Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2024-08-15 03:21:53 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_fccc17f0-3410-11ef-81ef-005056a89546.ogg

Segment 1

to order at the 3.30 special meeting of the Berkeley City Council for Tuesday, June 25th, 2024.
And I'd like to ask the clerk to please call the roll.
Okay, calling the roll on the 3.30 p.m.
meeting.
Council member Kesarwani? Here.
Taplin? Present.
Bartlett? Here.
Tregub? Present.
Hahn? Here.
Wengraf? Present.
Lunaparra? Here.
Humbert? Present.
And Mayor Arreguin? Present.
Okay.
Okay, all members are present.
Thank you.
This is a special meeting of the City Council.
We'll take up one item.
We will conduct a public hearing and take up one matter.
Item one, zoning amendments to Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23C-326, demolition and dwelling unit controls.
Since this is a special meeting of the Council, we will not be taking public comments on non-agenda matters at this special meeting, but welcome your comments at the 6 p.m.
regular meeting.
So we'll now proceed to the action calendar and we'll take up the only item on our agenda, the zoning amendments to implement demolition and dwelling unit controls.
And I'll turn this over to Jordan Klein, Director of Planning and Development.
Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
Good afternoon, Council members.
We're very pleased to have the opportunity to present to you today on this very important policy matter.
Justin Horner, Principal Planner with the Laney's Policy Group, is going to be presenting on behalf of staff today.
While Justin pulls up the slides, I just want to say a couple of things.
Firstly, I want to acknowledge this is a very complex and dense policy issue.
It involves the intersection of a number of different local laws, state laws, and our operational practices in planning and development, and also housing community services.
We're going to do our very best to support Council's policy deliberations this afternoon.
I also want to acknowledge the work of all the different staff members who've worked on this, the staff from HHCS and also certainly the City Attorney's Office who've collaborated with us as this ordinance has developed over the past few years.
And also I really want to thank and acknowledge all of the members of the Planning Commission and the 4x4 Committee of City Council and the Rent Board for all of their input on this policy as it has advanced through our process.
With that, I'm going to turn it over to Justin.
Thank you very much, Jordan.
Can everyone see the first slide? We can, yes.
Okay, thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
Thank you, Mayor Gein, and good afternoon Council members, Justin Horner, Planning Department staff.
Today we're requesting that you hold a public hearing and approve a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.326 relating to demolition and dwelling unit controls.
This item is the culmination of several years of work on this critical policy issue and would recodify Berkeley's strong local provisions for affordable housing preservation and tenant protections, while also bringing our ordinance back into alignment with state law.
Today's presentation includes a brief review of the background and timeline regarding the changes to the demo ordinance, a review of the major elements of the proposed ordinance, and a few illustrative examples of how the proposed ordinance would apply in a few scenarios.
Our work on these ordinance revisions began all the way back in 2020, prompted by passage of SB 330, also known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which updated state laws related to the demolition and replacement of housing units.
There are a number of ways in which our current ordinance is inconsistent with these new provisions, which creates operational challenges for staff and confusion for our clients and the community.
The proposed ordinance also includes recommendations from the 4x4 Joint Task Force Committee on Housing, recommendations from the Planning Commission, as well as various tax edicts, grammatical corrections, and summary numbering.
SB 330 included a number of new regulations related to the demolition of existing housing units that require changes to our current ordinance.
For example, SB 330 requires all demolished units to be replaced, and since our local ordinance currently includes an option to pay a fee in lieu of replacing a unit, that had to be revised.
SB 330 also created a class of units referred to as protected units, which are subject to specific requirements.
Protected units include deed-restricted, below-market rate units, units that are currently covered under rent control, and units that are occupied by lower-income households, even if the unit is otherwise not subject to any rent or affordability controls.
Under state law, any BMRs and any units occupied by low-income households that are demolished must be replaced with below-market rate units.
When rent-controlled units are proposed to be demolished, municipalities have the discretion to decide whether replacement units are required to be deed-restricted BMRs or rent-controlled units.
Although revisions to the demo ordinance have been in the work for years, the final push that brought us here today was to make work for years.
The final push that brought us here today began in February of 2023, when the Planning Commission agendized a public hearing to adopt some proposed changes.
Subsequent to additional discussion and consideration at that meeting, the ordinance was referred back to the 4x4 Committee in September and October.
On December 6, the Planning Commission considered a version of the demo ordinance recommended by the 4x4 and moved to convene a subcommittee to examine the revised ordinance in more detail.
The subcommittee met on December 20 and recommended a set of changes that were brought before the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation at their meeting of January 17.
I'll now briefly describe some of the most pertinent elements of the current ordinance.
Firstly, a use permit is required for the demolition of any dwelling unit in Berkeley, and the Zoning Adjustments Board must make a specific finding before issuing that use permit.
Demolition of units is prohibited for units that have been removed from the rental market via the Ellis Act in the last five years, or if there has been evidence of tenant harassment or an attempted or successful illegal eviction in the three years prior to the demolition application.
Any demolished unit must be replaced with a below market rate unit, the affordability levels of which are to be set by the City Council.
The existing ordinance also includes a mitigation fee option that can be taken instead of replacing units.
The existing ordinance also provides relocation benefits for sitting tenants, including moving expenses and differential rent payments, and offers sitting tenants the right of first refusal for a unit in the new building.
The proposed ordinance includes some important changes to these essential elements.
I will now begin a brief summary of the proposed ordinance.
I will start off with a high-level summary of a number of notable changes, and then will provide more specific detail on the affordability requirements for replacement units and the provisions related to the rights of sitting tenants.
These next two slides provide a summary of some of the more pertinent changes.
One, the proposed ordinance provides clarity as to which units are subject to the demolition ordinance.
The second, as mentioned before, SB 330 requires that all demolished units be replaced, so the proposed ordinance includes a strikeout of the mitigation fee section of the existing ordinance.
Third, the current ordinance prohibits demolition of a unit that has been removed from the housing market pursuant to the Ellis Act over the last five years.
The proposed ordinance expands that prohibition to units that have been removed through any no-fault eviction.
Fourth, under the current ordinance, the demolition of any unit requires a use permit.
The proposed ordinance includes provisions to make it slightly easier to demolish a single family home without sitting tenants when the demolition is part of a project that will result in an increase in residential density.
Such a demolition would be permitted with an administrative use permit.
The current ordinance includes a provision which allows the demolition of residential units without replacement if the resultant project is non-residential in nature.
However, state law AB 1218 requires the replacement of demolished units even if a proposed project is non-residential in nature.
Sixth, the proposed ordinance includes more specific language regarding the timeline under which a returning tenant must inform an owner of their intent to return to a replacement unit.
Seventh, the Berkeley Municipal Code already requires Landmark Preservation Commission review of any proposed demolition of a landmark, structure of merit, or structure located in an historic district.
The proposed ordinance adds to this chapter specific language further clarifying this requirement.
Eighth, the proposed ordinance shifts the responsibility of determining whether there was an illegal eviction or tenant harassment in the unit to be demolished from the Zoning Adjustments Board to the Rent Board.
And finally, the proposed ordinance includes a provision that an illegal unit need not be replaced if the zoning officer, building official, or fire chief finds that a code compliant replacement unit cannot be provided.
This slide summarizes the affordability requirements for replacement units in the proposed ordinance.
As noted before, the proposed ordinance includes three types of units that qualify as protected units consistent with SB 330.
These are units that are currently deed-restricted affordable units, units that are rent-controlled, or units that are rented by households at 80% of area median income or below, regardless of whether the unit is not otherwise rent-controlled or price-controlled under a deed restriction.
For deed-restricted affordable units and rent-controlled units, the replacement units must meet the affordability requirements included in the Municipal Code's inclusionary zoning provisions.
That is, at least half of the replacement units must be affordable to households at 50% of AMI, and the rest must be affordable to households at 80% of AMI.
In the case of a unit that is rented by a household at 50% of AMI or below, a replacement unit must be provided that is affordable to a household at 30% of AMI.
For units that are not otherwise protected, but for which the household income of the displaced tenant or tenants is unknown, units will be assumed to be occupied by low-income tenants in proportion to their prevalence in Berkeley according to census data.
Any units designated as being occupied by low-income households through that process would then be subject to the replacement requirements for protected units.
This slide summarizes the provisions related to sitting tenants.
If a tenant occupying a protected unit can income qualify for a below-market rate unit, that tenant receives moving, relocation, and rent differential assistance consistent with Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.
Two, has a right of first refusal for a comparable BMR unit in the new development, and three, will rent that unit at the appropriate affordability level.
In the case of a tenant occupying a protected unit who does not income qualify for a below-market rate unit, that tenant will receive moving, relocation, and rent differential assistance.
They will have the right of first refusal for a market rate unit in the new project.
Three, they will have their initial rent in the replacement unit set at the rent level of the demolished unit.
And finally, their rent will be controlled for the duration of their tenancy.
There are two instances in the proposed ordinance where a sitting tenant would not be entitled to a replacement unit.
In the case where a sitting tenant occupies an ADU or JADU on a lot that includes only one single-family home and only one ADU, the tenant would not be entitled to a right of first refusal for a replacement unit, but they would receive moving and relocation assistance.
Also, as noted, the proposed ordinance includes a provision where an existing illegal unit that is demolished may be exempt from replacement because it could not be replaced with a code-compliant unit.
In those cases, the sitting tenant would be entitled to moving and relocation expenses only.
I will now provide three examples of how the proposed ordinance would work.
In the example in this slide, a single-family home is being demolished to make way for a fourplex.
In most cases, a single-family home would not be rent-controlled or deed-restricted affordable.
In a case where the single-family home is occupied by a household with an income above 80% of AMI, there would be no protected units under the ordinance and therefore no affordability requirements for any of the new units.
Also in this case, the sitting tenant household would not be given right of first refusal for any of the market rate units but would be entitled to moving and relocation expenses.
If the single-family home is occupied by a household at 50% area median income or below, that unit would be considered protected under the ordinance and an affordable unit would need to be included in the new project.
As a sitting tenant household has an income below 50% of AMI, the replacement unit must be offered at 30% AMI and the sitting tenant household must be given right of first refusal for that unit.
In this example, a rent-controlled fourplex is proposed to be demolished to build a 10-unit building.
As all four units are rent-controlled, all four units are protected under the ordinance and therefore all must be replaced with affordability restrictions.
The new project would consist therefore of four below market rate replacement units and six market rate units for the total of 10 units.
Consistent with our affordability requirements, at least half of the replacement units would need to be offered at 50% of AMI and the rest could be offered at 80% AMI as illustrated in the slide.
Additionally, a 10-unit building would be subject to the City's 20% inclusionary zoning requirement, so would need to include two affordable units.
Two of the affordable replacement units would count towards a project's inclusionary zoning requirement.
For the sitting tenants from the original fourplex, any tenant that income qualifies for a BMR unit would be given the right of first refusal for any of the BMR replacement units.
If a sitting tenant did not income qualify for any of the replacement units, they would be given the right of first refusal for one of the six market rate units.
Their rent would be set at their original rent in the fourplex and their rent would be controlled for the duration of their tenancy.
In this last example, an eight-unit building is being demolished to make way for a 75-unit project.
The eight-unit building includes eight rent-controlled units which are protected and three of which are occupied by households at 50% AMI or below.
A 75-unit project under our inclusionary zoning regulations would need to provide 15 BMR units.
Eight of those 15 would be the replacement units from the original building and the project would include an additional seven BMR units.
Because there were three households in the original building that were at 50% AMI, three of the replacement units must be offered at rents that are 30% AMI or below and of the remaining five replacement units, one of them must be offered at 50% AMI and the rest can be offered at 80%.
In addition to the replacement units, there are seven additional BMR units, at least half of which must be offered at 50% AMI and the rest can be offered at 80%.
As in the other examples, any sitting tenant who income qualifies for the BMR units would be given a right of first refusal for any of the replacement BMR units in the project.
Any sitting tenant that does not income qualify has a right of first refusal for one of the 60 market rate units.
The rent for that market rate unit would be set at their rent at the original building and would be controlled for the duration of their tenancy.
There are, of course, a number of other possible scenarios, but we hope that these three illustrate how the proposed ordinance is intended to work.
With that, staff would recommend that you conduct a public hearing and take public comment on the proposed ordinance and adopt the proposed amendments to the demolition ordinance.
Thank you very much and we are available for any questions.
Thank you, Justin.
I just want to jump in with one more issue here, if you will, Mr.
Mayor.
Earlier today, I noticed, or last night, I noticed a slight issue that I want to call your attention to.
It's section 23-326-030-D2, and I can pull it up on the screen.
This is the section of code, as Justin referenced earlier, where in the event that there's a demolished unit and the income of the displaced household is unknown, we use census data to look at the proportion of low- and lower-income households citywide and presume that those units proposed to be demolished were occupied by lower- or lower-income households in the same proportion as we have in Berkeley citywide.
I wanted to clarify that in accordance with state law, we'd actually be looking at the proportion of low- or lower-income rental households citywide, not all households, but lower- and lower-income rental households.
Actually, here in Berkeley, when we look just at renters, a higher proportion of renters are low- and lower-income.
In fact, it's 61 percent of rental households are low- or lower-income.
When we're using the CHAZ data, that's the percentage of units, of demolished units, where we don't know the income level.
That's the percentage of proposed demolished units that would be required to be replaced with BMRs.
I wanted to clarify that.
I would request and we'd recommend that we'd like to add the term renter as a qualifier to households in this paragraph here.
We'll do that as part of second reading.
I would request that any action council takes tonight will reflect that change.
Thank you.
Mr.
Klein, would it be in the third sentence there, be presumed to be occupied by low- or low-income renter households? Yep.
In the same proportion as low- or lower-income rental households throughout the city.
Rental or renter? Renter.
Okay.
I just made that change.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Anything else from staff before we proceed to the next part of our presentation? That's all available to take questions.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Here's how I'd like to proceed.
I want to give Council Member Keserwani the floor to present on her supplemental proposal, and then I want to invite the chair of the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, Commissioner Lisa Weisberg, to present the board's position after that.
So, Councilor Keserwani? Thank you very much, Mr.
Mayor.
Thank you to our planning staff, city attorney's office, and thank you to the 4x4 Committee and the Planning Commission for your work on this demolition ordinance.
As was noted, we do need to adopt an ordinance so we can be in compliance with state law.
In preparing the amendments in the supplemental packet that is before the Council today, I want to note that my office staff and I reached out to a wide cross section of stakeholders.
We engaged developers, tenants, and subject matter experts, and we are seeking to strike a balance and a consensus so that we can ensure that tenants that are displaced as a result of demolition can receive a comparable unit and a rent differential and the ability to return, and also ensure that for some of these projects that may not be using the state density bonus that do have to replace a high number of rent-controlled units that they can do so in a way that can ensure the feasibility of their project.
So, at a high level, we have sought to provide greater nuance on the requirements for replacing unpermitted units that are not tenant-occupied.
As I already noted, we sought to ensure that the replacement requirements for rent-controlled units balances the important policy goals of creating affordable homes and ensuring the feasibility of projects.
We also address the treatment of gold and duplexes where legally allowable by state law, and because of the complexity of this ordinance, I do want to go over our amendments as quickly as I can.
So, beginning on page 2, we have the definition of residential unit.
I want to acknowledge that the definition has been revised by staff to include the group living accommodation.
So, we would obviously be reflecting that updated definition of residential unit.
We are proposing to strike the language related to if these units have been registered with the Rent Stabilization Board or the rent board has otherwise determined that a tenant-landlord relationship existed during the preceding five years, and we have added the word tenant-occupied, and that will come into play with what we are trying to do around the unpermitted units.
So, I'm going to keep going, and I'm happy to answer questions later as we proceed.
What we have done with the residential unit is to remove the November 7, 2018, date.
The inclusion of that date stems from the measure Q exemption of ADUs from rent control in 2018.
It's our view that applying the state renders the exemption for ADUs and JADUs inapplicable to owner-occupied properties with tenancies initiated prior to November 7, 2018.
So, we saw that as simply a cleanup date, and we're going to continue to do that.
So, I'm happy to answer questions later as we proceed.
Moving on to the comparable unit definition, this is an area where we felt it was important to obviously provide the comparable unit and meet the state requirement that it is the same number of bedrooms in accordance with the equivalent size requirements of state law, but we felt it around neighborhood and school attendance area.
The reality is, if a property owner is planning to demolish a parcel, they're most likely redeveloping that parcel in that location.
So, it is the same neighborhood, it is the same school attendance area, and it is the Berkeley Unified School District's policy to allow children to continue in the school in which they are attending.
So, it seemed to be overly prescriptive and unnecessary, some of the language in the comparable unit definition, respectfully, so we have simplified that to align it with state law.
Okay, so in the next section at the bottom of page 4, we've just added a definition of tenant-occupied.
This is the same definition that's already used in the rent stabilization ordinance of at least 14 days within the last 365 days.
We also added a definition of golden duplex, and that will come into play later because we believe it's fair to group golden duplexes with accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in one aspect of the ordinance where it is legally allowable by state law.
So, those are just definitions there.
The next section, I just want to note that, and I don't know if everyone's tracking all these various versions, but we are saying that the demolition is not allowed if the residential unit was removed through a no-fault eviction.
A prior version, there was some discussion of using ELLIS Act, but we have sort of restored this use of the no-fault eviction.
I believe that's what the 4x4 and Planning Commission had also proposed.
So, that's really no change there, but we're just highlighting that we have restored that language.
In the next section, we are, again, restoring the appeal process back to the rent stabilization board.
We believe that they have the best subject matter expertise to deal with these issues that may arise in terms of harassment, but we do think we should just clarify that instead of a substantial evidence standard, we would have a preponderance of evidence standard.
Mr.
Humbert, being the lawyer, advises us that that is superior as it requires a greater degree of certainty, ensuring a more thorough assessment of the facts.
Okay.
So, getting into..
If you'll forgive me.
Okay.
I'm just orienting myself.
Okay.
So, this is an area where, you know, we tried to be responsive to what we were hearing on the ground.
We know that there are unpermitted units all over Berkeley.
You know, Council Member Wengraf had introduced a referral to develop an amnesty program so that those units could come into compliance.
And so, what we are saying here is, in the event..
We wanted to add some further language here just to make it clear that in the event that you have an unpermitted unit where there is no tenant, so you haven't had anybody in that unit in the last year for a 14-day period at all, it's not really being used as a rental, that there could be an opportunity, even in the event that the building official, zoning officer, or fire marshal determines that that unpermitted unit is feasible to replace in the event that you're seeking to demolish, that if it has not been tenant-occupied, we wanted to give the option that a property owner could attest under penalty of perjury that the unit to be eliminated is not tenant-occupied and that it would present a financial hardship to replace.
Because we were hearing from people who were concerned about being required to do something that they don't necessarily have the ability to do, because if it's an unpermitted unit, you can imagine there could be a significant financial cost to replacing it as a permitted unit.
So that's what the language is there.
The next section, we're just restating state law, that a landmarked structure of merit, that has to be done prior to zoning application.
That's not any change in policy, just a restating of state law there.
Okay, so the next section is a little bit more complicated.
The next section is important.
This is really, to me, the crux of the issue here, because this is about the replacement units.
And this is where we're going to add the word renter, according to what Mr.
Klein just said.
So paragraph 3 that was proposed by the 4x4 and planning commission, it is saying, you know, in the event that a protected unit was subject to rent or price controls, and the income level of the household is not known, so they could be a very wealthy person, you know, we don't know.
They could be low income, but we don't know.
The unit has to be replaced with an affordable unit, a deed-restricted, below-market-rate affordable unit.
And what we were hearing is that that is a very high burden and could create situations in which old rent-controlled buildings on the south side, where we have students predominantly living, if they were to be demolished, that all of those replacement units would become deed-restricted, below-market-rate units.
We know that, unfortunately, students are not eligible for those units.
So what we are proposing is to use the current practice that is used by our planning department, which is to use this data, the comprehensive housing affordability strategy data, that tells us that the percentage of low-income renters in the City of Berkeley is 61%.
So if you have a large or small, you know, rent-controlled building that is to be demolished, and you do not know the income level of those households, in your replacement, 61% of those units would be replaced with affordable units.
The other 39% would be...

Segment 2

We're trying to do the best that we can to ensure that all of those units will be replaced 61% of them will be replaced with affordable units.
So, I'm not suggesting that we use this current approach.
That would say that 39% are our market rate replacement units.
But keep in mind when a developer does a large state density bonus project, they're probably already going to have to do a large number of low income and very low income units to access that state density bonus.
So, we don't know how many projects are going to use this.
If they're not a state density bonus project, this might become this might come into play.
What I'm trying to do is create homes in this community.
So, so that's what we're proposing here.
Okay, so then I want to get into.
The the next section.
So, we're trying to simplify and treat all tenants in the same way.
So, thinking that in Berkeley, when you are a tenant and your unit is being remodeled and you have to relocate, you are subject to the relocation services and payments.
So, it was our feeling that tenants that are relocating as a result of demolition should should be also be able to receive that same relocation benefits.
So, we were trying to simplify and treat all tenants the same, whether they're relocating as a result of demolition or remodeling.
Okay.
So, we also in paragraph B have added the golden duplexes because it is our view that they are a very similar housing type to 80 use.
And we are saying that.
Essentially, they would receive the same treatment in terms of.
Not having.
The same.
Relocation assistance.
I believe it's just a one time payout of 15,000.
Those golden duplex owners would would be subject to that sort of the same standard as 80 years and junior 80 years.
The thinking being that these are regular homeowners who are not necessarily acting as a landlord in a full time, large scale business capacity.
Okay.
So, in the last section, I just want to clarify that we did outreach with tenants and we felt that it was important in the event we, we, we understand this doesn't happen a lot because once people relocate.
So, in the event that they do seek to do so, we have restored paragraphs B and C, I believe it was paragraph C.
That is critical to ensure that they would have the same rent level that they had enjoyed previously.
Because the reality is, if somebody has been in a rent controlled unit for a long period of time, their rent could be substantially lower than the reset market rate.
And so, so we have restored that paragraph here.
And so with that, that brings me to the end.
I'm happy to answer questions and I do appreciate the council's consideration and the opportunity to present and look forward to hearing from others.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Counselor.
Okay.
I'd now like to invite the chair of the rent stabilization board.
To why don't you go that way? Yeah.
To come to the podium.
And I first want to say that.
This ordinance has been many years in developments.
And it's been a long process.
The efforts to amend the demolition ordinance started.
About 10 years ago, and then I bought forward.
The current version of the ordinance in 2016, which is now existing city law.
And I want to give the chair an opportunity to address the council regarding the board's recommendation on this.
Great, thank you.
And I do really want to acknowledge all of the work that the mayor has done and and folks who were on the 4 by 4 of this period.
I think it's really important to to start with it that the demolition ordinance.
Has been and needs to continue to be tenant centered.
We're not building housing for the windows.
We are building housing for people to live in and.
And sadly, 2 years later, we still haven't passed our demolition ordinance, but my hope is that.
The demolition ordinance has been and needs to continue to be tenant centered.
We're not building housing for the windows.
We are building housing for people to live in and.
We know earlier about almost 2 years ago.
The demolition ordinance has been and needs to continue to be tenant centered.
We're not building housing for the windows.
We're building housing for people to live in and we're going to start doing demolitions.
And sadly, 2 years later, we still haven't passed our demolition ordinance, but my fears have come forward and I don't know if folks are aware, but every month the bumper gets a report.
Of projects that are going through the development process.
And we are losing any units.
As they go through the process, because they have.
Been told by well, they start using the chest numbers.
We are losing them.
So, we are with every project losing.
Not only when we say rent controlled units, but we're losing affordability affordable units that we would have gotten for that 1 for 1 replacement every month.
And so that's why it's urgent that we.
Pass this ordinance, but I think again, back to this concept of we are building more units that are affordable in our community.
It's for tenants.
And if we are going to do development, we need to put in protections that not only protects the tenants that are living in the units during the period of the construction, but they get to continue to be in this community.
And I think the idea that we are taking protections away from some tenants, it's like, well, let's look at the audience.
Could you point out the people who shouldn't get the protections and some of the that's why none of the amendments really should be included.
And if at any point over the last 6 years.
We felt and that was many people came in and spoke at the 4 by 4 many experts, including the survey of all kinds of studies across the country addressing this issue and the overlays and Los Angeles has an ordinance that they're putting forward.
And I'm hoping that ours is going to be stronger than theirs that we're not once again going to be instead of a leader on tenant protections.
We're going back to.
You know, when we're not.
The, you know, the, the 1, for 1, the, it's also the idea that we are only using the definition of occupied for the last year.
That people are just going to evict people and then sit on the property and most of these demolitions are not.
They're not going to be a single family home demolished to add.
Most of these are demolishing 8 units, 10 units to build 70.
And I, it is as important to protect the tenants who are there, so they can come back to the community and live in these units that have been demolished.
We should all benefit.
Not speculative people, we don't know who they are just in theory.
The people who are here should get to enjoy the wonderful new buildings that people are developing and they are important.
And those of us who live here now are as important as the 70 units that they're, you know, the people who may come to live in those 70 units.
So it's important to protect every tenant.
So all of these.
All of these, the amendments again.
When you've got something that we've been working on for 10 years.
Doing amendments now that got those protections are appropriate.
We want to be proud of this.
We want to be proud of the fact that we're able to do this.
We're able to do this.
We're able to do this.
We're able to do this.
We'll also help the process because when.
When we know that tenants are protected, they're not going to be displaced.
We don't have to fight those.
No projects, right? People know here are the rules you follow them and you go through and have been able to get developers.
You know, you have the right to do an appeal.
And we will do an appeal on units where we're on projects.
We're losing units in this time period.
So we know that they pencil out.
And I think, again, this proposal is tenant centered.
It's community centered, and it protects the community that's here.
And it allows for building so we can have new and additional folks to this property.
I think that we appreciate some of the pieces that have been added back, but I think again, we it's been to planning.
I think.
8 times it's been to the 4 by 4.
I think something like 19 times.
It's been to the housing and I think that if any of these issues were real.
That needed to be addressed, they would have been and again.
Other cities like Los Angeles are doing this.
They're doing it in an overlay way, which is also what New York has done.
But this is what we have proposed is the future and I'm just really proud that we have done it and it's just it's really good language as it is.
And I just want to say thank you to the city of New York for putting this together.
And I also want to think planning and the work they have put into this and then really, really just strong partners and also the legal department and our planning.
Folks at the way that they have every single version really dug in and within an hour able to give us analysis to be able to bring to you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I really would encourage you to look at and we can share with you how we're doing this monthly.
Search, but one last thing I'm going to say is that we, we don't have the ability to know what people's income is.
We don't have the ability to know what people's income is.
And so while we do that, we can't be making policy based on this unit gets this protection or that.
Because we won't have that, especially, you know, with even a look back.
We can't do that.
We can't do that.
We can't do that.
We can't come back and not say only if it's a low income person, there's a suggestion on the.
In the amendments that the person is low income.
First off, that's humiliating that tenants have to come out, provide their income and based on that.
We can't do that.
Because it's for the whole community and the chase numbers reflect the entire average.
Of Berkeley, which means that it makes it.
I mean, we have a city that has low income folks and high income folks and very few people in between.
And so we can't use that.
We need it to be.
We're protecting the residential component.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Council member had a question before we open public hearing.
If allowed, thank you.
Thank you for coming.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
So you're saying that you don't qualify for rent control unit right now with the person you don't get income qualified and then you qualify for rent control.
And wherever you go, you get a rent controlled unit.
Is that correct? Exactly.
So.
Okay.
So you're saying that you don't qualify for rent control unit.
Yes.
Okay.
So it's a little confusing for me.
I feel like maybe the state has might be the water a little bit in that.
The idea of income qualification for rent control unit is something totally novel.
Is that correct? Or is there.
I mean, it's about stability in the community.
It's about, regardless of how much money you're making.
You have the opportunity to stay in the community for a long time because.
You know, how fast your rent is going to go up.
Right.
It's not it was never just about.
It was never just about it was about 2 things right about.
Yes, keeping rents reasonable, but also keeping people in the community, allowing them to stay.
Right and I think that the important piece is we don't have vacancy control in the United States.
Right.
We have in particular in California.
We only have vacancy D control.
So every landlord.
Has decided the rent based on the person's income and most landlords only let you live there.
If you basically it's 30% of your income.
So, because of that, then stabilization is based on what that person.
So, if we're going to have a vacancy control unit.
It's based on what that person can afford, but that was based on the landlord's decision.
If from the beginning we gave out affordable, if rent control was only given to people who are low income to maybe in some universe, but it's the landlords deciding that original rent.
So, I guess I just don't understand the the whole concept that if you lose your rent controlled unit, it doesn't matter.
If that it only can be replaced if the tenant is low income is that then suggests that the unit itself has a rent controlled unit didn't have any value.
I mean, frankly, it's a talking point from developers to say, and people constantly saying we only need to do this or that and that it should be means tested.
It's something that the industry to reduce.
You know, that's what they they're constantly trying to say it should only be means tested and that's just from the, from the industry saying.
But it hasn't tried traditionally rent control runs with the unit.
When control always runs with the unit, what they're trying to do is mix that see what 330 does is it gives it protects.
It does 2 kinds of protection because a lot of people live in units they can afford because basically they live in neighborhoods that have not been maintained.
And so the rents are really low.
And so what the 30 saw was that they didn't want a situation where we're having, you know, where developers were targeting for neighborhoods.
And because they were not necessarily rent controlled, you know, they're in Fresno there, you know, whatever, then they would be demolished and they wouldn't have to replace them because they weren't affordable and they weren't rent controlled.
So they created a 3rd category of low income tenants.
And I think what's being conflated here is somehow we shouldn't have all 3 of those categories.
And those are 3 important categories.
And what's important about the 3rd about the presumption and cities have the power to create a presumption that the person is low income unless the landlord or the developer can show that the person wasn't.
So if the landlord or the developer can show that the person wasn't.
But that in 3.30 is about a 3rd category.
It's not about you are in a rent controlled unit.
It's about you are in a rent controlled unit.
And a new category additional people being protected.
And so the intent of S.
P.
3.
30 isn't that you have to be all 3 of those at once.
The 3rd category is a 3rd category and it's about affordable units.
And I was going to say affordability if I understood it correctly.
But we're going to have more affordable units using the policy that came that we've been working on for 6 years.
We will get less tenants will carry much more of the burden of this development.
But we're going to have more affordable units using the policy that came that we've been working on for 6 years.
We will get less tenants will carry much more of the burden of this development.
We will get significantly low income in Berkeley as compared to property owners.
I'm going to interject because we do need to go to the public hearing.
Did that sufficiently answer? Yeah, I really did.
It's this thing of conflating that I was trying to get at and to really understand.
I don't have a question for you, but that 330 requires that if you demolish a protected unit, that has to be replaced, but there are options that the local jurisdiction has about how to replace it.
1 of which is you can require a restricted unit as replacement, or you can require rent control.
I think 1 of the challenges that we have is that our rent control ordinance currently does not allow the city of Berkeley to impose rent control on demolished units.
And I hope that will change someday because that would provide more flexibility in terms of how we can address some of these issues, particularly in cases of developments in the area around campus.
I just want to be crystal clear.
All the right controlled units, 30 says they all have to be replaced.
The proposal put forward by the 4 by 4 and planning Commission says that even if the income is not known.
That all of the replaced rent controlled units have to be below market rate deed restricted affordable, which are not students cannot live in those units.
We have to remember what we are suggesting is to use the current practice, which is to say, we don't know the incomes of any of the people who lived in those rent controlled units that have been demolished.
So, we are going to do 61% of them affordable below market rate affordable and 39% of them market rate replacement units.
What the mayor is saying is that our rent stabilization ordinance ordinance does not give us the option to replace the demolished rent controlled units with rent controlled units.
So the only option we have is to use the Chaz data.
That is the proposal that I am suggesting that we use for these.
These developments that could be demolished in the South side, where keep in mind, students cannot access those below market rate affordable units or the rent boards and planning Commission and 4 by 4 proposal, which is to say, replace all the demolished rent controlled units with below market rate affordable units.
So I just wanted to be clear about what the terms are and what the requirements of state law are.
Thank you.
I'll just know, however, that one of the aspects of the proposal is that.
Um.
Some people in certain situation, depending on the type of unit they're living in.
Some people may be able to live in a replacement unit.
Some may not.
So we'll dive into this after the public hearing because state law is very complex and we have our local rent stabilization ordinance, which says that.
Even things that are not lawfully permitted or zoned.
So, we have a whole web of overlapping regulations that are conflicting.
And I think what we're trying to do is to rationalize these different rules to have a thoughtful policy.
Um.
But it's complicated, so I appreciate the opportunity to clarify some of this council member when graph.
Do you have a question before we open the public? I do have a question.
Yes, I do.
I have a question.
Um.
For the BMR units are means tested.
Is that correct? Yes.
And the rent control units are not means tested.
Yes, so, um.
What happens is there an annual process.
For validating annual income.
Is anyone from who can address that? Typically.
Uh, typically there is, um, if it's section 8, there's an income verification process.
Um, I guess the question is for permanently affordable housing projects or units.
Is there an income annual income verification process? Hi, Merrick, this is Michael Berry and yes, we.
We require annual certification for all our properties and we have a dedicated monitoring team that carries that out.
Okay, so if a tenant.
Gets a promotion, you know, is doing really well lands a really successful job.
And they no longer qualify for that unit.
What happens are they displaced.
So, under the current regulations, upon recertification, you tenants are allowed leeway with income.
Um, so to get into the unit, for instance, for a 50% and my unit, you must make under 50% of the area median income based on your household size upon recertification.
So, if you have a 50% of the area median income based on your household size, and you have a 50% of the area median.
Your, your income can go raise up to 100% of am I if it exceeds that.
Then you will have to vacate, vacate the unit.
And it will have to be made available to a low income household that would qualify.
So, I just want to clarify that.
Because, um, you know.
I just wanted to understand what happens in the unit since it's restricted.
That if you exceed the income level.
That's required to get that unit.
You will be displaced.
Okay, so, I, I appreciate it.
Thank you for for housing and community services.
1 thing I will add to what Mike is explaining about the recertification.
Is that sometimes if you exceed the recertification level, you may not be displaced.
What may happen is that.
And you would have to pay the market rate rent, and then the property owner would have to designate the next available unit as a below market rate unit.
I will say that in my time being here, we haven't actually had this happen and I don't believe it's happened.
For quite some time and Mr can probably.
I don't want to take up that much time.
I want to switch over to public comment, but I just needed to clarify that for myself.
So, thank you very much.
Okay, that's that's now up in the public hearing on item 1 zoning ordinance amendments to the Berkley code chapter 23.
326 demolition and dwelling unit controls.
We'll take public comments from members of the public here in person.
At 1231 Addison, if you'd like to speak just on that item, please line up on the side of the room and Bryce, you want to kick things off.
And then we'll go to speakers on zoom after in person speakers.
Okay, great.
My name is Bryce Nesbitt and.
For those of you on council who have not yet spent at least 20 or 30 hours on this ordinance, like Rashi.
Chris has, I encourage you to really look at amendments with the respect.
Of the work and the collaborative process and the consultations that went into that.
Uh, your presentation was a little bit modeled.
I didn't quite get the full focus of it, but I've read the actual stuff and I know that there are the right amendments to make.
So, Terry and Mark, of course, that co-sponsored that I work doing consultancy where I help people who are have been trapped in this tank of regulations get out of them.
And so I see this stuff on the ground.
1 of the difficulties with this demolition ordinance is that it takes 2 fairly different.
Owner and property characteristics and slams them into 1 ordinance.
The difference between replacing a 4 or 5 unit apartment building with a taller building and what happens in 1's own owner occupied home are very, very different.
And yet this complex tangle of regulations is touching both and I think that's a real flaw and that in order to make it understandable.
For small owners and keep those owners on the market and keep those homes from going into corporate ownership that at some point needs to be separated out.
I will also have a warning for you on the low income provisions.
Unfortunately, some owners will look at this and see special preferences for people with low income.
And be less willing to go out on a limb in order to rent to a person who has low income and that's an unfortunate side effect of creating a preference like this.
Finally, since I only have 10 seconds left here.
Making it essentially illegal to remove an illegal unit is nonsensical.
And that really just that's going to create you so much.
It's going to bring me so much business as a consultant.
But you really don't want to do it.
I'm out of time, but I'm happy to answer as a subject matter expert for any questions that you might have on how it goes down in the real world of making this happen and usually creating housing or sometimes destroying it.
Thank you.
Okay, we'll go to our next speaker.
In person speaker else, please sign up on the 7th.
Good afternoon mayor and members of the city council.
My name is Solly Alpert.
I'm the vice chair of the board and I wanted to really appreciate council member Hans questions for our chair.
I think that that kind of gets to the heart of the issue, which is that.
SB, 330 is really clear protected units have to be replaced.
Protected units are restricted, affordable units.
They are rent controlled units or unit subject to price limitations by local government.
And then there's a 3rd category, which is these categories of units that are not restricted, affordable, but may be occupied by low income individuals.
Rent controlled units.
Irregardless of their income level of their occupants need to be replaced, even if they have no occupant, they need to be replaced.
The law is very clear about that.
It's very clear about that.
And the report is very clear about that.
In fact, the rent board unanimously adopted a policy, allowing our executive director to appeal any project that comes to the city that doesn't replace 1 for 1 every unit in that project.
So, I am very happy and thankful for the mayor and the council, the 4 by 4 and all the work many years of work that has gone into the policy before you today.
I'm very strongly supportive of the policy as proposed.
I do not support the revisions that have been proposed.
I think they weaken tenant protections in the policy and also quite frankly, a violation in some cases of state law around requiring replacement units.
And I want to make really clear that as an individual who will be on the rent board, I fully support the rent board taking legal action to make sure that.

Segment 3

All units are replaced and we will do that through and I think that the policy and before you guys that is as unamended does that.
So, thank you very much.
Next speaker, please.
Hi, I want to speak in favor of council member Kesarwani supplemental.
We are very in the weeds here.
I think it would be helpful to take a step back.
Is it the policy of the city of Berkeley to encourage housing development as a necessary element of fighting the housing crisis? I believe it should be and I know that some of you do as well.
We have to ask ourselves, do we actually want missing middle housing? Do we actually want to expand the housing supply? Do we actually want to expand the housing supply? I think that's a good question.
I think that's a good question.
Every 1 of these rules, every 1 of these restrictions raises the cost of housing for many, if not most for everyone we have the hard hats regulation.
That's great.
I, I support it.
It raises the cost of housing for everyone we have subsidy requirements that raise the cost of housing for everyone later tonight on consent.
So, we're going to be putting in another 9 or 10,000 dollars per unit in in mitigation fees.
We add these things.
Not with the question of, what does this do to like, what is the sum total of these things? We just, we, we take them forward now with this thing tonight or like, right? So, we're going to move from a use permit for demolition to an administrative use permit.
I think that's a great.
That's a great.
That's a great step.
Um, we have committed in our housing element that that we are going to do that.
Are we going to load on so many requirements and so many restrictions that it's not going to get used.
If a project doesn't pencil, then it doesn't matter.
And when we're talking about these small projects, you're talking about people like the golden duplexes.
It's like, on your property, like, in your life.
So, um, thanks.
Thank you.
My name's Debbie Sanderson, and, um.
I'm here to support Rashid's amendments.
There are lots of amendments in there that most of them are clarifying.
If I look at them, they're not using fewer words to say the same thing.
The purpose of this ordinance is to promote affordable housing and safety goals of the city.
It doesn't mention tenants, and yet I believe that the purpose of this is to protect tenants that said that that issue has sailed.
Um, the changes that I care most about are those that will not freeze vacant units.
There's plenty of wording where you may not.
You may not demolish, you may not demolish, but what happens if you can't demolish.
I think that's a serious.
Well, in this ordinance, and it's not taken from S.
P.
330.
So, that's my big concern.
My.
Other concern is that S.
P.
330 specifies that you can.
Not require these except for low income.
It only requires them in S.
P.
330 for low income.
Tenants, we've long passed that in the city of Berkeley.
So now, whatever the tenants income is.
The property owner, no matter how poor or wealthy they are, is going to have to pay the relocation fee, which will come out to 20 to 25,000.
So, I would.
I know this isn't going to pass, but I really wish Berkeley could look at the impact on low income property owners.
I don't give a shit about the big guys.
They've got money.
They sorry.
I said that they have money.
They have lawyers.
They have big corporations.
They know how to play this game little guys.
Don't we're encouraging them state.
The state law now allows you to put by right to accessory units on your property.
Once you do that, then you're fully subject to this ordinance and.
This seems to me, there's a big clash between encouraging construction of 80 years, which is still the only.
Product that can go in these neighborhoods by right on a single family property for a family.
They are family oriented and that's what we care about.
I know you've let me go over so.
I'm going to pass it over to Andrew Fisher, who's going to talk a little bit more about this ordinance and how it's been used to solve.
Hello, thank you.
My name is Andrew Fisher.
I'm a consultant that helps property owners and property managers try to understand and navigate rent control and some of this demolition ordinance and relocation ordinance.
And in the past, the standard practice has been that you walk down to the building department, you get a building permit to remove your unpermitted stove or sink or bathroom or whatever it is and it's an over the counter permit.
And then you turn around, you remove it, and you're now lawful compliant again.
That's been a path that a lot of property owners have used.
They get cited for unpermitted units because they happen.
Incidentally, the rent board doesn't require a kitchen to have something considered.
Something that needs to be registered with the rent board.
It doesn't even need a means to prepare food.
So there's a lot of people that incidentally create what would be called an unpermitted unit by rent board standards.
And under this ordinance that has been proposed by planning department would then require people to build a fully lawful 2nd unit, which would be hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I'm not afraid of this.
Simon Weisberg is concerned that that landlords will just evict people from these unpermitted units because that's there are protections already.
We have extremely strong tenant protections.
They're fantastic.
They do a really good job.
So, the means to an evicted attendant are very limited and circumscribed.
Those are going to continue.
We don't need to worry about.
I'm not afraid as somebody who wants everybody to be safe in their house of people being evicted from their own permanent homes.
That's not a that's not a cause for eviction or just cause for eviction.
So you're going to have people, the unpermitted unoccupied unit that's going to come by either a tenant moving out naturally.
Or by a buyout, which is a lot of the times how these things need to be resolved because they end up in a vice grip of regulations where they aren't supposed to have the person there because it's and they don't have a path to legalization or they can't afford legalization.
So, I think this is, as I said, I think it'll be create a disaster for.
I don't know, I'm not sure how many unpermitted units there are, but I've understood that there's maybe 33% of the homes in the hills have have unpermitted units.
That's been there was a study that was done.
So we have a lot of them.
We have thousands, maybe 7000.
I'm not sure.
We have 23,000 single family homes.
So.
Somewhere in there, we have a lot of a lot of property owners that will end up with a tax that is disastrous essentially, and we'll have to sell.
So I'm concerned about that.
Also, just to speak really quickly about the affordability wrap up your comments.
Yeah.
Last thing.
Affordability if we build more housing, I think it's the best path to affordability.
But 1 to 1 replacement, I believe in that as a, as a means for protecting what already exists and more.
Costs are going to decrease feasibility, which I was here a month ago for where a study was said that any project now is considered infeasible.
The cities, you guys all agree that you needed to find ways to control costs where you can.
So, I think that this is 1 way that we can control costs is not adding extra burden to creating more housing, which is going to be the only path to solving the housing crisis.
Thank you very much.
Are there any other members of the public here in person like to speak on the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance for demolition dwelling in it controls.
Okay, if not, we'll go to public comment on zoom.
If you're on zoom and wish to speak on the side and please raise your virtual hand to be added to the speaker's queue.
Blair, you should not be able to speak.
Thank you to the mayor for offering.
Clarification on the previous public meeting agenda, so I could speak on it.
Thank you for this item.
I'm not too familiar with its subject matter, but it's nice to attend the meeting and hear what you're trying to work on and working towards.
And, um, thank you.
I think you have good intentions and a good heart.
How we better develop these things as they progress is really important.
I hope we can always be open to make changes to to our policy ideas and practices to really be aware of that and want to make changes.
It was nice to hear the words of Bryce Nesbitt, who is now a consultant.
I understand.
I guess he's no longer working with the city of Berkeley.
He sounds like he offered some good, fairly friendly, good advice.
Someone also mentioned the concepts of ADUs.
That's an item that I think all around the Bay Area and throughout California, city governments are trying to get a handle on.
Can you work towards a better clarification of the ADU process for the public meeting process and community for our future? We're developing plans.
I'd like to hear them more clear from councilpersons what exactly they're doing and what exactly to work towards.
And we're just kind of letting things drift and go and build.
Some explanations could be really helpful at this time about where the current ADU process is at and where you're going towards.
Otherwise, thank you a lot for this item and good luck and continued efforts to build affordable housing and people and good human housing rights can be respected.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Cheryl Davila, former city council member.
Thank you.
For one, this 3.30 in the afternoon isn't really accessible for a lot of people, so that should cease and desist.
And also, mayor, please take my picture off your website.
I've asked you several times and I want to get back my time to remind you that that shouldn't be on there.
I'm not finished with my comments.
And also, BMR units are not necessarily affordable.
And I haven't really looked at this ordinance in a while, but.
It sounds like the amendments are.
In the pocket of the developers and realtors and shouldn't be.
Made because it will weaken tech tenants protections.
And what about the 4000 vacant units? 39% is definitely catering to developers and realtors and speculation.
Um, for property owners that, you know, are going to be, um.
Pounced on once again into losing their properties.
And, um, you know, rent controlled.
Tenants need to be protected at all costs.
We're in rental controlled units because we can't afford to move elsewhere.
Yes, you know, the rents in this city are extremely high.
And if it wasn't for rent control, many, many people would be.
Displaced and who wants to live in a frequent 60.
60 unit building anyway.
I know I don't.
I never have I can't imagine that they would be maintained and then there will just be these projects in a few years that aren't maintained and all over the city.
With people living in another project.
So, keep the.
Rent control in place in these units and and pass a demolition ordinance that protects the tenants.
At all costs, thank you.
Our next speaker is Kelly.
Hamilton.
Thank you.
I do have a concern and I don't understand how this is dealt with.
In the work that was done by the 4 by 4 committee and I do want to thank the 4 by 4 and everybody who's worked on this.
I know it's been a lot of work and I appreciate it.
And I think it should.
I hope that you would pass the 4 by 4 version.
But my question is what happens when.
The developer gets the project approved and you know they're supposed to be doing the rent controlled units or the units and then they sit on that.
Approved permit for years and we see that and then they come back with a modification to the project does the obligation for replacing those units go away if.
The approved permit has been sort of like put on a shelf.
Or for four years or five years or something longer than that.
You know that's what I see attending the design review committee and the ZAB and just kind of following projects that they get approved and then they don't get built for a very long time and come back as a modification.
The other thing that is a concern here in Berkeley is that some of these projects take years, even once they've broken ground there's one on McGee and University and I think that project has been under construction for over five years and it's still not finished.
So those are just two things to think about and maybe have part of your discussion and I appreciate all the work and I've heard a number of presentations on this.
Thank you very much.
I'm out of time.
Our next speaker is Bridget Schenck and that's our last raised hand on Zoom.
So if there's anyone else, please raise your hand or we will close public comment.
Hi, can you hear me? Yes.
Okay, great.
I am an architect and a resident and also a developer here in the city and I support the proposal by Council Member Casarwani and I also want to add that I think that requiring a use permit for a single family home to be replaced with a single family home without increasing density has negative unintended consequences.
We have a lot of aging housing stock here that's in poor structural condition and the single family homes, particularly in the hills, homeowners, now this is not tenant occupied so owner occupied, wanting to be able to replace their own house with a new one should be allowed.
We should be encouraging housing at all levels, including single family homes, I believe.
It's what SB 9 currently does and if we get rid of single family zoning with the middle housing bill, I think we need to have protection for a one-for-one replacement when there is no tenant eviction, right? This is just owner occupied and I think it would be a really simple way to do that.
I would also like to add that I think that if we want to do a meaningful language change, we just need to remove section B.2 where it says with a net increase of units, I think it should just say at least the same number of units or more so that someone could tear down and replace an aging home without having to go through a use permit.
I would also like to add that it's very costly, cost prohibitive for any owner occupied family.
I'm going through it right now and it's really neighbor input, shadow studies, story polls, peer review, geotech reports, is all really expensive for a single family home and I believe unwarranted.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mayor, can you hear me? Yes, we can.
Thank you.
City Council, Mayor, 4x4, Planning Department, I understand all the effort that's gone into this.
I do understand that people are stuck in their positions.
I want to commend Councilmember Krishnawani for all of her efforts.
I have not spent 40 hours, but I have read through the amendments.
I've read through the ordinance a couple of times.
I've actually taken the time.
I want to say that aside from supporting her, because I really think it's very thoughtful, given all the information she was given from the ordinance and then going out to the public and really surveying this, but without going into great detail, we have a huge insurance crisis happening.
And the way that the ordinance is written now will have unintended consequences, mostly on low-income owners where family has owned units or a home that's been passed down.
It's the only form of wealth, probably.
And I'm saying that that has not been taken into consideration on the original.
Your Councilmembers Krishnawani and Humbert have taken those more into consideration, but that's a huge deal.
Chances are a lot of homeowners will lose their homes because their loans will be called because they will not be able to afford any kind of insurance.
People who have means can get other coverage.
Most low-income owners will not be able to.
So thank you for all your efforts, and I hope you pass the amended version.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We'll go to our next speaker on Zoom, who is Matthew Lewis.
So I don't know what Rossi is talking about when she says that she was talking to tenants, because she didn't talk to the Berkeley Tenants Union.
Berkeley Tenants Union has not been told.
The only reason Berkeley Tenants Union is aware of her proposal is to gut this ordinance as a reward to the corporate real estate industry that buys council seats and has helped support her in office.
We've never seen this.
The only reason why we've seen it is because it has to get publicly posted on agendas.
This is just attempting to gut stuff.
And let's also be clear, state law does not allow demolition without replacement of vacant rent-controlled units.
And if it did, it would incentivize landlords to harass their tenants into leaving so it would suddenly be vacant.
This is a proposal that is illegal.
It is illegal.
It is attempting to destroy affordable housing.
And that's the point of it.
It should be wholesale rejected.
All attempts to water down this ordinance should be rejected.
But the proposals from these three council members, any attempts to mess with the Ellis Act provisions, and furthermore, we should really be strengthening this proposal.
Oh, by the way, I'm speaking on behalf of the Berkeley Tenants Union.
For instance, this proposal suggests that we should, for those units that were illegally constructed and the fire marshal says it's not safe to rebuild them, you don't have to do a replacement unit.
Let's assume for a second that SB 330 allows that.
It's a bit unclear to me when I was rereading the law.
Well, that's a clear solution to that.
If we're not required to do a replacement unit by 330, then we can require them to pay a mitigation fee for those units.
Because the prohibition on feeing out only applies for units that have to be replaced via SB 330.
And that's better policy.
Nobody should be allowed to basically say, oh, I'm going to get rid of this unit and I'm not going to do it.
There's going to be nothing to replace the affordable housing we've lost.
Please see the rest of the Berkeley Tenants Union's letter.
Thank you.
Are there any other speakers on Zoom who'd like to address item one, zoning amendments for demolition and dwelling unit controls? If so, please raise your hand.
I don't see any additional raised hands, so we will close the public hearing.
So I'll make a motion to close the public hearing and I'll make a motion to close public comment.
And as this is a policy matters on a quasi-judicial matter, we can close the public hearing and still have the opportunity to ask questions.
So I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
Seconded by Councilman Lunapara.
If the clerk can please call the roll on closing the public hearing.
Yes.
Yes.
Wengrab.
Yes.
Lunapara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mayor Aragon.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
The public hearing is closed.
So the matters before us, I'd like to kick things off and I'll go to Councilor Trago, who was next in the queue to get a question.
Thank you.
So I'm going to go through the various proposals that are before us today.
And to kind of put things into perspective, one speaker I'd reference the 40 something hours Councilor Kisselani has put into her proposal.
I haven't counted the number of hours I've put into the work I've done on this for over 10 years.
So, I'm going to start with the city of Berkeley.
So, a couple of years ago, when we had a project that came to us that proposed demolishing a rent controlled property, and at that time, the city law.
The city of Berkeley.
The city of Berkeley had a 4 by 4 unit in the city of Berkeley.
And in order to balance the need for more housing in Berkeley, working with former mayor Bates, we, the 4 by 4 committee came forward with a framework that would have allowed more, more permissive rules on residential demolitions.
And so that that formed the policy we have before us today.
That's been on the books for 8 years.
And then Senate bill 330 happened, which codified actually certain aspects of our policy statewide.
And helped clarify some issues, legal issues that enabled us to do 1 for 1 replacement.
So, we've been talking about this for a number of years now and really had intense discussions over what is the right way to mitigate the loss of rent controlled housing in Berkeley and the recommendation that we've come to was 1 for 1 replacement.
So.
This is complex.
We have.
State law, we have local, the local rent control ordinance.
We have our existing policy.
And we have to reconcile all these different things.
One of my concerns around, and I've, I've given a lot of thought to this and I've read.
The proposals, but state law consulted staff consult the city attorney.
I'm concerned that that would create a perverse incentive for property owners to hold units vacant, which I think we can all agree is not good for addressing the significant shortage of housing in Berkeley.
It's actually counterintuitive to the goals that we're trying to address.
And that that's also not good for our community.
So, and that was really at the crux of what started this whole conversation.
Over 16 years ago, because the city's legal interpretation of our law was that if the unit was vacant, there was no tenant in the unit that the very restrictive.
Demolition controls to not apply.
And we saw situations where tenants were forced out.
And so people can do residential demolitions.
I don't think that's a good thing.
I also don't believe that this needs to be a 0, some game.
We, I think we need to make sure we're protecting existing tenants for preserving existing naturally current affordable housing.
And we're, and we're, we're producing new housing, the 3 piece.
So, I'm concerned about adopting a.
Language that says something has to be tenant occupied for certain tenant protections to apply or certain replacement requirements to apply.
Um.
Uh, and.
I think 1 of the other challenges that we face is that.
The.
Rent control ordinance does not allow us to implement rent control on demolished units because of the, the way the origins is currently written did not account for this type of situation.
When new construction happens, we need to clarify that.
Because that would be a much easier standard for us to implement for some of these situations where being a tenant is not a good thing.
Um, so, um, you know, if at some point.
Um, the way the origins is currently written did not account for this type of situation when new construction happens, we need to clarify that.
Because that would be a much easier standard for us to implement for some of these situations where doesn't make sense from an economic feasibility standpoint, or even just in terms of.
Um, you know, if at some point.
The ordinance is amended to allow for rent control as a form of replacement.
I hope we can amend this ordinance to allow that as an option and that could address.
I think some of the issues we've heard from builders, particularly people that are building housing around the campus area.
Um, I don't know if there's anything else.
But I really appreciate all the thought that's gone into this.
This is really complicated.
But I think at the core, I think the goal should be how can we not just facilitate more permissive housing rules on housing production.
I think it's not their fault that there's a lot of people who are displaced to no fault of their own.
It's not their fault that they live in a property and then the owner decides they want to they want to demolish it because they want to make more money or, or sell the property to somebody who buys it and wants to develop it.
And that's not a bad thing.
But those tenants shouldn't be, whether they're low income or not.
Should not be kicked to the curb and should and should not have the option to relocation assistance.
So, I think that's a really good point.
And I think that's a policy that's been on the books.
For 8 years now, so we can't roll back those things.
We have to keep those critical.
Tenant protections in place.
I'll stop there.
I look forward to our discussion today and I'll go next to counselor who had a question before we went to the public.
I just wanted to ask a few questions.
Uh, I remember working on this on early drafts through the 4 by.

Segment 4

For, um, but I know a lot has changed since then.
Um, I think most of these are for planning staff.
Um, I had a question around, um.
So, for relocation, or actually the, the rent differential.
Um, would that payment be for the length of the temporary stay that the tenant.
Has there, there were some representations made and a few public comments around.
The length of time it takes to replace a unit and.
That has certainly been my experience as well on the zoning board.
Um, so I wanted to just get clarification on that.
Is it such time as the renter is able to move it? You know, yes, that's that's correct.
The ordinance reads.
That the applicant shall subsidize the rent differential for a comparable replacement unit in the same neighborhood as feasible until new units are ready for occupancy.
Thank you.
What the 50% am I moving to 30% am I.
Would that be for.
The next tenant that lives there, or would it apply for the.
Tenant who to forced right of refusal may choose to move back into a replacement unit.
I apologize.
Can you please repeat the question there? Yes, you mentioned that the.
For those tenants that are units in which the tendencies were at 50% am I, or below they would be moved to 30% am I.
Would that apply to the tenant who may live there now? And with the unit being demolished, may choose to move back into a replacement unit.
Should they choose to take the first right of refusal.
Is the question specifically about that 30% set aside.
Unit, yeah, I mean, I was curious, I guess it has to do with any changes in percent.
Does it at what point would that apply? Would it be for future tenancies, or would that apply to the tenant seeking to move in? Because I think elsewhere in the ordinance, it talks about being able to move in at comparable rents.
Yeah, if they, if the tenant income qualifies to move into the 30% am I unit, they could, they would be offer that offer to that unit.
I maybe add that that.
The 30%, uh, the 30% am I.
Affordability restriction would be would carry with the unit.
Would remain with the unit that unit would for the, for the length of the deed restriction would be set at that affordability unit, regardless of whether the household that triggered that takes the unit or.
Ops to, uh, to even occupy the, the new building.
I see, so if you are a tenant at 50% am I, let's say who.
Is forced to relocate and then chooses to move back to the same site.
Would there would that replacement unit be.
At 30% am I know.
It would be at the same get 50%, but then it's subsequently, it would go to 30% am I.
For the next tendency.
So, this is this is an interesting hypothetical question you're asking and, you know, I think the specifics of this situation would, we would be working in a scenario like the 1 you describe.
We'd be working closely with staff to ensure that the, uh.
The project conforms with the requirements of local law, and that the tenant is able to take advantage of the rights they're entitled to under under local law.
I think the 4 by 4 added this provision last fall when this came back when this ordinance came back to them for the final time to require that 30% am I unit when there's a sitting household.
With an income less than 50% of am I.
It potentially creates a scenario where.
Um, it could create a scenario if there aren't other units that the.
The displaced household in the product could inco qualified for in the project where there's a mismatch where there if there were only 1 replacement unit that was restricted to 30% am I and the displaced household couldn't qualify.
Yeah, that could be a problem.
But, um, in that extreme edge case, I think we would, um, we would work with the applicant to establish requirements that as best as possible conform with the local law while also ensuring that the displaced household receives the benefits that they are entitled to.
So, that makes sense.
I just have a couple more and then I, I promised to be done for the chest numbers.
Is that based on.
Average or median income, I'm not sure which, but it, it senses data, but is it based on all households in Berkeley or is it separated out to just include renter households.
The data as as presented by HUD does include data on.
Owner occupant households and also rent your households, but for the purpose of the ordinance and the application of giving up.
Um, the affordability requirements when we don't know the, the, the income of the tenant households, we would only be using the data about renters.
Um, so we would only be using the percentage of renters in Berkeley to determine that low income renters to determine that percentage, not low income residents overall.
Thank you and I think this last 1 is for rent board staff and if they could come up, if they're still here.
Hello.
Hi, counselor.
Could you.
I feel like 1 of the greatest sticking points tonight.
Is going to be what happens with these tenancies that are units that are not currently went through occupied.
But have been went through occupied in the past, whether it's 5 years, or sometime before the last 5 years, can you just briefly.
Um, speak to what the rent ordinance says around the concept of rented or available for rent.
Yes, the ordinance states rather broadly that all units that are rented or available for rent.
Are subject to rent control.
5 year, and I remember actually, when we were kicking around drafts that dealt with, you know, what, what is the threshold? Is it 5 years that the last time I went through occupy the unit? And then maybe it was not available for rent, but can can you speak to the significance of the 5 years versus, you know, something else? Like, the unit maybe currently not being rented, but that has been rented or available for rent in the prior 5 years.
Council member, we believe that's plain language and state law, but I'm going to bring up Ali Allinger who's a staff attorney at the run forward and leave for sales planner to elaborate on that.
Thank you.
Councilor.
Good afternoon.
Council members to council member, if I'm to understand your question, I think you're asking, could there be a unit that is covered or defined as a protected unit under state law, but is considered not available for rent under the rent stabilization ordinance because it's not currently rented at the moment.
And the answer to that question is yes.
The, I would say, like, the event diagram would be the most useful way to visualize this, but there is a body of units that are protected units because sometime in the past 5 years, they were subject to rent control.
But currently, they are not available for rent because the owner is not renting them out or intending to rent them out.
And so there's an overlap between those 2 an example would be with a golden duplex that is a unit that is currently a golden duplex because the owner moved in last year.
So that's a golden duplex.
But prior to that, before the owner moved in, that would have been a unit subject to rent control and thus a protected unit under state laws.
Thank you and since you're here, and I promise this will be the my final question, but I remember on Zab when I was on and this was.
About a decade ago, but there was a project that came to us where 1 of the conditions of approval was that they would need to provide replacement units that would be under.
Maybe a lighter or weaker form of rent control than what is under the ordinance and I, I wanted to see.
How many units you might have now that are under those kinds of provisions.
They're basically replacement units.
And are they registered with the rent board? I believe what you're talking about is.
The situations in which we aren't allowed based on Costa Hawkins to assert any rent controls.
So, we are preempted by state law from allowing our local ordinance to provide protections to those units.
And so there were some situations in which.
Developers or landlords would voluntarily submit to some form of rent control that mirrored the ordinance.
We have found that those agreements are.
Almost unworkable, and in many cases, the landlords have immediately in.
In 2 of the cases that I know of immediately.
Gone against those agreements that were established by Zab as a condition of approval for the actual.
Construction of those units, so we strongly, strongly.
Advise against any system that provides for a voluntary system of control.
Thank you, that's for all my questions.
I will have more to say later, but I look forward to hearing from my colleagues.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
If it's okay, I'm going to start with comments.
I don't I don't have any questions.
Thank you.
I'd like to 1st, thank the planning staff and planning commission and current and former council members and members on the 4 by 4 who have clearly been tirelessly working on this for years.
I'd like to express my strong support for the demolition ordinance as written and vetted by planning commission and our elected board members.
While I understand some of the concerns brought forward by some of my colleagues, especially around curbing housing production.
I'm also worried that these amendments, the potential impacts on our current tenants, many of who are at constant risk of displacement, our rent control departments are precious resource that we should be proactively working to maintain for the affordability and retainment of our current residents requiring the replacement of protected units will not only preserve our affordable housing stock, but it will also encourage the use of the density bonus and afford as affordable units can be used to meet our local requirements and to trigger the density bonus.
I've heard concerns that some of these changes may render it infeasible to redevelop buildings in South side in response to that point and the point that students are often not eligible for BMR units of which are very valid concerns.
My suggestion suggestion is that we currently pass this version with no amendments and which includes a 1 to 1 replacement and once the tenants right to organize ballot measure is on the ballot and passes, which I believe it will that we revisit this.
I will work then to pass an amendment regarding development in the South side plan, providing an alternative for developers to choose between replacing protected units with rent controlled units or BMR units as permitted under S.
B.
3.
30.
I'm not suggesting that we make that change preemptively or right now, but I've consulted with the Brooklyn tenants union and they have expressed openness to the idea to provide an alternative route for South side development after November, which would offer us more flexibility than we currently have on this issue in terms of missing middle.
I think that it is after hopefully passing this ordinance as written.
It is up to us in our upcoming missing middle ordinance conversations to remove restrictions on bill building missing middle to allow it to be feasible and I think that I have faith in our body to be able to do that.
I think that this demolition ordinance is a win, win, win.
It protects tenants from displacement and uninhabitable living conditions.
It makes demolition and non tenant occupied buildings easier to make infill development more feasible.
It reduces conflict between protecting tenants and enabling new development.
I would also not like to see development stalled due to potential conflict with state law and conflict with our rent board.
I think that the policy passed as written would be much more straightforward and the demolition ordinance as written and as presented by our planning commission will steer development towards owner occupied lots and away from tenant occupied properties, rent controlled and affordable property so that those are prioritized for redevelopment.
I think that it's important also not to exempt unpermitted units or waive requirements if financially infeasible.
I think that we should not be rewarding violations of our law and waiving replacement requirements based on only the bottom line of developers in my opinion violates SB330.
I would like to see the current staff proposal version of the demolition ordinance as approved by the 4 by 4 and the planning commission past night and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We'll go next to Council member Han.
Thank you very much.
Let's see, gosh, my questions were so long ago that.
I think first of all, I just want to thank I want to thank the mayor.
I thank you for reminding us of how long you and others in the community have been working on this.
Not just this latest sort of iteration and this latest effort, but trying to address the really serious challenge of loss of rent controlled housing.
When we lose it, we can't get it back.
And it has been a very important part of not just how we have regulated rents and made sure that at least a tiny bit of our housing is not.
It's been a really important driver of stability in our community.
And I guess I'll just say that.
I am not someone who thinks that human beings are fungible.
For me, if we're tossing out long term Berkeley residents.
And we're going to replace them with other people who qualify for a low income unit.
That's not a great outcome for me.
I actually care about the people who live here and who and certainly care a lot about the people who made big investments in our community.
And so I'm not really.
I'm not.
I'm not.
I think that may just be a philosophical difference that for me, it's not just about units.
Thank you.
I just want to say that I think that the planning commission.
I think that the planning commission.
And it stands on decades and literally of of work and thought.
And so I basically support I support what staff has put forward.
I personally do not need any changes.
I do not see any reason to make changes.
I'm very concerned about kind of conflating the idea that you have to be income tested for a rent controlled unit to be worthy of being replaced or that the unit has to be occupied for it to be worthy of being replaced.
I think that conflation is dangerous.
I think it undermines the basis of rent control, which is about units.
And so I think that.
It's just a different kind of protection from the MR.
I just don't see why we would dilute that.
I'm not sure if that is a right thing to do.
I think it's a different kind of saying, well, if the person who is in that unit.
Doesn't income qualify, which they didn't have to do to have that unit, then somehow that unit is not worthy of being replaced or if a landlord got lucky and figure out a way to get rid of a tenant or.
I don't know if that's a right thing to do.
I don't know if it's a right thing to do to have a unit that should be replaced with a low income unit.
It just I guess I'm as I'm saying I think it's just philosophically a different perspective that I have so I support.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And.
Now, I think I think all who brought that to us and that is what I will be supporting.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I do want to thank you for your work all the years on this.
This proposal is policy.
I've been following it somewhat far, but the tracking its development and I'm really pleased the outcome.
I think it does strike a good balance.
I think it does incentivize use.
I think it does incentivize use.
I think we have an opportunity to have a more stable, more sustainable future.
Maybe.
So we don't get stuck with into units or not or non developed land.
However, though, I think this goes a long way to addressing the entropy that we have a thorough housing because they're in control units as we said tonight.
We have a long way to go to address that.
And I think that's a great opportunity to address an increase in affordability and an increase in wealth.
And it's a time of great economic transformation.
Incredible wealth disparity, we're trying really hard to keep our diversity of income and everyone else and it's shameful that we're at we're talking elite and poor and nothing in between.
And to address that, we need to address the crisis in the state that we have.
That's the balance between producing housing, preserving existing affordable housing and protecting tenants.
And all of this is meant to address the crisis in the state we have by some arguments and some estimates up to half a million people who are homeless in California.
And so we need more units.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I want to thank customer Kesser, wanting and customer Humbert for your diligent work.
It's a lot to to tackle so quickly and I thank you for your hard work, but I will be supporting the original policy as brought to us by staff.
And I do want to say, for the record, this comes up a lot.
In the community means testing for rent control.
So, if we're going to have means test the renter, we're going to means test the homeowners to.
It's only fair.
Thank you.
We'll go next to vice mayor.
Thank you, and thank you to everybody for all of your work on this.
I know it's been a long time.
And state housing law has kept it as a kind of moving target.
And I think that will probably continue, but I have a very practical question because of the complexity of all of this stuff.
I'm wondering how is this administered? Who administers.
I'll take a crack at fielding that 1 council member.
It really is.
And I think that will probably continue, but I have a practical question because of the complexity of all of this stuff.
I'm wondering how is this administer who administers.
The program is that our housing department is at the rent board.
Is it the landlord? I'm going to say the landlord, but I think there's a couple things that.
I think the council member.
It really is.
It really, I think each of the agencies that you just named as a role to play.
Depending on the project.
Our planners work with project applicants to ensure that they understand.
The unit replacement requirements.
And the obligations to sitting tenants.
And at any other requirements associated with the demolition project.
Staff and housing and community services.
You've already heard from them this afternoon, talking about how the administration of the BMR program.
Works and, and, and those staff are responsible for working with.
Applicants to develop affordable housing, but they're also responsible for working with.
Applicants.
With our.
Affordable housing requirements, inclusionary housing requirements, and, and, and many cases there is overlap between the affordability requirements associated with replacement units.
And fulfilling.
Obligations of our inclusionary housing program.
And so sometimes the state density bonus program as well.
So I think the, the, the, the, the, the, the research that has been done to make sure that we're following these guidelines.
Rent boards.
What rent board counselors.
Often are providing advice to tenants so that they're fully aware.
Of what their rights are under the demolition ordinance as it relates to.
Replacement units, relocation costs, and, and, and any other benefits.
Okay, we'll go next to council member Humbert.
Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
I also want to thank staff members of the 4 by 4 past members of the land use committee and myriad of other people for this work on this important and impactful ordinance.
It's complicated in the extreme.
I wrestled with it.
It's complicated in the extreme.
I wrestled with it.
Not as much as.
Council member customer wanting certainly, but, you know, I wrestle with it and I understand one part in the, another part gets away from me, but.
And that's because it's entangled with state law, as well as our local rents stabilization ordinance.
And the policies that are inherent in, in both sets of, of laws.
I think it's important to recognize that we have to keep the bigger picture in mind.
And, and also recognize that demanding perfection will make it hard to pass anything.
I particularly want to thank council member customer wanting and her aides.
Who did true yo person's work to craft amendments for this proposal.
That I think help us follow state law, maintain fairness and balance, and adopt something that helps ensure that we are building more homes.
I, I agree that our housing policies should be fundamentally about people.
And I know.
Council member customer wanting does as well.
And in my mind, that should be about maximizing the number of people.
Who get to enjoy living in this wonderful town of Berkeley, as we also get to enjoy living in this wonderful city of Berkeley.
It's a question of balance.
We make it too difficult to rebuild our existing housing and higher densities.
We're not meeting that goal.
I also recognize that the people who own homes, some of which include 80 use are also people.
And as people who are sharing their properties with their tenants, it's fundamentally different.
And I think.
Deborah Sanderson mentioned this.
It's fundamentally different than the person who owns a home in the city.
It's fundamentally different than the person who owns a home in the city.
It's fundamentally different than the person who owns a home in the city.
And I think Deborah Sanderson mentioned this.
It's fundamentally different from other tenant landlord relationships.
And I think we really absolutely need to be conscientious.
Conscious about that.
We also need to be conscientious.
Conscientious of the more limited resources that individual homeowners have.
And make it easier for them to rebuild and do the city, the service.
Providing additional housing.
We need to make it easier for the.
For the operators, they can handle it, but we need to make it easier.
For the little guy and gal and in person.
We want to see our missing middle policies, have an impact on housing supply.
I think that's absolutely critical.
That's the sort of.
I'm.
I want to see.
The pioneer and exclusionary zoning dating from.
1916 and that includes my neighborhood was the.
The Elmwood was the, was the situs of that.
With.
Nefarious motives and I want to see that.
In the, in the wake of history.
We're going to have a hard time meeting our established housing goals, our arena goals.
And if we fail to do that, we put our pro housing status and housing element certification at risk.
At the same time, of course.

Segment 5

I'm going to say it again.
We need to be very careful that are meeting state and local requirements for tenant protection replacement units and relocation benefits.
And I guess I would point out that in this in in in in the supplemental, the idea is.
We're talking about permissible units.
We're talking about permissible units.
And, you know, whether or not an unpermitted unit is infeasible to replace.
We're only talking about unpermitted units.
We're talking about things that that really may be barely habitable and we don't want to, you know, sort of incentivize people living in those.
Unpermitted units.
And, you know, and have decent lives.
So, you know, I think this balance is possible with the supplemental.
And, and, and that's what I would prefer to vote for.
If it's if I, if I can.
Thank you.
Councilmember trigger.
Thank you.
I think.
Councilmember has worked so diligently on many drafts.
And my appreciation goes to council member.
And the others who have, I think.
Spent a great deal of time trying to uncover.
I think.
And this is it's not lost on me.
That this will be my 1st major vote on the council.
And so I go back to my North star when I make decisions and.
If possible, I try to do no harm.
And if that's not possible, then I try to do the most amount of good for the most amount of people.
I think there are various.
I'm very sympathetic to everyone who has come out and spoken about the plight of.
You know, the, the moms and pops and.
I think I think about actually my parents who never intended to be property owners, but because of a change in circumstances are temporarily in a situation where they have to be.
And I am deeply sympathetic to the challenges under the various city of Berkeley codes to replace units to make sure that those who occupy those units.
And I think that.
That is our hall.
At the same time.
I'm aware that there are.
Somewhere around 19,000 units of rent controlled housing stock.
On the Berkeley books.
And I will posit to you that.
There are a number of units that are missing middle housing.
And at least some, and probably many of those when controlled units.
Are also a form of missing middle housing.
They're able to provide housing in many cases.
To those who may just barely by a hair by 1 dollar by a 100 dollars, not qualify for.
But they are able to provide housing to those who cannot afford a unit.
That they can afford, or they are on, you know, in on the wait list.
For years, and then they are able to through rent control.
Able to stay housed in Berkeley.
And also also folks that make Berkeley.
I fully support.
Council member Luna powers position that should there be a ballot measure that passes this November.
That would give us more flexibility.
Around the possibility of bringing new housing stock.
Under rent control that that would, in fact, allow applicants.
To be given a choice, either units based on data or.
Replacement with when controlled units.
I look forward to supporting that, not just for the South side.
But I know in the district that I serve.
There are many, many residents.
That would benefit from that.
And I presume that that might be the case.
Elsewhere in Berkeley as well.
I do very much appreciate the efforts of council member and others to try to thread this needle and find a balance.
I think given the complexities of the situation.
The aspects of that proposal that.
I could support are around standardizing definitions, such as the definition of comparable units.
The definition of no file conviction.
I looked at supplemental 1.
I think it's still in supplemental 2 as well.
And I apologize if I am incorrect in that.
And bringing it into just bringing certain language into conformance with state law.
I think that's a good way to go.
I think that's a good way to go.
However, in other respects.
At least at this time, I fully support.
The ordinance that was presented to us by.
Planning staff today and.
Thank you.
I think given the importance on the that led to where we are today.
I am very honored to be a part of moving something forward after many long painstaking hours of trying to find that right balance for a Berkeley.
We can all call home.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm going to move on to the next item.
Which is a discussion around the definition of comparable unit.
So, the language that's been recommended.
Says comparable unit, this is in section.
So, there's a there's a different definition in state law.
Under the.
Sb3 30, which says equivalent size, which is.
So, I'm going to move on to the next item.
Which is the definition number of total bedrooms as units being replaced.
So, could you elaborate Mr Klein about why we have a more expansive definition of comparable unit from what the state.
Recommends, and is there an issue if we just went with the state definition? No, there is no issue.
I have no issue with instead defaulting to the state definition.
Okay, thank you for that context.
So, having read counselor supplemental.
Extensively multiple times, I think the proposed amendment to the definition of comparable unit.
Is something that I would, I would certainly support to provide more flexibility to make sure that we're providing.
A more comprehensive definition of comparable unit.
Depending on the different types of properties that.
Demolition applications may occur.
And so what counselor Kessler wanted to proposed was.
I'm just pulling this up here.
1 2nd, I kind of marked up a different version.
Was defaulting to the definition of.
Comparable unit.
And I think that's, I think that's appropriate.
We should as much as possible ensure conformity between our requirements and state law.
So, for purposes of discussion, I will make a motion to approve 1st, reading the ordinance.
As presented by staff with this amendment to comparable unit as shown here.
And I would like to make a motion to approve.
The resolution on.
To say that the resolution shall be presumed to be knocked about by low or lower income renter households in the same proportion as residential units throughout the city.
So, I'll make that motion for purposes of discussion.
2nd, 2nd.
Okay, thank you.
And I would like to make an alternative motion to pass the.
To pass the ordinance as written by staff.
I'll second that.
That's a substitute motion to approve the original proposal from.
As presented by staff in the planning commission.
And I would like to make a motion to approve the ordinance.
As presented by staff with additional comments.
Let me see nothing I don't see a race and from councilmember wingraph.
So, let's proceed to a roll call vote then on the substitute motion, which is to approve the ordinance.
As presented by by planning staff.
I will abstain.
Yes.
Trigger abstain.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
I will abstain.
Okay.
Motion fails on the main motion, the main motion, which includes as 2 amendments that I read on comparable unit and the amendment request by staff.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Why were you continue working on the 4th, the 330 special second.
Please call the roll to ajourn council member kicks are 1, yes, Kaplan yes.
Partly, yes, I.
Yes, when graph, yes, and a car.
Yes, number.
Okay, thank you.
We will be back at 6.00PM regular city council after a recess.
So, thank you all for being here.
If you want to speak to an item on the agenda, please fill out a card.
So that you, you can be.
Part of the drum to be randomly selected.
If you're here to speak on an action item or consent, I will take public comment later on.
Okay.
Recording stopped.
Yeah, it is.
Yeah.
Okay.