OpenCityCouncil

Transcription Metadata


        Whisper API Version 1


      Generated 2025-02-26 19:50:34 UTC


      Archive URI berkeley_31fcf2b8-85b6-4bdf-8ac6-e476f565d664.ogg

Segment 1

Okay, hello.
Recording in progress.
Hello everyone, good evening.
Hi, thank you so much.
Okay, so I would like to call to order, perhaps my notes.
Ah, thank you.
I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the Berkeley City Council.
Today is February 5th, 2025.
And I'd like to start with a roll, please.
All right, council member Kesarwani? Here.
Taplin? Present.
Bartlett? Here.
Tregub? Present.
O'Keefe? Here.
Blackaby? Here.
Lunaparra? Here.
Humbert? Present.
Henare? Here.
Yes, so, just realized we have, just to make folks aware, we have a adjournment in memory, but we just have one.
And, um, we'll have council member Tregub speak to that at the end if that's okay.
Thank you.
And I'd also like to submit an urgency item for council to consider.
Adding to the consent calendar, this item is going to add make some changes to the existing council committee appointments that we made in January.
And the rationale for submitting this as an urgent item is that BUSD found a conflict of interest and we need to make a change in our appointment for the two-by-two committee.
The existing JPA led debate meetings are in conflict with council member Kesarwani's attendance to the budget and finance meeting and we're taking this urgent action to ensure that Councilor Tregub, our recommended appointee to the JPA, is available to attend this meeting for this body on Thursday, two twenty-seven days from now.
So, therefore, this appointment can't wait until the next council meeting.
It was also brought to our attention that we need to appoint council member Teflon to the AC Transit Interagency Liaison Committee meeting.
He was a pre-existing appointee.
He'd like to continue in this position.
We didn't realize that by adding someone else, we actually booked him.
So, I'd like to ask for unanimous consent for this item to be added to the consent calendar.
Can everyone marked as unanimous? Some moved.
Okay.
All right.
Well, I think it passes unanimously then.
Okay.
Everyone will be recorded as aye and this will be added to the council's consent calendar for consideration.
I'm sorry, folks.
Can we have quiet please? Thank you.
All right.
Moving on now to city manager comments.
No comments, Madam Mayor.
Yeah, I simply wanted to mention that one of my predecessors, Bonnie Armstrong, has passed and planned to do something at this council meeting during her memory.
But I wanted to mark her passing at this meeting.
So, thank you.
Yes, thank you for the reminder.
So, Bonnie Armstrong and Marty Schenbauer.
Thank you.
Sorry, Polly next time, but Marty for this evening.
Yes.
Thank you so much.
Okay.
So, I know comments from the city manager.
So, we will now take comments on non-agenda matters.
All right.
There's been a call for a public comment on non-agenda matters.
So, we are going to grab the drum and select up to five cards.
Right.
Five speakers have been selected from the room and in no particular order.
Speakers are Steve Tracy, Anne Scham, Mark McDonald, Russell Bates, and Andrea Pritchett.
Okay.
If those can come up to speak, please.
And Deputy, would you please just tell them how much time they have, please? Each speaker will have one minute to comment.
Hello, everybody.
Good evening to you.
I'd like to adjourn the meeting for infants who died of pneumonia in Gaza last night because they weren't provided.
So, while Terry and the rest of you who are against the ceasefire in Berkeley.
Please refrain from calling people names.
Folks who voted against the ceasefire, bringing it up to people to discuss openly so we can find out who the cowards are and who the faithful are on the Berkeley City Council.
We need to do that.
It's been a long time coming from the Police and Justice Commission and the obfuscation of it and putting it aside says to me that we need to do more for the kids.
I'd like to curse on the council.
It doesn't do any good, but don't bring it up.
I still believe that.
Thank you very much.
Is our next commenter available? Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Could you speak to the mic over here? Okay, is that right? Yes, I can hear you all online.
Thank you.
Picture a block before Rose Garden as you walk from UC.
Super busy sidewalk.
From my driveway, beautiful wood.
What are those things in the middle of the sidewalk? I'm ashamed to say that my neighbor's garage door is a couple years old.
Like the other neighbors, we tried to get along.
I just looked their way.
It seemed wrong until I saw a little kid that jacked the handlebars and almost fell down.
He had to get off his bike.
There's no permit.
There's no fence code.
I thought I'd do the right thing.
I filled out the warrant in 16 form with building safety.
I sent emails.
Three weeks down the road, Daryl Apple replied, he's notified Public Works and he'll leave it to discretion.
Please help me urge them to take some action.
It's a fenced code that's unpermitted.
Thank you.
Should be low hanging fruit to fix this for public safety.
Thank you.
I appreciate your comment.
Okay.
Sorry folks, you know I'm a seller for timing, so you've got to just say you know.
Okay, yeah.
Good evening, Mayor, Council.
My name is Mark McGill.
I served eight years on the Peace and Justice Commission under Mark Shirek and Max Anderson.
I'm just a long time anti-war police citizen.
Back to paint and sign again.
Yeah, we got a ceasefire resolution through the Peace and Justice Commission.
It was a long dramatic night.
We feel like we represent the majority of the city.
That's where the conscience of the Berkeley citizens lie.
We're the only city around here who hasn't passed a ceasefire resolution.
We really are embarrassed by that.
So we're hoping you folks put the resolution on the end and at least vote it so we where we stand and that's all we're asking.
Take a look at it.
It's a tragedy that breaks my heart every day just against bombs dropping on babies.
It's a personal thing.
Okay, thank you very much for your concern.
Good evening, Council Members.
My name is Andrea Pritchett and I'm with Pop Watch among other things.
I do want to just close my comments with a concern that public comment has been held down to five minutes.
Speakers are one minute each.
I remember when it was 30 minutes, it was just assumed that people had three minutes each.
I'd like to see us moving in direction.
Mayor, I sent an email to you about the SCU and my desire to meet with you to talk about the complications of that.
We have a police department that is not cooperating with the spirit of the resolution that was passed and the creation of the SCU.
We need your help.
We have not been able to get help from anybody else in the city.
I want to express my my deep concern the recommendations of Police Accountability Board this morning regarding the text scape and the fact that we know we have officers who shared racist text among themselves and engaged in a court system will have no consequence and their report recommendations will be ignored.
Thank you for your comment.
Thank you.
The last that was drawn is Ed Sham.
Hello everybody.
I'm here to remind everybody here of the rules and procedures that govern resolutions that are passed by various commissions in the city of Berkeley.
A resolution that's passed at a meeting of a commission can be changed, rescinded, only before that meeting is adjourned.
Not any time after.
And the procedure for that which is a one from the pre-bailing group would make a motion and then another one second them and then after the adjournment they work out the details of when they want to do that.
So you know this resolution that has been passed everyone said oh my gosh you know you better just not allow public comments.
That's what I'm suggesting to you because it's good well the trend that our country is going to I appreciate your comment but I'm really sorry we're out of time for your comments.
I know yeah and I have said that yeah.
Do you have comments online? Yes we will now go to the first five hands raised in Zoom and the first speaker is Madeline's iPhone.
Hi everyone.
Can everyone hear me? Yes.
Okay great.
My name is Madeline Roberts-Rich.
I am a Berkeley High alum of 2012 and generally a very staunch YIMBY for housing.
In April you will be hearing an appeal for the United Artists Cinema on Shattuck Avenue and I wanted to get in touch with you months before because I just want you to think about how the public desire to preserve cinematic infrastructure on Shattuck Avenue which has been designed as a mixed-use entertainment district and many very delicately intertwined uses theaters, restaurant, bars, bars, cinema etc.
until recently cinema operating cinema how that was all planned and by allowing for what I think is unlawful by virtue of CEQA and the public process approval the demolition of this theater for apartments is going against the will of the people and losing the last um amount which is purpose built infrastructure so never get a cinema back on Shattuck.
Thank you.
I know sometimes it can be hard to see them online but hopefully I can ask our deputy to help me.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Karen H.
Karen H you should be able to speak.
Recording stopped.
Hi.
I'm hoping you can hear me.
Thumbs up.
Recording in progress.
Yes we can hear you.
Oh perfect.
Thank you very much.
My name is Karen Haycox.
I'm here this evening.
Greetings Madam Mayor and Council Member Keserwani.
Thank you for listening to us tonight.
I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the incredible Cesar Chavez Park.
I am a resident of District 1 and an active dog owner and it has come to my attention and saddened to learn that there is an effort afoot to try and exclude dogs from the Cesar Chavez Park.
I believe that the initiative is in its infancy but I wanted to get to you quickly to ask that you keep Cesar Chavez Park as a park for all.
As a new Berkeley resident and a passionate and active citizen I'm very proud of the community at Cesar Chavez Park and the work of the dog owners to keep the dog park useful and a park for everyone.
So this move to be exclusive seems very much in line with what's going on in our country and I want it to stay out of Berkeley and really keep Cesar Chavez Park inclusive for all of us.
Thank you for your service.
Our next speaker is Shayna Rush.
Sorry this is Shayna.
This is her co-worker.
I couldn't figure out how to change the name on here but I would urge you to agendize the resolution the Peace and Justice Commission passed for an up or down vote just so we can see where everyone stands on it.
I think it deserves that much running out of bums and fewer people into the things people need here.
Also release the text files.
Our next speaker is Irana Auerbach.
Hi good evening everyone.
I want to echo that the JC arms embargo and fire resolution arms against Israel.
Please Israel is expanding.
You know they're bombing Syria now.
40,000 people.
I think that's the number of students at Cal or maybe grads at Cal.
I'm not really sure.
Have been in the past months have been put out of the West Bank and not to mention the children and people that are killed every day even in Gaza.
Dozens of people since the alleged ceasefire.
So please I urge you Berkeley must be on the right side of history with this.
I also want to just point out it was already mentioned.
I was stunned that this morning at the public safety committee they basically threw away the PAB worked for months and months innumerable hours on a report.
I wonder if council members even read that report with four very helpful recommendations for police oversight in our city.
85 percent of us voted that we want police oversight.
Please we must implement that.
Thank you for your comment your time.
Our next speaker is Janine Cohen.
This is our final speaker.
Thank you.
I am also calling in to urge you to take up the peace and justice resolution.
I cannot stress enough the the sentiment of the folks that have brought to your attention tonight.
The amount of suffering of watching for over a year and a half the genocide of the Palestinian people.
It's spreading from Gaza.
Bombs in Gaza have stopped dropping but now tanks in the West Bank.
The city of Berkeley has been the only East Bay City who hasn't brought this to the attention or made a vote or anything and the people have spoken.
We have been calling on you for more than a year to do something about this.
Peace and justice put forth a valuable resolution.
Take it up.
Thank you.
Thank you for the comments.
We are now moving on to the consent calendar.
Council comments? Okay.
Yes Council Member Humbert.
Thank you Madam Mayor.
I'm going to bring attention to item number 11 which is a contract to for janitorial services at the soon-to-be new public classroom on Telegraph Avenue.
I'm really excited about this.
It's a critical amenity and it will make life better for everybody who is walking the streets of the Telegraph District.
Item 11 will keep that new restroom usable and sanitary and I also want to thank former Council Member Robinson for spreading this critical public amenity.
I also thank Council Members Lupara and O'Keeffe for consent item 13 brings attention to the need for we humans to care for other sentient beings that share our world.
Thank you very much.
That's all I have.
Thank you.
Okay Council Member Munapara.
Thank you.
I want to send my strong support to Aspen 299 and UC workers who are striking tomorrow and Thursday and up to 119 UC workers who are striking tomorrow through Friday.
All of my colleagues and I will be on the joint picket line corner of Bancroft and Telegraph this week and I hope that others will join us.
On item 11 I was so so excited to be the grand opening of the public room on Telegraph and Channing.
I want to thank public staff for such an incredible cutting ceremony and of course doing the work of of building this this amenity and of course this couldn't have been done without my predecessor former Council Member Robinson who advocated for this project.
This restroom has already greatly improved quality of life for all of us to live work and study inside.
I also want to thank you for supporting this effort and taking maintenance responsibility.
On item 13 I was so proud to work with the Center for Biological Diversity to introduce and I'm grateful to Council Member O'Keeffe for co-sponsorship.
This resolution expresses the City of Berkeley support for efforts at the state and regional level to protect whales and whales from fishing gear, fast-moving boats and other dangers.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Council Member Traigub.
Thank you so much.
I wanted to thank public work staff for moving forward on phase one of a contract to in the Strawberry Creek Covert Maintenance Project.
We are a city of history and historic infrastructure which is near or towards the end or past end of useful life and needs to be rehabilitated.
I wanted to acknowledge that our office has held we received after receiving a number of emails from District 4 residents whose priorities abut the covert.
We have been working with them and public work staff to hold a community meeting early in the year.
I understand that this particular contract which I do support that the direction at this juncture did not include an opportunity for residents who expressed that desire to share in the costs of the city of rehabilitating the covert run underneath their properties.
My office is committed to continuing to work closely with our administration to ensure that any possibilities of happening in the future can be explored and that information around such opportunities is timely shared with constituents.
I also want to thank staff for the telegraph items.
Yes, item number 11 and my chief of staff there at the Ribbon Cutting and I want to thank Council Member Napala her predecessor Council Member Robinson and staff and TBID leadership and lastly I am excited to support item 14 supporting the free and safe of whales, sea turtles and other marine animals in the areas close to waters.
It's a whale of a sentence.
Thank you.
Can we go to Council Member Blackbee please? Yeah thanks I'll be brief.
I'm glad I'm on the other side of the from the the attack way over there with Shoshana.
I just want to draw attention I support every item on the calendar in particular draw attention to item four is the super successful brooklyn shipping program especially as we're going to be asking residents in the coming weeks to do more around hardening and zone zero in a defensible space.
Just in the last year plus that this program has been running you can basically schedule a pickup at any point they'll come and ship and take away the debris.
They've removed 6,000 cubic yards of material 2,300 separate pickups over 56 weeks.
The program's open for mid-March to mid-December which has been a really amazing program and thing that folks in our districts will be leaning on the next couple of months.
So just so good to see this item and part of the the broader consent and thanks to the fire department for renewing this contract.
Thank you Council Member.
Council Member O'Keefe.
I want to thank Council Member Lara for authoring the item 13 the free passage of whales and seagulls and I thank you for allowing me to co-sponsor.
I just to just introduce everyone to friends of mine my family loves whales and mammals and my kids and so brought to honor the wonderful item brought Humphrey and William and I want you 13 meters now so what I'm doing is very cringe.
So I appreciate the cringeness but yes I just wanted to say thank you to everyone hopefully this will pass tonight.
Thank you Council Member.
Any other Council comments? Okay I will open it up to public comments on consent calendar information items only please.
Good evening again Council Members.
I want to speak in favor of consent calendar number two the National Endowment for the Arts and I think that's a great thing to apply for.
I hope content of whatever is developed as a result of that $150,000 reflects our desire for peace.
Stance as a city against genocide but it highlights that while we care about marine life, whales, sentient beings that we're willing to stand up for human unity as well.
This is a moment to be counted my friend.
This is a moment to let this go without comment is to betray the trust that the people of Berkeley have in you as Berkeley representatives.
We have a history and a legacy.
We stand up.
We stood up to the House of American Activities.
We stood up to the injustices of the gun war.
I am counting on you to stand up.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
On item 11 it's really good to see one of these restrooms forward that the statements that have been made from some members of the public about the other restrooms have really gone to extreme verbally and they come out of stigma, fear and hostility towards the homeless.
These restrooms are for the community.
I have to say I was at the Transportation Infrastructure Commission last week where there was a presentation on the restrooms and one public commenter somehow associated with the $500,000 robbery at the Bombay Jewelry to why they should not be a public restroom because as we all know a $500,000 loss in Berkeley obviously should have something to do with homeless people who must have stolen and put a place down in backpacks or shopping carts.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Next comment.
Thank you.
In calendar item two I'd like to support that.
I'd like to support that as an artist and an illustrator.
I worked for France in New York.
I worked for Francoise Mouly at the New Yorker magazine.
Her husband wrote the graphic novel House which you may be familiar with.
I'd like you to think a little more broadly about what the arts are about.
They're about expression.
They're about participation in the larger world.
Now when you submit a free speech at your city council members at your city council meetings that's very serious.
I saw something else very serious.
I'm going to be posting the video sometime tomorrow at marincountyconfidential.substack.com sorry.
It was the ADEM voting in in 84 in the delegate voting.
Severe irregularities.
Very disturbing.
I have three seconds left.
Do you want to let people know at marincountyconfidential.substack.com Thank you.
Thank you.
On article on item number 13 here.
Of course council member never seems to amaze me.
Constantly I just I just want to give you a virtual hug.
It's such an important thing.
But as long as we're talking about the same issues the whales sea turtles how about since I'm not the Berkeley homeless also for unhoused people and people in vehicles.
Let's make this message for them as well.
It's only fair.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Good evening council members and staff.
My name is Graham Grundy and the oceans came here with this Center for Biological Diversity.
Thank you.
I want to thank the council for the opportunity to provide comment.
I'm here representing our members in the city of Berkeley and so our members across California.
I'm also here joined by the California Institute of Biodiversity Clean Earth for Kids the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The resolution supporting the free and safe passage of whales is an opportunity for the city of Berkeley to express support for protecting California marine wildlife.
I think council member Lunapar and council member O'Keefe for their leadership on this issue.
Our state waters support marine biodiversity that Berkeley residents and other Californians get to enjoy and experience.
Unfortunately marine mammals are forced to mitigate various threats.
States coastal waters from pollution marine debris and fast vessels.
Just this spring in Alameda we saw a female gray whale washed in the bed and scientists believe it was likely due to a vessel strike.
Adopting this resolution will let state leaders know the city supports the state of California's commitment and I'd like to thank you for your leadership and encourage you to resolution.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Council members my name is Corinne Jagger.
I'm a longtime resident of Berkeley California.
I am a colleague of Ben so I'll pick up where he left off and thank you so much for your support of consent item 13.
I only will say council member O'Keefe is that rather than cringe I'd like to say that they are very cute and also as a parent of teens you know we have whale watching and I know anybody who has had the opportunity to see these majestic beasts know we need to do what we can to protect them.
So appreciate everyone's support.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Hello my name is Beatrice.
I am a new resident of the East Bay and I'm here to thank the council for their support of consent item number 13 and appreciate your protection of biodiversity and marine mammals and healthy fishing communities and urge you to continue that spirit for all of humanity.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening council members and staff.
My name is Natalie Jones.
I'm a Berkeley resident and I work at the Center for Biological.

Segment 2

Segment 3

I'm going to talk a little bit about the development projects that are proposed right now, as potentially developers position themselves to move quickly and conditions improve in the market.
I also want to emphasize that these are critical sources of affordable housing funding for the city to leverage outside funding sources for 100% of projects.
The full fee, that is, the ones that don't include inclusionary and pay-in-lieu, do tend to be smaller, kind of missing projects, and because they're paying the full fee and meeting the full requirements, they may be more sensitive to changes in the fee.
But in contrast to that, a lot of the projects coming into the city now that are larger are state-density bonus projects, and therefore, as I mentioned and explained, they tend to pay a pretty low overall fee.
Good evening, Mayor, Council member.
Thanks for having me.
I'm Rick Kobus with Street Level Advising.
I'm just going to quickly recap the recommendations that we came to, and I first want to just say that what we're recommending is very modest, very minor changes to the in-lieu fee policy.
We're proposing that you keep the in-lieu fee essentially where it is now, but to change slightly the way that you address smaller projects.
And so I'll walk through those recommendations now.
So the first thing is, we're suggesting that you apply, instead of the table that we saw before where the fee is phased in for small projects and it steps up incrementally as the project gets larger, what we've seen is that that creates breakpoints where there's a kind of an incentive for a project to go under the limit.
So particularly for a 4,999-square-foot project to pay no fee and a 5,001-square-foot project would pay $38 per square foot on all the square feet.
That's a big difference.
So we're suggesting that you apply the fee to all of the square feet at the same level rather than in tiers, with a slight exception on this slide, which is that we're suggesting that to benefit, to make the impact of the program lighter on smaller projects, the sort of missing middle type projects, we're recommending that you exempt the 5,000 square feet of floor area for every project, for every project that's using the in-lieu option.
And what that would mean is that a 4,900-square-foot project would still pay nothing if a 5,001-square-foot project would pay just for that one square foot, right? So we're suggesting that for a 5,000-square-foot project, that they would pay $56 for that one foot.
And as projects got larger, the fee would go up.
The discount that gets applied from exempting 5,000 square feet, it stays the same.
It's the same value for every project, but it's a smaller percentage, so that as a larger project, it's going to make very little difference.
So that's a 50% discount in the fee, right? So this is just a slightly more elegant way of achieving the same result of raising the fee in for smaller projects, but it doesn't have the disadvantage of sort of pushing people to do smaller projects than they might otherwise want to develop.
And it's also going to just be easier to explain in the, you don't even have to have a table in the company.
We are, though, also suggesting that this reduction in this 5,000-square-foot exemption will only be available to projects that are using the full in-lieu fee option.
So right now, the ordinance allows a developer to choose between a menu of different ways of complying.
They can put units on site.
They can pay the in-lieu fee.
They can do what Derek was describing, which is mixed compliance.
Some units on site, some fee.
You can also dedicate land to other options.
We're suggesting that it's only the projects that choose the in-lieu fee option that are not doing mixed compliance that would get this discount.
And one of the advantages of that is you're allowing projects that are providing on-site units in order to get the density bonus, generally, to pay you a remainder fee rather than providing 20% of the units on site.
And that's a concession to feasibility.
You're making it easier for projects to move forward when you do that.
We're suggesting those projects don't need this 5,000-square-foot discount in general, and there's no reason that you have to provide that same benefit to projects that are choosing that option.
So by allowing the 5,000-square-foot discount to only be available for projects that are choosing the fee option entirely, you're not only limiting it to small projects, but you're targeting the benefit to small projects that aren't going to be able to use the density bonus.
And that means that we're not giving away 5,000-square-foot in every project.
The majority of projects that come through are the larger projects that are doing mixed compliance.
And so they wouldn't get any extra benefit, because they don't right now.
They don't benefit from the 5,000-square-foot exemption now either.
Next slide.
We're suggesting that you keep the current $56.25 per-square-foot fee in place.
The study that we did suggested that there might be room to justify a higher fee, as Derek was showing, but because of the market conditions where nothing is feasible, we can't test for you what the impact of a higher fee would be on feasibility.
And so we think the most prudent thing to do is to leave the fee at the current level.
We don't think you could lower the fee to a level that would make any difference to feasibility of projects.
And so the predictability that you get, keeping the fee steady and not changing it all the time, is really valuable to developers, even developers that might not right now pay the fee.
It's helpful to have a steady hand on the tiller, so to speak.
And so we're suggesting that because the market is down, this isn't the time to increase the fee.
It may be that if next go around and you do a study like this in a stronger market, you find that the higher fee might be both feasible and justifiable.
But right now, we don't recommend that you raise the fee.
Next slide.
We're also suggesting that you continue the policy of indexing the fee to change in construction costs.
And what this does is, as Jeff pointed out, the fee right now is approximately enough for the city to replace each unit that doesn't get built on site with an off-site unit in a 100% affordable project.
And that's a great thing.
If we weren't able to say that, it might be hard to justify having the fee at the level that it is.
But because it works, we're not giving up affordable housing when we allow developers to pay the fee.
We're getting a different kind of housing.
We generally serve a lower income population.
So, we're not going to be able to replace a 100% project and they're not on-site market rate buildings.
And so that's a trade off there.
By indexing construction costs, we ensure that's going to continue to be true over time when construction costs rise also for the affordable projects that we're using the fee to subsidize.
Next slide.
We're also suggesting that you don't call the fee to go up coming July.
It increases every 2 years.
So, we're recommending that you allow it to increase as it's scheduled to this coming July.
The resolution asks us to do this study, set a time limit for us to come back and report back on this.
And so we're saying stick with that schedule, increase it in July of this year.
Next slide.
Thank you.
Thank you.
This last recommendation is really a request or a recommendation to revert to the policy that we had in place prior to the April 2023 revision, which was to allow or to dedicate 80% of the very low income units to be offered first to section 8 voucher holder and shelter providers.
So, if you go back to the original policy that we had in place prior to the April 2023 revision, which was to dedicate 80% of the very low income units to section 8 voucher holders and shelter plus voucher holders, that was the original policy that was in place prior to 2023.
In 2023, we actually increased it from 80% to 100% and staff is now recommending to go back to the original policy and keep that sort of 20% directly available for non voucher holders who are very low income to be able to access the units.
So, if you go back to the original policy that we had in place prior to the April 2023 revision, the requirement really to offer it to the voucher holders first.
If the elects to rent it, then at some point, go back into the general population who is income qualified.
So, if you go back to the original policy that we had in place prior to the April 2023 revision, we do not qualify for preference policy.
We don't preference policy to the section 8 and shelter plus care lease ups, but we do it to all of the other affordable housing lease up.
And I think that concludes our presentation.
Oh, no, it does not hand it back to you.
Thank you, угs Yes, that commission also supported this recommendation with from 5000 square foot exemption but it's what essentially be any detached single family home.
Would be exempt from the 5 that square foot exemption.
including any other single family home that wasn't attached to the exhibition.
They did not at the happened.
second.
And the So those were the got from the can and in a up this.
We we continue on with Apple a note that we do today everyone well just a note that we do have our leagues from the planning department available tonight with any of the land of this project with us.
Thank you I want to formally open the public hearing.
And I plan on taking public comment first before council questions.
But I will take questions from the first.
Sorry.
Council member Trega and it's just questions only just to be clear.
So thank you.
Thank you so much.
Questions only.
Do you think about this now.
Yeah.
So this is kind of a no particular order but I want to make sure fully understand your recommendation about the discount at the you know to fight the first five square feet in middle that pair or contrast to the existing based approach on the cost.
Did you do sensitivity analysis around that.
I'm not sure if that's the correct way to put it but I don't know if that's the correct way to put it.
I understand the ability part.
I agree.
I'm just trying your stand.
You said it was largely neutral but it's different for different projects.
So it will vary by and then the staff was a table that showed outcomes for different prototypes under the thing fee exemption.
So it's a little bit different for different projects.
So you know one of the places that see this coming into the difference coming into play is for all a project that is not you the density bonus and paying the full fees.
Receive the exemption is over 5,000 square feet.
I mean that's really what make it a difference for a lot of projects that are under 5 thousand square feet.
So it's a project that's over 5,000 square feet.
And and not choosing compliance there.
They're just a movie.
There will be slightly lower fee.
So for just one example with the 10 units multifamily building on a whole single family lot that's that would be a 9000 200 square foot project about 5,000 square feet under the current fee it would pay a fee level of 8 dollars and 75 cents per foot with the proposal because it receives that attention for the first 5,000 feet that 45 goes down to instead of 25 dollars 5 cents per square foot.
On larger season the state density bonus club we showed is that most of the decks are it can make a difference because they don't qualify the exemption.
Thank you.
The question is I was thinking you could just provide further elucidation on that.
The distinction between two to 18 units or this definition missing middle says the two to nine being completed by the missing that whole ordinance that is coming back to us later this year.
Wanted to particularly understand that their implications from the nomics in that 10 to 18 zone and also just what was the process of cutting it off nine versus 18.
Well one one thing I can say is the when we this feasibility study.
I think the range of the units for the missing middle amendments haven't been identified and so we were acting a rain just based on different that I'll let Eric answer a little bit more about the 2 to 8.
Sorry 2 to 8 will be the this one.
You know I think the purpose of our study.
Even though we sort of started from a higher range of number of units missing middle product that we have actually studied.
Most part.
Under 10 units.
So the actual development we looked at had units on site or some site or 10 unit.
On the site.
And so we we wound up getting pretty close to the.
The product types content in that at least the size contemplated.
The other as well.
Just to add.
We weren't studying the effect of the potential zoning changes on feasibility because they weren't drafted when we started.
But.
What we found about the market was broadly applicable.
Right.
So so may unit project and unit project are on the same sort of way and there's not magic line for most of the types.
So.
We think if we had started with the current proposal come to any different conclusion we came to.
Okay.
Thank you.
I am done.
I have a couple others.
The.
Neighborhood preference policy.
I wanted to stand.
In effect city.
I'd like.
Now I thought was just contemplated at the out of line.
Or.
Could you provide more info.
Yeah.
The city's preference policy the affordable housing preference see which was adopted.
I think about a year ago.
I think it was.
Why whether it was last year before I'm not sure but.
It applies to.
All the BMR.
It's except those that are leased up through.
Like for the holders.
And it applies to.
All of our htf projects.
At varying degrees so we do a fair housing analysis and it depends on the what the sources are coming into the.
And we have to get approval from the state.
For the percent.
And we use our fair housing analysis as the basis for that also.
The one.
We we are applying for.
First each project right now.
Which is the model.
Miller Shrek project and.
We were.
Doing 75%.
Applying it to 75%.
Those units.
And actually.
Work.
That project as well.
So is that what your recollection is 75%.
Yeah.
So 70%.
What.
Of the units.
Will be leased up.
You.
The city's preference.
See.
And the others.
Okay.
Anyone that's out.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Thank you.
And.
Curious.
What was the.
For the hacks.
Rationale.
It.
It wasn't clear to him.
He.
The report.
Whether.
The commission.
Was.
Going to.
Giants.
Family.
Home.
Or whether.
It.
Is.
Like the.
Homes.
Detached homes.
On a lot.
That.
You.
Yeah.
There was a discussion.
Back about various.
And there seemed.
Yeah.
Sense that.
Of, you know, it might be.
Design.
All from a policy point.
To be.
Giving a bet.
To large single.
Homes.
But the specific proposal.
Was to also.
Allow the exemption for.
I think the theory.
Is that the attached product is inherently more.
Portable than the detached.
And I don't know that we have.
Data on that, but it seems.
Okay.
My last question.
Is just.
Hi.
I don't know which.
Main point jurisdiction.
Are now.
Doing this on a course.
Foot basis for me.
All of them.
The 6.25 per square foot.
The.
45,000.
Being examined, how that compares.
To.
Oakland.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And.
And or.
Some other neighboring.
Dictions.
Yes, we did look at those.
Jurisdictions I'm looking at the report and figure 12.
That has that information.
It's a little difficult to make.
Comparisons for many.
Because as you alluded to.
Haven't switched to a.
So.
On the whole, as far as we can.
Based on the ones that are per square.
Turn and Lou fee is substantially higher.
The many of the other communities.
We're looking at.
And for example.
$27 per.
Square foot.
$17 and 37 cents or $29 and 23 cents.
Other communities are closer to Burke.
Maybe better.
But I was also.
We has higher.
Inclusionary requirements.
Then most of those communities, they have a deeper level of affordability.
For rental projects and cents.
Is a pretty good requirement relative to all the communities.
So it is reasonable.
That Berkeley would have a higher in Lou fee as well.
That corresponds to that.
I just wanted to add that.
Been a number of.
In the Bay Area recently that it's.
It's from per unit to person.
So, you know, there's been a lot of discussion about per square foot fees and none.
No, that have gone the other way.
And the reasoning for that.
Is that the per unit.
By per unit, you sort of incentive.
Ising.
Type of development and doing it per square foot.
You're more.
On the.
The characteristics of the development.
And so there's not yet to sort of design project to get a lower.
Thank you so much.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Great work again.
As always.
Steady guidance through the years.
Really effectively.
Well.
25% decrease in rent today.
Question.
Regarding the.
The sort of cost drags and labor.
Labor scarcity.
I'm wondering if.
If you take into account.
The cost of fire.
And.
The materials absorption.
Down LA and the labor.
And as well.
It's factored into these.
This equation.
It's not.
The short end.
Because that.
Has not happened yet when we.
Did the analysis initially.
This does date back last year for parts of it.
The answer is.
I'm not.
I'm not aware of those.
Those impacts, we know they're coming.
Likely to come there's going to be.
A rebuilding happening in LA.
A lot of labor needed and material.
But.
Just don't have very good information about.
Thank you.
I'm going to council member.
So much for the presentation.
I just have one quick question.
I'm wondering if staff has calculated.
Calculated with.
The existing.
Fee structure compared to the existing piece.
And.
If you want.
We haven't, we haven't done.
Calculation because it really depend on the.
Number.
Type of projects.
As they are.
But the thing that I would want.
We're in your seat is.
These small projects, the projects that choose.
The only.
I'm not aware of.
The revenue that.
Realizes most of the.
The revenue that's supporting the fund is coming from larger.
And there's mixed option.
And so this won't.
That the.
If I were doing the project.
What the city on revenue would be, this would be what I would guess.
We'd be guessing.
Thanks.
I'll just add one comment to that is.
That the fee.
I would say, regardless.
These changes, the fee, the revenue we receive.
Is has a.
It's more impacted by change.
State law, particularly change the density bonus law.
When density bonus law.
To be that the highest kind of bone.
Could get was.
By 5% bonus when you.
11% affordable.
Very low income.
So, you know, if you're going to get a 5% affordable.
I got you a 50 bonus and that.
Makes a much bigger impact on the fees that we receive.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Madam mayor and you for the presentation.
I.
That's my questions right now.
Thank you.
So, when the.
Is doing some or all units.
Site.
An adjacent question to the nation.
How do we calculate how many units.
Below market rate that they provide since we've shifted to the square foot.
Yeah, so.
The calculation for the units were take.
We not on a unit.
Calculation so we're we're calculating 20% of the total number.
It's in the base project.
So if the base project is a.
Units 20%.
That is 20 units.
20 units need to be a full tenant.
So.
That's not really relevant.
That only comes into play.
When they are paying the fee.
And it is like.
Intuitive because.
The fee is on all of the.
In the entire product.
And.
So.
Per square foot.
That's the term for the per square.
And so only comes into play with the fee.
Even if we do mix compliant, we do mix compliance.
You say.
10% or 15 on site provision.
We, we first account for that.
And account for the percent.
The total.
Obligation that that account or so, if it was 10%.
Okay.
So, so we can.
We can.
Take 50% discount.
So then.
And.
I don't need to get into the.
So I do have one follow up, which.
The BM units, then looking at the size.
Those.
So they can do all studios.
Still counts.
Oh, no, we do.
Okay.
So.
You're doing it.
Yeah.
Bedrooms in the.
BMR has to.
Sort of mirror.
The bedroom in the rest of the project.
Okay.
So proportion.
Yeah.
Okay.
I just want to get.
An understanding of that.
I just wanted to add one.
I think it's maybe what.
Hard to hold all this in your.
Is that in, in the, in the, if you.
Okay.
Portable studios.
If you imagine.
100.
Two bedrooms and we get the.
Bedrooms were at 20%.
Problem was that both of the buildings, if they paid the fee.
Paid the same fee.
Right.
One of them would be.
Paying the fee not to provide two bedroom units.
The other would have been the fee to not provide studios.
And that would disincentive for someone to pay.
The two bedroom unit.
And that would disincentive for someone to pay.
The two bedroom paid.
We're also.
Create an incentive for someone to do eight bedroom.
So we didn't.
Both of those were problematic.
Yes.
And I recall.
Those.
Prior to shifting to this.
So I, this is a.
Good improvement.
That's all.
Projects.
Early so, so I am.
Okay.
From the housing and three commission to conduct an economic feasibility study.
And three years of middle house.
Zoning amendments.
I assume they're talking about in lieu fee for housing.
To get your reaction.
That.
I think that would be something worthwhile.
The reason why I'm asking is because I think.
I don't know.
I don't know if this is going to.
To the toe hold.
And we're not sure if I, the 5,000.
The right exemption.
So if you could respond.
Studying this again.
Once the ordinance.
Hopefully adopted.
It's.
Again, you know, we're.

Segment 4

Segment 5

Councilmember Lunaparra's two proposed changes on the motion.
I think this is a very elegant announcement.
I just wanted to ask the Councilmember, if we're contemplating for that study of single family homes between 5,500 and 5,000 square feet, would that be inclusive units if any are conflated on the lot? ADUs are exempt from this altogether, so they don't apply.
And Councilmember Freiman, ADUs can only be up to a thousand square feet, so by definition that's the only way that it just doesn't apply to that.
So it would be just a single family home not withstanding any attached or detached accessory dwelling unit on the lot, correct? Correct, yes.
The goal is for it only applies when there's only one, when they're building only one unit on one parcel.
Only one unit on one parcel, yeah.
I'm happy to support the motion and I appreciate Stafford's work, but also the work of the Housing Advisory Commission and the Planning Commission throughout this process.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Councilmember Blackby? Yes, thank you Councilmember Lunaparra for the motion.
Just clarification, so it's staff recommendations, right? That's the first part, and then it's the city, the second part.
Question on analysis on the second part.
Question on the analysis, is there, so the analysis is considered potentially fee levels.
Will you also be also interested in the tolerance of the size? It feels like $2,500 is, again, I understand why you've chosen it, but also I think it would be interesting to study fee levels and sizes and look at the right place to draw the line.
I'm a little uncomfortable until I see the numbers anyway, but the help I think is to look at different scenarios.
Is it $2,000? Is it $2,500? I mean, if you're really worried about the McManus, is it $3,000? I'm just curious about where we draw the line there.
Yeah, I think, I mean, we can also ask staff what they think about this.
If they prefer more flexibility, or if they would automatically integrate this into their study.
I'm sorry, we just don't take that the study is just $2,500 a square foot, but it's the goal, and maybe it's looking for, you know, what is the fee, right size, the product, right? And we have some flexibility to look at, you know, different variants along those lines.
Yeah, I think that makes sense.
Is that an amendment? I would make a friendly amendment to not make it arbitrary $2,500 square feet, but, you know, a series of different fee levels at a series of different square footages, plus or minus $2,500.
So Council Member Black, if I understand correctly, you'd like to add some consideration of tiering within that range.
Okay, I personally don't want to go less than $2,500, but we can certainly consider tiering.
I just want to, yeah, where we draw the line where it feels the most comfortable.
Yes, and certainly Council would be free to increase that square footage when this information comes back to us.
Yeah.
It's not that we would be held to 2,501 square feet.
There's flexibility within that, I think.
If the analysis looks at the range, that would be really helpful.
Okay, can we go to staff? I mean, I think, yeah, sure, we could look at a range with 2,500 on the limit of the floor, and going up from there, there's different ranges.
That's fine.
And I might also, if I may, Council Member Black, you have the floor, so I don't want to.
If I may, the staff may want to consider, if it's not too much work, what types of applicants have come to ZAB and sizes, because there have only been a limited number of these large single-family homes, and if we know there's a certain natural cutoff, we might be able to use that information for when this applies.
Great, yeah.
However, the motion, we just didn't want to narrowly proscribe exactly what the analysis is, just give them some room to explore.
That's all.
Okay, so just to clarify, is there a friendly amendment? A friendly amendment would be not to, actually, if you could remind me of that, how you've written it, and then I can make an adjustment.
Sure.
Refer to staff, the Attorney's Office, and economic and legal analysis of extending the in-lieu fee to $2,500 plus square foot detached single-unit dwellings per one parcel.
Okay.
That would be the adjustment, is that correct? That's the one I wrote, so I'm open to that.
Okay, as long as, I think that interpretation fits, so as long as, then I think we're good.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, moving on to Councilmember Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I don't have much to add to the comments of my fellow Councilmembers.
I want to thank staff very heartily, and consultants, and the Planning Commission for their work on this, and also for incorporating previous direction.
Thank you, also, to Councilmembers Castelani and Kaplan, who I think did a deeper dive on this, and also to Councilmember Lunara for her added motion, which I support.
I think it makes a lot of sense in the world.
I hope that we can revisit this in a few years and really see how this is working out, assuming that these kinds of products are going to be built.
I sure hope they will be.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember.
Councilmember O'Keefe.
I very much support this.
I just want to really thank staff and really commend you on crafting something very well.
This is, it's difficult to balance the need for affordable housing money and not incentivize building and distribute it fairly, and you get the diversity bonus.
It's just, it's a lot of things, and, you know, as Councilmember Trager already mentioned, we've seen all the ways it can go wrong, Zab, and this, I think this is really, really, really well done.
Like, it's mathematically beautiful.
Actually, I think I said that to Councilmembers on the fire earlier.
We made a graph, if you want to see later.
I promise that.
Anyway, so I'm definitely happy to support it, and I am happy to vote for the amended motion.
I'm not sure I actually want to make this change.
It's a little, making the projects a lot more expensive, pretty small project, so I don't feel super comfortable with it, but we're really just getting information.
More information is always great, so I'm happy to support the motion.
I'm just going to follow up also with supporting and really appreciate it.
Test, test.
Oh, okay.
I don't know why, just a couple of things.
Anyway, could you just take the roll, please, for that? Thank you for that motion, and then we are going to take a 10-minute break, I think.
Also, just again, thank you all so much, and this is on the motion from Councilmember Cavanagh.
Councilmember O'Mara? Councilmember Cessnawani? Caplan? Yes.
Steve? Yes.
Blackaby? Yes.
Luna Park? Yes.
Bert? Yes.
Mayor Ishii? Yes.
All right, I have recorded all the votes.
Thank you so much, and thank you again, staff.
I really appreciate your presentation.
I briefly want to say thank you again for those of you who are coming out tonight to support the peace and justice resolution, and I just want to make sure you know I hear your commitment and your concern.
And as I said at the last meeting, my office is continuing to do our diligence in meeting with community members on this issue.
We're actually meeting with, I think, three peace and justice commissioners this week.
So we are going to take a break.
I'm going to run out for a minute, and then I'm going to come back and happy to speak with you all.
Just want to make sure you know that you're going to have time.
So thank you.