed in the fall.
And should have been agendized a companion report should have been written and the city council should have taken this to council and then should end if not with the last administration that this administration.
I'm disappointed to hear that that is somehow, for some reason, folks are thinking that needs to go back to the peace and justice commission.
And I just would like to say that everything in that resolution is still extremely relevant asking for a permanent ceasefire asking for arms to stop to Israel until such time as their self determination for Palestinians.
None of those things have been resolved.
And, in fact, there is an indication that the ceasefire is not going to hold.
And so, in addition, Trump has said that he's going to make Gaza the Riviera of the Middle East and ethnically cleanse it.
We're in a very important moment in time and Berkeley can take a stand.
I think Berkeley should take a stand.
It has historically taken a stand against so many international issues and that is what the peace and justice commission is here for.
And I think it's important that when a resolution passes legally, it should be taken forward.
There is no reason for it to be taken back to the peace and justice commission to renegotiate something that is still completely relevant today.
Thank you.
And next is Z.
Tangy at Gmail.
Hello.
Can you hear me? Yes, I'm sorry I thought I changed the idea.
I guess I've reverted.
My name is Bernard Mars.
Like, I'm a member of Berkeley public.
I.
Since May of last year, we have been video recording the planning commission meetings.
On our YouTube channel, you search YouTube for Berkeley public.
I, and you'll see archived all the meetings since May, including the recent 1, February 5th.
The Berkeley public is a nonprofit and operates on donations.
We've been filming these meetings because the proceedings of the planning commission share the same legal standing.
As city council meetings, the rent board and.
And while these meetings are zoomed, the PC meetings are not if the public had access to these meetings or policies being formulated.
We believe it would expedite consensus on issues before they arrive at city council contentious issues would be eliminated or greatly reduced.
Believe this is a matter of transparency council member.
When graphs May 7th, 2024 budget referral was passed, and I hope it's incorporated in the budget 2526 in the meantime, Berkeley public I request that the city council.
Each video editing and posting with timestamps cost $800.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Excuse me city clerk.
I think we have many people who are speaking in the.
In the zoom call, and I'd like to ask that we limit it to 10.
I did make comments earlier, so I just want to reiterate them that my staff and I have been meeting with various stakeholders.
And we've had a lot of discussion about what we're going to do next month.
I'm sorry that there's been miscommunication about the peace and justice commission resolution.
I hear what you're saying to folks who are on and we're on the commission.
But my understanding was that the resolution was going to be brought up again at the next piece and justice commission meeting.
And then city clerk, if you can take the rest of the 10 comments, please.
So, we'll just have, we have 4 more speakers to go to get to 10 commenters.
Next is Cheryl devil, a former council member.
I don't think it's fair that you're changing the rules of the people online that were waiting to the end of the meeting.
To speak and now you're limiting it to 10.
that wasn't what you said.
That was not said previously.
And it's, it's, it's, it's kind of painful to watch y'all like, not even listening to any of the public comments and.
Eating and talking and.
And not taking full charge of the meeting there.
It's you're the mayor shouldn't give your power to the clerk.
It's really kind of interesting and sad that you're not being the leader that you should be.
In this moment, and I'm just worried about, you know, what's going to happen if.
Council member.
Are you going to be you capturing our council? You're taking out my time and I wasn't finished.
Let's not be rude all the time and and don't continue Jesse's bad practices because it looks like you're doing that.
But my point is, what's going to happen when Palestinians, if something happens.
Remember your time, your time is up and.
Your time is up and we have given you many opportunities to speak and since we have limited it to 10, I do think it would be appropriate to take a few for instead of the 3 that we're at.
Okay, next is Bryce Miller.
Good evening council.
Can you hear me? Yes.
My name is Bryce Miller.
I'm a student at UC Berkeley.
I'm also the president of telegraph for people and a resident of Berkeley's district 4.
I'm here commenting tonight to ask you to rank the referral called South side, complete streets, limiting cars and telegraph a 5 out of 5 in your annual referral rankings.
My hometown, Santa Barbara pedestrianized its main iconic street state street in 2020, giving businesses space to expand onto the street pedestrians and cyclists space to move outside the crammed sidewalks.
And most importantly, representing a major shift away from car dependency in a city, which in all other aspects gives all priorities to cars in 2022.
This council voted unanimously in support of a resolution to explore, making telegraph avenue car free, but with no plans designs or money to back the project in the 3 years since no progress has been made and telegraph is still clogged by vehicles, creating unnecessary emissions, noise and violence in 2023.
In 2023, the telegraph area experienced 35 vehicle crashes.
You have the opportunity this year to follow through on the hope that you gave South side Berkeley in 2022 by ranking the referral called South side, complete streets, limiting cars on telegraph a 5 out of 5 in your annual.
Next is Suzanne B.
Hi there.
I'd like to direct this comment to the mayor, your comments are a complete disregard and a slap in the face to the hard work of the peace and justice commissioners.
But more importantly, it is undemocratic.
The people on this dice mayor are not your allies, and you will not get far by appealing to them, or to the Zionists that line their pockets with your niceties or processes.
You bring shame to the survivors of Japanese internment camps by telling a caller earlier to stick to the subject instead of connecting it to a genocide that we are funding with our tax dollars.
I think all of you would do well to remember what happened to the last city council.
Stop running our city like it's a corporation.
We are a community, and the people are coming.
So it is time for you to decide if you will have the moral clarity and courage to represent us, or the cowardice to kowtow to fanatics of a foreign fascist government.
Put the resolution on your agenda now.
Last speaker is Arun.
Can you hear me? Yes.
Okay, my name is Arun.
I'm calling to express my disappointment in the city council to not agendize the resolution passed by the peace and justice commission calling for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and then to the US military aid to Israel and recognition of Palestinian self determination as it was written.
I understand that this anti genocide pro arms embargo resolution has already been sent back to the peace and justice commission, but this is a huge mistake.
It's just as relevant now as it was when it was passed.
It already garnered support of an ever growing number of Berkeley residents from diverse backgrounds.
And when I attended that commission meeting, it was crystal clear that the council needed to act then and that urgency remains today.
So sending this back is a huge mistake.
Censorship of people who are here to speak out about it.
Huge mistake.
This just stands with the wave of right wing attacks fueled by conservative extremists and their billionaire backers and that should never be the voice of Berkeley.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Was that our final comment? That's our final comment.
Okay.
I just want to address 1 of the comments that was made earlier.
I feel like it's incredibly inappropriate to bring up someone's personal family background as a way to insult them for reasons that, you know, we are trying to run a council meeting, keeping in mind that we are all human beings here.
And I have offered folks and I will continue to offer folks opportunities to come and speak with my office.
As someone who cares about this issue, who is incredibly concerned about what is happening in the Middle East.
I want to say that you are not doing yourselves any favors.
By insulting us and and calling us names and using profanity in our direction that I, as someone who cares a lot about this issue.
I'm willing to meet with people and I'm happy to take folks.
I really do hope you take me up on that offer as opposed to just sitting here and insulting me from behind a screen.
When you quite frankly, don't know anything about my family's history and the things that I have been through, so I would just like to ask that folks.
Be thoughtful when you're giving comments.
I'm happy to have a 1 on 1 conversation, but it is incredibly inappropriate for you all.
To give comments to our council, making assumptions about our backgrounds and who we are and what we believe in.
So, I just want to make those comments and.
Ask if there's a motion to adjourn.
Okay, yeah, if there's no opposition, then.
I will have this all recorded as eyes.
Thank you.
We're adjourned.
Meeting is adjourned recording stopped.