Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2025-05-07 19:44:37 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_1792fe24-dee9-4fdb-83eb-b0635f43ee26.ogg

Segment 1

All right.
Hello, everyone.
Good evening.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Tonight is Tuesday, May 6th, 2025, and I'm calling this meeting into session of the Berkeley City Council meeting.
So we would like to start off with the roll, please, clerk.
Okay.
Council member Kesarwani.
Oh, it's a little bit here.
Taplin.
Oh, present.
Bartlett.
Bartlett.
Yes, here.
Tregub.
Present.
O'Keefe.
Here.
Blackabee.
Here.
Lunaparra.
Here.
Humbert.
Present.
And Mayor Ishii.
Here.
Thank you so much, clerk.
And tonight is the first City Council meeting of this month.
And so that means we'll be reading our land acknowledgement statement.
And I'm going to, we've been taking turns.
And so tonight is Council member Blackabee's night, and he's in District 6.
So thank you so much, Council member.
Thank you, Mayor.
I'd like to read the land acknowledgement tonight.
The City of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in was built on the territory of Huchun people, the ancestral and unseated land of the Chochenyo-speaking Ohlone people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County.
This land was and continues to be of great importance to all of the Ohlone tribes and descendants of the Verona Band.
As we begin our meeting tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley, the documented 5,000 year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shell Mound and the Ohlone people who continue to reside in the East Bay.
We recognize that Berkeley's residents have and continue to benefit from the use and occupation of this unseated stolen land since the City of Berkeley's incorporation in 1878.
As stewards of the laws regulating the City of Berkeley, it is not only vital that we recognize the history of this land, but also recognize that the Ohlone people are present members of Berkeley and other East Bay communities today.
The City of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the Lijian tribe and to create meaningful actions that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.
Thank you very much.
Now, this evening, for our ceremonial items, we are actually going to push back the adjournment in memory for John Boularie.
Thank you very much for the pronunciation.
His family won't be able to come until a later meeting.
And although we did adjourn in the memory of David Chicken Nesmith, his widow was not able to attend until this evening.
And so I believe that she is on Zoom to join us.
And I'm going to ask the clerk to help us find her to give some commentary.
Thank you so much for joining us this evening.
I appreciate it.
Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you now.
Oh, good.
I just wanted to thank Igor and all the council members for honoring my beloved spouse, Chicken David Nesmith last week.
And I'm really grateful to accept your invitation to follow up tonight with a few words, further words about my hero.
He was known as a super effective political strategist for the environment, and I'm going to share with you tonight his secret potion for success.
Respect and love your opponent.
He'd take his opponents out for tea.
He'd learn all their children's names, and he never forgot them.
And he'd invite them to get in a boat with him where they would inevitably fall in love with the river or the part of the bay he was battling for.
He fought the East Bay mud to protect the McCallum River as wilderness.
That's the water.
That's the water we drink every day.
That's the river that gives us our clean water, some of the cleanest in the world.
He sued the pants off of them.
He was a pain in their ass, and he took them on river trips to fall in love with the river.
And when the McCallum he came up for a vote, it was right after his big stroke, and he came to the board meeting in his wheelchair to speak haltingly in his few simple words as he had practiced over and over.
And he said, this is before they voted behind you.
He said, thank you for saving the river for the fish and for the birds and for all the young people who will enjoy its beauty for generations to come.
And the board leaped up and gave him a standing ovation, and then they sat down and voted unanimously to protect our McCallum River.
I have one other thing about him I want to hold up before you that he loved young people, and that's what gave him hope for the future.
He mentored teenage teenage drafting guides for inner city outings, and he mentored young activists for the environment, and he played a critical role.
Co founding with me Bishop high schools, living lab, a large restoration project, powered by students on a former quarry site, and now it has an environmental study center and native ecosystems and a farm.
And he up lead weekly field trips and international science expeditions and camping adventures.
And in the process, he mentored hundreds and hundreds of teens who have now gone on to become many of them activists.
A month ago, as he was dying, hundreds of people came to pay their respects.
And all who came told him that he had inspired them to dedicate their lives to working for the environment for justice and for joy and to having fun all the way.
Thank you for letting me speak about chicken.
David.
My hero.
Thank you so much for sharing that with us.
I'm really glad we were able to hear from you this evening.
I'm just so sorry for your loss.
So, 1 thing that I need to do before we continue on our meeting is to report out from our closed session city attorney.
I have the paragraph that you'd sent me the city council directed the city attorney to initiate an action once formally commenced the action defendants and other particulars shall be disclosed to any person upon inquiry unless to do so would jeopardize the city's ability to effectuate service of process on 1 or more unserved parties, or jeopardize the city's ability to serve the community and the public.
That completes our report out from closed session.
Thank you very much.
City manager.
Did you have comments? I have 1 madam mayor.
Thank you just wanted to let folks in the audience who are here for the 2 fire related items know that those are both going to be moved to June 17th that's item 1, which is a cal fire map item.
And also the item 9, which is the fire code amendments.
So we wanted to have more time to work with the community on both of those.
And for today, if you're here for those, we have both assistant chief Arnold and chief David Sprague in the back who are happy to talk to people today for that.
Thank you very much city manager and so just just to clarify so for items 1 and 9, if you're here for either of those items, we've got folks who are experts that you can ask questions to you in the back and I will probably ask you all to step outside since I imagine that will get noisy.
But before that happens, I'm going to pass it over to council member Blackaby who also has a related announcement.
Great.
Thank you.
I just want to thank the city manager for moving the consideration of those 2 items to June 17th.
As we've discussed over the past few weeks, our office, I think many offices have received a lot of emails and calls about neighbors with questions about Ember and what the new zone 0 requirements will mean for them as district 6 is elected representative to the city council, representing nearly 1800 households in the very high fire hazard severity zone and thousands of people who live in the city.
I do want to make sure that every constituent, every neighbor, every person who lives in Berkeley has a chance to get the facts about Ember before the proposal receives a vote and ask questions and gets clarification.
It's really important that we work together as a community in this important effort and I want to make sure that we take the time to answer questions before we move forward.
I've reflected with a few people this week.
It's important to me, not that we just pass a policy.
We could pass a policy.
We could pass the policy tonight, but ultimately, it's more important that we reach the 60, 70, 80% participation that we need to make the defensible space and the community hardening effort successful.
That's really what success is about.
It's about being safe and protecting the environment.
So, if people have questions and concerns, let's absolutely address them.
Let's explain the fire department's thinking.
Let's hear what other people have to say.
Let's make tweaks to how we'll implement it and finance it.
I do want to move expeditiously so we can do the work that we all know we need to do to make our homes and neighborhoods safer.
But more important than passing the policy is that we all commit to doing the hard but necessary work together.
So, to that end, over this time period, let me just share one thing really quickly and I'll be done.
I do want to invite folks to two important EMBER webinars.
Let's do it.
On May 15th, we're having a Zoom webinar open to everyone.
Questions, answers, we're going to take directly some of the challenges and the concerns that people have had coming to us.
Please RSVP at this bit.ly link.
It's bit.ly slash May 15, EMBER, and that'll get you the link to the Zoom.
And then we're also doing an in-person workshop on May 27th at North Point.
So, we're going to do that as well.
Please come.
The whole point of taking this time is to do more of this outreach and to have the conversation with the community.
So, please come to one or both of these meetings.
I'm pleased to say the mayor's going to be there.
Many of our colleagues will be there.
The fire department will be there.
We'll hear from other academic folks who have done a lot of work in this area, and we will hear from you.
We'll hear from individual constituents.
So, please do come.
Let's make best use of the time before we come back on June 17th.
So, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you all so much.
So, if folks have questions about that, I'm going to ask that you go meet our chief and our chiefs outside.
Thank you.
Is our city auditor here? Do you have any comments, city auditors? Is she online? Do you see her? No.
Okay.
I just wanted to make sure.
Okay.
In that case, we will move on to the next item.
Okay.
So, for the cards for in-person comments, we have a number of them.
Okay.
In that case, we will move on to public comment on non-agenda matters.
Okay.
So, for the cards for in-person comments, we have one card for Steve Tracy.
For the city manager.
That's a communication.
Yes.
Okay.
Sorry.
So, we just have one card that's been submitted for in-person, and that's Steve Tracy.
Okay.
Yes.
Right.
So, the time to submit cards ends when the mayor calls for non-agenda public comments.
Steve Tracy.
Are you Steve Tracy? Sir, are you Steve Tracy? Okay.
Go ahead and come up for your comment.
Well, there's less than five.
There's three hands raised.
Yes, you may have two minutes.
Excellent.
Ten count.
You're going to need to move closer to the mic.
Ten count.
March 14th at Ohlone, 21.
April, sorry, March 24, April 14, 27.
Last Thursday, 31.
It's going not even sideways.
It's going the wrong way.
So, I'll be at the workshop.
I'm not directly impacted.
I just don't drive that way anymore unless I want to lose my lunch.
But now in Kornisi's Park, where I go every day, I'll have to add a line.
Oh, Civic Center got one back too.
Kornisi's Park is now up to one.
The police visited there May 1st, five days ago, warned the camper to leave.
So, what's the process? It's murky.
Neighborhood Services has to come and offer them an alternative.
What's the deliverable? How long does that take? Anyone? Days? Weeks? Months? I'd like to know the deliverable.
Anyway, the neighbors that are a stone's throw away up on Tamalpais Drive are going to be real concerned that somebody might be lighting something in their backyards.
So, I've got a little piece of paper.
I gave you guys a copy, Mr.
Boonehagen.
I may be passing this out at people's doors to try to get them involved too, because they want to know.
What's the process? Does Berkeley Police and Neighborhood Services share their to-do lists? How does Neighborhood Services know there's someone to visit at the park? Excuse me, I'm wondering.
And then once they visit them, how does that get back to Berkeley Police? There should be shared information here.
Then do I have to reinvent the wheel with a new citizen's arrest? Once there's one tent, there'll be more.
Thank you.
Thank you for your public comment.
Is that two minutes? Your time is up, yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
I'd just like to know the deliverables.
Your time is done, and I'm going to allow this woman to speak who wanted to speak as well.
Hi.
My name is Gina Rieger, and I was here to speak about the fire issue.
It was taken off the agenda, so I couldn't speak to it as an agenda item, and so here I am.
I want to commend you, Brent, for taking a very active role in responding to your constituents about their concerns about EMBER.
I have concerns about the way the workshop is being set up.
However, I really feel this has to be a dialogue.
It has to be something that isn't just the Berkeley Fire Department making its presentation again and explaining to the constituents what EMBER is about.
There are people who disagree with the proposed Zone 0.
They feel that it's overreaching.
There are experts who feel that keeping vegetation within the five-foot zone could be beneficial, both in our climate and to preventing fires.
It's not set in stone, and I've urged the Council to slow down, but also to engage in a dialogue and find out what your constituents' concerns are, rather than dictating to them what is going to happen without hearing from them.
So I would like to ask the Council, or whomever is going to be involved with this meeting, to invite some of the experts, and you know who they are because we have been sending out a lot of email with articles from fire researchers, from people who are doing up-to-date research as a result of both the Palisades, as much as the Palisades fire, all the way back to the Camp and Paradise fires.
There's conflicting, everybody agrees with home hardening, everybody agrees with fire resistance, but nuking gardens isn't necessarily the answer.
And I want to see the information from both sides prevented at a workshop.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I see that there's somebody else.
Are you here to speak on non-agenda public comment? Can I ask that if anyone else is here to speak on non-agenda public comment, that you come up because that time has technically ended, but I'm going to allow you to speak.
Okay, so go ahead.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Anne and I live in Berkeley.
I'm really happy that we're working towards supporting wildfire prevention.
However, I think we need to focus on what actually works.
So the rule that you're potentially going to enforce would make homeowners spend thousands of dollars to remove plants, trees, and fences near their homes.
But that's not what causes most wildfires in California.
Many of the biggest and most damaging fires that start when trees touch power lines.
So some clear examples are Camp Fire in 2018 started when a power line hit dry vegetation.
It destroyed the town of Paradise.
Zog Fire in 2020 started when a tree hit a power line.
Bobcat Fire in 2020 started when a fire started when a tree made contact with a power line.
Thomas Fire in 2017 started when strong winds pushed two power lines together.
So these are not rare events.
Fire investigators confirmed that these fires started because of problems with power lines and nearby trees.
That means if we really want to prevent wildfires, we should keep trees and branches away from power lines.
Put power lines underground in high-risk areas.
Focus fire prevention efforts on areas where lines and trees are too close to each other.
Removing plants near homes doesn't stop fires that start from a spark on a hillside power line, but stopping trees from touching wires can prevent those fires from ever starting.
Also, taking out all the plants near homes reduces shade and air quality, can harm people's mental health, and cost homeowners a lot of money and potentially putting them in debt without solving the real problem.
The City of Berkeley should divert the budget and resources that it would have devoted to enforcing investigations and fines of Berkeley residents.
Instead, they should redirect those resources.
Thank you.
Thanks so much for your public comment.
I think we have some folks online.
Yes, we will first go to Kelly's iPad.
Should be allowed to unmute.
Okay, we'll go to the next person.
We'll come back.
Daniel Brownson.
Hello.
Yes, go ahead.
People don't want to live in tents anymore than the fascist who spoke earlier wants to see tents.
People don't want to live in tents anymore than the fascist who spoke earlier wants to see tents.
If you want to actually do something that will, you know, fix the problem instead of moving it around, moving it around Berkeley, moving it around the Bay Area.
The problem is that people need a place to live and don't have one either because they can't afford it.
Well, actually, that's usually the reason they don't have one.
So if you want people to live in houses and not tents, you need to actually provide the housing.
You need to have public housing, not resort to fascist sweeps like suggested by the gentleman earlier.
That does not work.
If it worked, it would have worked already.
That's That's just the way like you are not fixing the problem by kicking people out of one part because they still need a place to live.
If you have not provided a place for them to actually live, then you have not fixed the problem.
The problem is that they don't have a place to live.
The problem is not that they exist.
And saying you want to vomit when you go past, you know, people just trying to exist who have nowhere to live because they are poor or because they got evicted, that is pure fascist talking points.
Also, free Palestine, pass the PJC resolution.
Thank you.
Next is Kieran Chinoy.
Thank you.
Good evening, mayor and council members.
Kieran Chinoy with the Bridge Association of Realtors.
We just wanted to raise concern about the lack of public information and internal awareness regarding the city's fire hardening transfer tax rebate.
This rebate has been adopted and active in the municipal code for 5 months now, yet it's nowhere to be found on the city's website.
Unlike the seismic rebate, which is clearly posted.
Also concerning when we called relevant city department staff had no knowledge that the rebate program even existed.
Now, that's a serious breakdown in implementation that causes major concern with new fire code requirements on the horizon that will require.
Significant and costly hardening measures, so homeowners deserve to know that a financial incentive is available and city staff need to be prepared to explain it.
We're asking the city to immediately publish this information online.
And ensure all relevant departments are trained on the rebates existence and eligibility criteria.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is George Perez-Velez.
Thank you so much George Perez-Velez for the Alliance for Practical Fire Solutions.
Thank you to the city council and the city manager for changing the perspective and allowing to be greater transparency and accountability by the city in terms of good governance.
I will say that it is important to know that there are concerns, not questions and the concerns are being addressed.
I will add my voice and say that it is important that this be a collaborative process.
The next 2 meetings cannot be as stated by the former speaker that dictate or regurgitation of information that we already have.
But hopefully an exchange of ideas and exchange of positions so everyone can get different perspectives that will serve the city well.
And all our hopes are that we continue to contribute as you make great public policy.
We are supporters of fire hardening of homes and fire mitigation practices.
We're just looking to have a full engagement, practical and pragmatic approach to this really impactful proposal.
I thank you for your time.
Thank you for postponing this to June 17th.
And thank you for your continuing belief on good governance and inclusivity in how you make your decisions.
Thank you.
And the last speaker is Ken.
Ken is the last speaker.
Can you hear me? Yes.
Yeah, I just want to bring to the council's attention Senate Bill 607 by Senator Weiner.
It virtually wipes out CEQA and I don't think that's a good idea.
Yes, we need housing, but we still need CEQA to make sure that the neighborhood is aware of the environmental impacts.
And it's something the state of California has been very proud to have.
And I think you should oppose Senate Bill 607.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, that's all of the non-agenda public commenters.
Thank you.
Now we'll move on to public comment by employee unions since it is the first regular meeting of the month.
Okay.
Are there any union designated union representatives participating remotely for this portion? He's here in person, actually.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Just just so you know, the one.
Yes.
If there's any other representatives, because that impacts how much time people get.
Okay.
I don't see any.
So five minutes.
Good evening, Berkeley City Council and Berkeley citizens behind me.
I'm the president of the Berkeley Firefighters Association and local 1227.
I'm here to speak to you guys tonight about the budget deficit that the city is facing.
We are also aware that one of the potential solutions that budget deficit is a hiring freeze.
I want to caution the council regarding the hiring freeze of public safety positions.
The fire department is currently looking at a projected 10 to 15 positions due to retirement over the next year.
The in our labor agreements, we have minimum staffing requirements.
Section 38.
Those minimum staffing requirements are not only for the citizens of Berkeley, but they're for our safety as well.
So those vacancies would have to be filled by mandatory overtime.
Whenever we've had periods where we've had to use mandatory overtime to fill vacancies, most recently, the covered era, which you see after several months is an increase of sick leave and an increase in workers calm.
Given the nature of the work that we do, it's both physically and mentally taxing.
The traumatic calls that we see, the sleep deprivation and just the physicality of the work itself.
When we do need to hire firefighters, it takes us about 12 to 13 months from the time we advertise to accept applications, do interviews, put people through backgrounds and then put them through a 20 week fire academy.
When we do come out of this budget deficit and the hiring freeze is lifted, that long term mandatory overtime will still be in existence.
So I just want to say the local is always willing to come to the table to collaborate and find creative solutions to help with the long term financial health of the city, but not at the health and well being of our membership.
Thank you guys so much for your time.
Thank you.
Thanks for being here.
Are there any other union representatives here or online.
Okay, I don't see any.
Okay.
All right, then we will be moving on to the consent calendar.
Okay.
Council members do I don't see any hands.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
I don't know sometimes these little clickers don't work.
Yeah.
Thank you Madam Mayor.
Yeah, I think I think Mike is working.
I just wanted to highlight item number seven on the consent calendar, which is the contract for painting red curbs to enhance compliance with California.
California's daylighting law assembly bill for 13.
I'm really excited to see us getting this work underway.
It's consistent obviously with the California law but also with our ordinance.
We were pioneers we passed it ahead of the California law.
We're going to have funding to paint a really significant number of curbs and red curbing crosswalks and intersections have has has has incredible safety benefits for pedestrians in the varied in cities of Hoboken, New Jersey and Jersey City, New Jersey.
The cities haven't seen a serious pedestrian or cyclist death in the past five years, largely both cities largely because of red curbing, and some additional associated safety improvements at intersections.
So this is really exciting and I think once we get this underway our city is going to become safer, as we, as we do this.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Jacob.
Thank you.
I wanted to briefly speak to item eight be, which is on consent.
And I wanted to thank the Commission on the status of women for bringing to us their recommendation.
And I want to be very clear that this is an important law.
That is, I think I can say, I speak for everyone here on the dice, I think we all believe that making ensuring that training to prevent sexual harassment is taken, using the periodicity that is.

Segment 2

We are in a challenging financial time, and so often the decisions that I make on the dais, that I think we all make on the dais, are evaluated through the lens of having to do more with less.
There are, however, opportunities.
I wanted to invite members of the Commission, should they want to pursue this.
I don't know the extent to which conversations have happened with the Chamber or business improvement districts.
If my office can facilitate those conversations with members of the Commission and the business owners in my district, I would certainly be open to doing so.
There may be some opportunities to still achieve the intended outcome in a way that does not institute a new program that, unfortunately, at this time, given the challenging fiscal situation our city is in, we are not able to do.
So I wanted to explain that my support for 8B, which is to take no action on this item, should not at all be construed as a lack of support for the overall concept.
And again, I want to thank the former Chair of the Commission on the Status of Women and the Commission for all your work on this item.
Thank you, Council Member.
Council Member Blackabay.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
Two brief comments on the Consent Calendar.
One, I agree with Council Member Humbert.
I'm really happy to see Item 7, Additional Support and Financing for the Red Curb Program, to help Public Works complete the daylighting of the 20 feet of curb before intersections throughout our city.
We know that implementation of this state law will help improve visibility for drivers and pedestrians and will reduce pedestrian injuries and deaths in the city.
So I appreciate seeing that.
I also wanted to comment on Item 3 and thank the City Manager and the Fire Department for bringing that.
It's great that the Diablo Fire Safe Council will be able to serve as the fiscal sponsor for donations that will support home hardening work in Berkeley, especially, again, as we continue to identify more and more sources of funding to support the ultimate proposal to move forward on defensible space and home hardening this fall.
So I really appreciate seeing that.
It's another mechanism that we'll be able to use to make funding available.
So those are my comments and thank you.
Thank you.
Any other comments from Council Members? Okay, I will close Council comments and open comments on consent items and information items only from the public.
Thank you.
Carol, just make sure you move the mic.
Thank you very much Council Member Trageb for your comments on Item 8.
Again, as I have stated both in this report at the time that I authored it and to the follow up letter to you, the state OCR has said they only address these and enforce these issues when they're complaint triggered.
And with the letter that you have in the supplemental packet too, as I have attached, complaint triggered does not work.
It's actually been found to be ineffective.
And it's very, the larger employers are most likely complying.
I don't believe our small employers in Berkeley are compliant that they even know of this law.
And the employees there even know that SB 1343 exists and that they have these rights or the northern employers know that they have these responsibilities.
I understand the budget crisis currently.
There are things we can do that you stated Council Member Trageb.
And I included that in the email that I sent that you have in supplemental packet too, which is precisely what you stated.
Reaching out to the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce, reaching out to the bids to do education.
What we can do to scale this down in such a fashion that the education is still going on regarding 1343, which has been a law for six and a half years and yet small businesses in Berkeley, small nonprofits don't know this exists.
It seems as if it would be easy for us to engage with our contractors and have them send an addendum that they're in compliance with SB 1343.
There are small things that we can do, and I hope that this I am no longer on the commission, but I would be glad to work with you as a citizen council member.
Thank you for your for your comment.
Are there other comments on the consent calendar and information items? No, there is 1 hand raised.
On the zoom that is Karen.
Good evening everyone again, Karen with the bridge association realtors testifying on item 6 of the consent calendar.
Just wanted you to know that we sincerely hope that the proposed base of software contract and support public access.
To aggregate extra deposit data, because transparency here is critical.
Given the cost of recommended upgrades will that will often far exceed the 5,000 dollar deposit.
Let alone the 2500 dollar portion from the buyer.
It's highly likely that many of these deposits will be forfeited not refunded.
That means the escrow will function less as a compliance mechanism and more like an exclude exclusivity tax on home ownership.
With around 600 transactions expected annually, this policy could generate approximately 3Million dollars a year and forfeited funds.
Public access to this data would help ensure that residents can see where these funds go, whether they're being used for resilience upgrades or redirected to equity programs as promised.
If we're going to impose this kind of burden on home buyers, especially in a challenging market with so many other expenses for homeowners on their horizon.
The least that we can do is ensure open, accountable management of the money as it generates.
Happy to follow up with the appropriate folks on city staff.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are there any other comment? No other raised hands.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
And is there a motion? So moved to approve the consent to approve the consent calendar, including 8B, which is to take no action.
On the recommendation by the commission on the status of women.
Thank you.
And I heard a second from Councilmember Taplin.
Okay.
And I think we're all here.
So unless there's any opposition, I will have us all reported as eyes.
Very good.
The consent calendar has passed and thank you all so much moving on to the action calendar.
So, just a reminder for folks, we only have 1 item on the action calendar now, which is the public hearing on the Zab appeal.
And we're going to start with our staff presentation.
Just I'm guessing that's what most folks are here for.
I'm sorry, mayor.
I have to say something.
Yes, please.
Sorry.
Yeah, I have to recuse myself from this because it's a Zab appeal.
I thought I didn't have to because I wasn't got the September 26th meeting, nor the January meeting, but I was at the October 10th meeting where it was continued and I did vote to continue it.
So technically I waited on this.
So, I regret that I have to go.
So don't have fun everyone.
Thank you, Councilmember.
Okay, anyone else.
Okay, very good.
All right.
So just so folks know how this goes, because I think many of you out here today are here for that issue.
We are going to have staff presentation.
I will open the public hearing.
Oh, sorry.
We'll open the public hearing.
We'll have the appellant and then the applicant speak each for 5 minutes.
And then we will take public comment, take Council questions only.
We'll close the public hearing.
And then we will deliberate.
Sound good.
Okay, I like to have a roadmap for folks.
I know what they're in for.
Okay, go ahead.
Take it away then please.
Thank you, Mary.
Good evening.
Council members, Jordan Klein, director of planning and development presenting this item for staff will be Robert Rivera, senior planner.
Also, the staff table with us is in the planning manager.
Robert's just pulling up the presentation now.
All right.
All right.
Good evening.
Council members mayor.
My name is Robert Rivera.
I'm a senior planner with the land use planning division before you this evening as an appeal of a zoning adjustment board decision for 1048 Keith Avenue to approve a use permit.
To demolish a 2760 square foot, single family.
Dwelling and construct a 2 story, 25 feet tall.
And a 3,600 square foot, single family dwelling.
I'll present the review history of the proposed project.
And specific project details before addressing the appeal issues.
See, sorry.
The use permit application for 1048 Keith was submitted a year ago and deemed complete in February of 2024.
The project was properly noticed and scheduled for a public hearing before the zoning adjustment board on September 26, 2024.
At that meeting, the members of the public.
Raised concerns about the accuracy of the submitted survey and in response to that requested a revised survey.
And continued the item to October 10th, 2024.
The hearing was subsequently continued again to allow additional time for the applicant to revise the survey and to review the updated materials.
Once the revised survey was received.
And it's accuracy confirmed staff properly noticed and scheduled the project for a hearing on January 9th of 2025.
At that meeting, the approved the proposed project.
And then on January 25th, 2025 decision was appealed to city council, which brings the project to today's hearing.
The project is located at 1048 Keith Avenue and is zoned single family residential within the hillside overlay.
The site is situated south on the south side of Keith Avenue and features a 20 foot.
Downward slope from the street to a level section, and the site is currently developed with a single family, 2700 square foot, single family residence.
The site plan shows the proposed residence.
The proposed project includes a reduction of the rare building setback from 20 feet to 15 feet.
This is permissible within administrative use permit in the hillside overlay zone.
The existing residence is set back approximately 17 feet from the rare lot line.
Shown here is the existing residents proposed to be demolished.
It has an average height of 13 and a half feet and a maximum height of 17 feet.
Shown here is the front elevation of the proposed new residence.
This shows a resulting approximate average height increase to 21 feet and a maximum height of slightly under 25 feet.
Shown here is the West elevation.
The project includes unenclosed off street parking within the front setback.
That's shown in orange as well as the construction of a trellis and installation of a fence and retaining wall shown in red.
The fence is along the lot line and is approximately 6 feet in height, although this varies slightly depending on the downward slope.
I'd like to briefly summarize the key appeal issues and staff's response.
A more detailed discussion can be found in the staff report.
The first issue raised by the appellant is the claim that the proposed project encroaches onto their property and that the boundary and topographical survey prepared by Morn Engineering is inaccurate.
As noted in the project review history, staff required the applicant to submit an updated boundary and topographical survey.
And in response, the applicant provided a revised survey that was stamped and signed by a licensed surveyor on October 15th of 2024.
The updated survey confirmed the property boundaries to within an inch of the lot line.
It was reviewed and verified for accuracy by staff from the Public Works Department and the Building and Safety Division.
Based on this information, staff finds that the proposed project does not alter or modify any existing lot lines, and we found no evidence to support the appellant's claims of encroachments or inaccuracies in the survey.
The second appeal issue concerns the project's impact on neighboring properties.
Appellants claim the proposed project creates a lot line adjustment, which would shift property lines across multiple adjacent properties, creating legal and logistical complications.
The proposed project does not include any lot line adjustments.
Property boundaries were confirmed to remain unchanged.
The applicant submitted a verified survey, which was reviewed and found accurate to within inches by the Public Works Department and Building Safety Division staff.
And staff is aware that there have been historic slide issues in the hills that vary by street and block.
Currently, there is no city policy that addresses the issue of sliding land.
This known physical condition and the lack of corrective policy were discussed at the ZAB hearing in January and identified as broader issues that must be addressed separately from an individual project.
The ZAB recognized that the survey submitted by the applicant, which was peer reviewed by city departments, was satisfactory.
And as a result, the ZAB voted to approve the project.
The third issue raised by the appellant is a broader concern that a comprehensive survey of the surrounding properties is needed for to ensure fair and equitable lot line adjustments across the neighborhood.
While staff understands the desire for a more holistic review, it's important to clarify that development applications are evaluated based on specific conditions of the project site.
This is standard practice and ensures that each proposal is assessed on its own merits for feasibility and code compliance.
The scope of staff's review does not include surveying or adjusting neighboring properties as each parcel is subject to its own conditions and zoning and development standards.
That said, this project was reviewed for its compatibility with adjacent properties and its overall impact on the surrounding community.
Based on that review, staff finds that the project to be consistent with applicable regulations.
The fourth appeal issue centers on the perception that the Zoning Adjustment Board approved the project without adequately considering neighbor concerns.
The appellant argues that by not promoting property boundary adjustments, the decision leaves private property owners to resolve disputes individually, potentially leading to inconsistent outcomes.
Staff recognizes the importance of public input.
In this case, the ZAB held two public hearings where community feedback was received and considered.
Staff mailed public hearing notices to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site and to interested neighborhood organizations.
The city also posted notices at three nearby locations within the neighborhood.
After thorough deliberation, the board found that the project is consistent with the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood.
The project was evaluated for both its compatibility with adjacent properties and its broader community impact.
Ultimately, the ZAB determined that the proposal reflects a reasonable scale of development while maintaining the character of the area.
It's also important to note that lot line adjustments and parcel map changes fall outside the scope of the ZAB's responsibilities and quasi-judicial authority.
Their role is to evaluate the project based on existing conditions, not to facilitate or impose changes on private property boundaries.
The fifth issue raised by the appellant are concerns that the proposed project would relocate the structure over existing sewer and storm drainage systems for neighboring properties at 1050 Keith Avenue, and that no relocation plan has been provided in the project documents.
Staff has reviewed both the updated boundary survey and the Alameda County assessor parcel map for any recorded sewer or storm drain easements on the subject property.
No such easements were identified, and staff found no evidence of infrastructure conflicts related to sewer or storm drainage systems.
And then further, the project is subject to standard conditions of approval, requiring that if any underground utilities serving adjacent properties are uncovered or damaged during construction, the contractor must immediately notify the public works department and the building and safety division and take all necessary corrective actions.
This condition helps to just ensure that any unforeseen issues are addressed promptly and responsibly during construction.
And then the final appeal issue alleges that the applicant demolished the shared fence on March of 2024, and that the structure, including an animal sanctuary and pet burial sites and some mature trees, were removed from the disputed property.
They also raise ongoing concerns about property boundaries and request that the city adjust property lines based on deeded square footage.
In response, it's important to clarify that property line disputes are private civil matters between property owners and fall outside of the city of Berkeley's jurisdiction.
The city does not have the authority to resolve or enforce claims related to ownership of land or property line disagreements.
Further lot line adjustments are not part of the proposed project, and there's no evidence that has been presented to demonstrate that the project would alter legal boundaries or encroach upon neighboring properties.
Staff recommends that city council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution affirming this app's decision to approve the use permit and the findings and conditions and dismiss appeal.
Alternatively, council may continue the public hearing, reverse or modify Zab's decision, or remand the matter back to Zab.
This concludes staff's presentation, and I'm available for any questions.
Thank you very much.
I'd like to open the public hearing now.
And then we have presentations also from the appellant and then the applicant for five minutes each.
Are they here? First is the appellant.
Good evening.
Thank you, Mayor.
And thank you, council members.
My name is Autumn Johnson and my I'm here representing the family opposing this permit use permit.
In the side zones up in the hills of beautiful Berkeley, gravity takes a toll over the many decades since the original city survey maps were drawn.
The land has slowly moved downhill.
Sometimes as much as a year, an inch a year, taking with it fences, gardens, homes, and even roads.
If we were to draw those original property lines on the ground today, we'd often find that many fences and even some houses now sit well below them, having slid down onto neighboring lots.
You might expect this would cause endless conflict, but it doesn't.
Why? Because neighbors on this hillside areas have developed a practical and peaceful solution.
They agree to adjust lot lines to match where things have ended up, making sure each person still has the same amount of land as originally deeded.
It's not perfect, but it works and it keeps the peace.
I'm here tonight because one neighbor at 1048 Keith Avenue has broken with that norm.
14 months ago, they tore down a fence that has stood since 1949 without notice, without agreement, and began claiming and building on the land of their uphill neighbor at 1050 Keith.
They've done this with the city's blessing using outdated survey lines that don't reflect the reality of the terrain.
As you know, the Berkeley hills are geologically unstable.
The city's own records and geotechnical experts acknowledge that parcels in this area may have shifted up to 20 feet since the original surveys.
This is not speculation is documented by approving this use permit.
The city is endorsing a dangerous precedent, letting one household ignore decades of settled boundaries and take over 1560 square feet from a neighbor.
If that's allowed, every surrounding homeowner will be forced to do the same redrawing fences and deeds to keep from losing their land.
In fact, one nearby property may be pushed all the way into the public streets.
We understand property disputes are usually private matters, but when the city steps in and legitimizes a land grab like this, it becomes your responsibility.
That's why we, the eight affected homeowners ask you to deny this permit in its current form.
Instead, we urge you to require that both neighbors, 1048 and 1050 Keith work with Moran engineering to update their lot boundaries based on today's topography while preserving each parcels rightful square footage.
The city should support solutions that preserve neighborhoods, not tear them apart.
Please help us protect ours.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is anyone here from the applicant to speak? Okay.
Sir, just come up here yet to the podium.
Oh, you have a like slides.
Oh, I see.
Yeah.
That's okay if you if you want to join.
But if they want to join the zoom so that they could share slides.
Lindsay Newman, we were just kicked out.
Thank you.
I'm just a guy.
It kicked us out again.
Yeah, we're trying to spend the list and kicked out again.
Sorry.
That's okay.
Technology is not always our friend.
Okay, one more time.
It doesn't work.
So maybe we do it without the presentation.
I'm so sorry.
Can you do it without the presentation? Oh, sure.
But I can still scroll right? Yeah.
Okay.
Well, this may be weird because I'm going to be describing.
Is it possible.
Is it possible to connect here physically or no mark.
Let me see.
Maybe you say it's an update of soon.
People who are participating remotely wouldn't be able to see the.
Oh, I mean, like, physically connect.
Do we have an ability to plug in somewhere or no.
No.
To share your to share your screen, you have to be in the zoom meeting.
Okay.
So, otherwise.
Okay.
I'm going to share it on because what everybody's watching is the zoom.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
Sorry.
Okay.
Okay.
Can you just move closer to the mic? Because it's.
Yeah, it doesn't pick it up that well.
So you have to be pretty close.
Hi, thank you so much for having us here.
Thank you also to the city of Berkeley planning department for offering us valuable advice throughout this process.
And they're amazing presentation as well as the board who approved our use permit in January.
I would also like to thank the community that came to talk about our project today.
My name is Lindsay Newman, and I'm the owner as well as the designer of this project and have my license and civil engineering.
For the state of California, where I've worked in this field since 2005.
I'm currently.
Sorry, first, I'm going to give you a little background on the initial sign process and how I got to where the design is currently at the end.
I will address the appeal.
I'm originally from Ann Arbor, Michigan, where I grew up in a mid century, modern passive solar house that was built by the dean of architecture.
Walter Sanders at the University of Michigan in 1953 as a student project.
Walter Sanders and his wife's ashes were spread in the yard.
I took my first steps there before I turned one.
And my husband and I got married in the same yard.
Three children ago, we have four total.
It's a very special place for me, and it inspires me to design houses that are environmentally friendly, while also playing in with the surrounding landscape and community.
And this is a picture of the site plan.
Here's a simplified version of the site plan that was approved in January by the board.
I designed the proposed house as a mid century modern and wanted to match the angles of the uphill and downhill neighbors of Keith Avenue.
I also use the decks to help tie in these angles with each other.
Another consideration I took with the building, the house was the location of the main house on the lot.
Before submitting the plans, I contacted the uphill neighbor at 1050, who is the appellant.
And their strong preference was to have it located in the sunken part of the lot where it currently is.
From there, I worked within the existing and allowable setbacks and put the house eight feet from the shared property line between our house and theirs instead of putting it closer at the four allowable four foot setback.
And then I have a picture of our construction of the current house and story holes.
Since the original house is a one story over crawl space and the proposed two story house does not have crawl space, the new maximum height is not much higher than the existing house or tree line.
The proposed house is also less than the three story 35 foot height limit and I tried to match the adjacent houses and the hillside surrounding us.
I also took care to preserve our neighboring neighbors existing views.
Though we are not part of the active side, I intend to add a mat slab foundation and retaining walls that are properly drained to help with any land movement caused by the highly expansive soil in our area.
And then this is a 3D sketch that my daughter drew.
Here's a rendering I commissioned my daughter Alex, who's a freshman at Berkeley High, to draw for me based on a picture I took of the story pool locations from the previous side.
One of my family's favorite features is that the two flat roofs have been designed to have fire resistant vegetation growing on them.
This is a thing that my dad has been minorly obsessed with since the 1990s and we are excited to implement it here.
And then I have pictures from around our neighborhood and our house.
This slide contains pictures from our own renovation next door.

Segment 3

As well as design ideas from houses around our neighborhood, we really wanted to use the design and materials that matched our surrounding neighbors.
In our current house, our exterior materials consist of standing seam metal roofing, stucco, hardy board paneling, concrete, and other fireproofing materials.
Our intent is to build something sustainable, safe, fire safe, and beautiful that our neighborhood can be proud of for years to come.
Now on to the appeal that has been filed by our neighbor, Baram Gangi, who lives at 1050 Keith Avenue, which is directly uphill of our project location.
This appeal is not about engineering or about the zoning code.
The appeal is a request for a lot line adjustment based on the false assertion that our project encroaches on the appellant's property.
Our survey by a local licensed surveyor confirms that our home will be built entirely on our land and fully compliant with required setbacks.
The survey is consistent with plans filed for 1050 Keith in 1949, which shows their house three feet from the property line.
It's also consistent with Mr.
Gangi's permits for his house addition in 2008.
It has also been validated by the Public Works Department, and it was confirmed by two surveyors the appellant has hired since filing this appeal.
The appellant has submitted a geotechnical report and an addendum to the city, which conclude that the site is not part of the active Keith slide.
This contradicts his claim that the street monuments used by our surveyor are inaccurate.
Sorry.
Thank you.
I'm sorry your time is up.
If you just have any other questions, I'm happy to answer.
Yeah, thank you.
Appreciate it.
We will take public comment.
Are there folks here to speak on public comment? Anybody like to speak just line up along this wall over here on the side.
And anybody who would like to speak to the SAP appeal for 1048 Keith Avenue who is on the zoom, please raise your hand to indicate that you would like to speak on this item.
Since there's more than 10 total speakers, one minute per person will be one.
Yeah.
And so and Mark, is there anyone online to just currently two hands raised online? OK, so folks during our public comment, you will each have one minute to speak.
So just to be aware of that, and then I will ask you to stop if you have not stopped at that point.
And somebody can yield.
It doesn't matter.
Yeah, you can be in whatever order you'd like to be in whatever order you're in now currently in line.
Yeah.
OK, time can be yielded.
You could a speaker can yield their time to another speaker.
No speaker can have more than four total minutes.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
You can come up and just be aware that this mic is a little finicky.
So you just want it as close to your mouth as possible, but not touching.
Hi, thank you for being here.
I support the appeal.
I have a minute, so I'm going to go fast.
The requested zoning regulation waiver erroneously states that there's no financial implication to this approval of this waiver.
That's incorrect.
This structure will tower 25 feet over my small, but formerly private backyard that will have a direct impact on the resale value of my home financial implication.
When the property was last sold in 2019, it was listed at about 1400 square feet.
The second question I have about the whole process is the replacement size and the increment incremental growth in size of the property.
So, while it's claimed to be 2760 square feet, that's going to be knocked down.
It's closer to 1400.
So the new structure will be about three times the size.
It will be 25 feet rather than 17.
I do not believe that that is compatible replacement, nor is it reasonable development.
Thank you for your comments.
Good afternoon.
I support the appeal.
This property is not being allowed to violate the setback from our property.
We're right behind it.
They are getting a 15 foot setback versus the 20 foot 5 feet of what they're using is our property.
When the survey was done, they grabbed 20 feet of the uphill neighbor and then told us that the survey wasn't accurate enough.
And Berkeley told me directly that 5 feet of our property was on the other side of the fence.
Can you speak in the mic? Yes.
And that was being used for the setback.
We talked to the property owners that are doing the development to make sure that was correct.
And they said, no, it's not.
They are taking the 20 feet of the uphill neighbor, but they're also taking the 5 feet of our property that's over the line.
And why are they allowed this variance? Not for an additional housing unit, not for low income housing, not for an ADU and not for an accommodation of a disabled person.
Simply because they want a larger property, which impacts our property.
Thank you.
Hello, I'm here to support the project at 1048 Keith.
I feel that they are well within their rights as property owners to improve their property and want to support the foundational principle that all people who own property should be able to work within the law to improve their properties.
Beyond that, I think that this property will enhance the neighborhood as Lindsay described already in her presentation.
And also, she's a structural engineer and understands deeply how to work in this area of expansive soils to create something that will be a great property when it's done.
And the current property is in poor condition, so it's time for it to be replaced so that more homes can be there in the neighborhood.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sorry, you kind of have to go out the same way you came in.
Go ahead.
You might want to pull the mic up.
I'm here to express my strong support for the proposed home construction project at 1048 Keith.
As an East Bay Hills resident myself, who has known the homeowners for over 2 decades, I can personally attest to their commitment to responsible development and community values aligning with the city's planning and development department's mission.
This project represents their commitment to putting down lasting roots in Berkeley, creating a sustainable home that embodies the city's environmental values.
Their previous projects have demonstrated conscientious approaches to building on challenging terrain, employing structurally sound engineering practices specifically designed for hillside construction, the use of environmentally conscious building materials that minimize environmental impact while ensuring longevity and an unwavering commitment to maintaining neighborhood character while enhancing property values.
The track record speaks to the reliability as neighbors who enhance rather than diminish neighborhood value.
This project represents an opportunity to add another well-constructed, sustainable home to the community's housing stock.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you all for your very timely comments.
I appreciate that.
I'm in support of the application to rebuild 1048 Keith Avenue that is currently in a state of disrepair.
I voice it as the right of the property owners to legally build on their property within the confines of the city of Berkeley regulations.
Lindsay has shared her design with me.
It's fabulous.
She's a talented engineer.
The architectural aspects of the home are beautiful.
It's a plus for the neighborhood.
I'd also like to point out that the Newman family are dedicated and involved in our Berkeley community.
Zab has approved the project back in 2025, and I trust that you will help them move forward with their project.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm here.
I'm here to object to the current footprint of the 1048 house.
I think it is encroaching on the neighbor's property.
I'm here to say, as a Keith Avenue neighbor, that I'm concerned about a domino effect of neighbors grabbing land via lawsuits from their uphill neighbors in this well-known slide zone.
The neighbors at 1048 should not build a new home on disputed property that perhaps they do not own.
If they build within the boundaries of their non-disputed lot, no one would object to their house or the design.
It's nothing about the appearance of the house or the materials.
It is about the location that encroaches on a disputed area between two neighbors.
So if they move the house out of that disputed strip of land, the property line dispute could be resolved between the two neighbors, and there won't be the greater neighborhood issue of domino property line lawsuits.
Thank you.
Thank you.
My name is Anthony Acosta at 1058 Keith Avenue, just up the block.
I am also concerned about the property lines.
So I would like at least for the lawsuit to complete until a judgment is made.
And I'd like to yield the rest of my time to my neighbor, Robert Matthews.
Sure.
Thank you.
My name is Robert Matthews.
Go ahead and pull the mic up.
There you go.
My name is Robert Matthews.
I live at 1060 Keith Avenue, five houses up from the Bobrose Project, and I oppose it.
These neighbors bought the property here and then tore down a fence and decided to build their new house in the disputed area.
The only justification they've given for claiming that they own that disputed area is a survey that says on it, it is very likely to be off by five feet or more in magnitude.
And that's because the ground has moved significantly over the last hundred years, no matter what they say.
It's absurd that to suggest the ground around that house hasn't moved.
Why is this my problem or the city's problem? Well, one of the Zab members suggested that the neighbor who's going to lose more than 10 feet of his property should get his own survey, which would also have such a disclaimer, and sue his neighbor and so on until everyone gets their 10 feet or more back.
There are many reasons that's a terrible idea.
But the one the city should be interested in is that at the end of the chain, seven houses away up the hill here is Euclid Avenue.
And the last person would be suing the city of Berkeley to move Euclid Avenue by 10 feet to get his property back.
I don't think that that's something the city has the money to do at this point.
So I would have no issue, want to emphasize, I would have no issue with the house.
Just the location is the only problem of it.
They are building it on their neighbor's property.
And there's a pending lawsuit between the two parties.
And I think no permit should be issued to build anything until that lawsuit is solved.
Thank you.
Hi, I hope you all are doing well.
My name is Alex Kines.
I am a freshman at Berkeley High and the daughter of Joachim and Lindsay Newman.
My family moved to Berkeley in 2017 when I was in first grade.
My mother is a civil engineer.
Ever since I was a little girl, my mother and my grandmother have taken me on architecture tours around the Bay Area.
This largely inspired my mom and me as a young child.
This home could only be an improvement to my neighborhood.
All right.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Always great to have young people come and speak at meetings.
Thank you.
Hello.
I'm here to support Joachim and Lindsay.
I've known them for many years and I know them to be serious, deeply serious, careful people.
I know their current house, which they renovated, and it is beautiful.
And I have every confidence that their new building will also be a credit to Berkeley.
One more comment since I have some time.
I live around the corner on Euclid, also in a slide zone.
My house has, I think, moved about two inches in 90 years.
I find the idea of houses moving 20 feet absurd, honestly.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Dan, and I'm here to support the project.
I was born and raised in Berkeley and live in the north side neighborhood, not far from the project.
I want to make some points about the project itself.
It's going to remove 228 cubic yards of soil.
That is actually the weight of a two-story house.
So if there's concerns about slides, this project should be engaged for deloading the hillside.
Secondly, the house is sunk, so it gets two stories for an overall seven-foot height increase.
And third, there's been no active slide zones in the particular area that's been surveyed, and there are no issues that have been shown with the lot lines.
So I'm supporting this project as an example of responsible and thoughtful development in the Berkeley Hills.
Thank you.
Good evening.
I'm here in support of Lindsay's new application to rebuild 1048 Keyes Avenue.
Lindsay is a talented engineer.
Not only she understands Berkeley's soils and architecture, she understands its culture and values.
Lindsay is an artist with an eye for integrity and authenticity.
Her design concept will improve the neighborhood in an organic way and integrate into current landscape, transforming it into more beautiful.
Her careful engineering has utmost respect for community and surrounding.
And I want to point out, when we talk about sliding land, and I'm not an engineer, but it sounds that new construction with strong engineering will have less chance of sliding over the years than dilapidated property that is falling apart.
So we should consider that as well.
Lindsay is very talented.
I've been to her house many times.
She's a model, and she's very special.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That's okay.
Your time only starts when you start speaking.
Go ahead.
I live at 1005 Keyes.
I'm not really in this fight, but I live on the dry stone rock side of Keyes.
We only slide about a quarter of an inch a year as opposed to the downhill, which slides sometimes a foot a year or six inches.
But I just wanted to say it sounds to me like everything was dependent on that survey, and I have been trying to get a survey for six months because I'm putting up a new fence that's rotting, and I got a persnickety neighbor.
So I said, oh, I better put it where it should be.
I have called Moran Engineering.
They said, we don't do surveys in the hill.
We can't guarantee it within 25 feet.
I've called FDR Engineering.
I've called every survey place I could find.
I asked Moran for recommendations.
They gave me two.
They wouldn't do it.
I can't get a survey.
I can't get anybody to confirm it within one person.
One company told me 25 feet.
The other one said, we just can't guarantee any survey.
So if you're depending on just that survey, I just want to know how they get one because I can't.
I mean, maybe there's something special if you're a designer and all, but I can't.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Hello.
I'm Lisa Rose, and I'm in support of the project.
I live at 1047 Keith, which is directly across the street from both of their homes, the one that's proposed and the one that they rebuilt.
We had a survey when we moved into our home.
Our property has not moved at all.
Our home has not moved perfectly sound.
We also were with them the whole time that they did the rebuild.
They were incredibly thoughtful, checked in with us.
The home is incredible.
The home that they redesigned, the new home, is going to be beautiful.
They are incredible people, and we are very fortunate to have them in our neighborhood.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I think we've got at least a couple folks online.
First speaker on Zoom is Lee Bridges.
Lee, you should be able to unmute.
There you go.
Hello, can you hear me? Yes.
Yes.
I own 1054 Keith, just on the side from Barham.
I support the appeal on this project.
I'm sure the proposed house is gorgeous.
That's not what this is about.
It is about the lot lines.
I don't care who says there has not been a slide.
That is incorrect.
I have a satellite photo of the current lots, as well as the original lot lines.
There's no comparison.
On the north side of the street, there is rock.
It hasn't moved.
South side of the street, the lots are dog-legging.
If we go back to the original lot lines, Barham takes my office and I take Anthony's garage.
Some of the original lines split those properties in two.
I understand ZAB did not have the authority to make a decision because they cannot resurvey the area.
I tried to get surveys.
Four professional surveyors laughed at me and said they couldn't do it.
We cannot approve a project on an unstable, undetermined lot line.
Pause until the lawsuit finishes.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Kelly Hammergren.
Hello.
This is a single-family home.
You're not required to approve it as you would be if it was an SB 330.
This area is mapped as a landslide area by the Department of Conservation California Geological Survey.
1048 Keith hits what we fondly call the Berkeley trifecta.
It's right on top of the Hayward Fault.
It's in the very high fire severity zone, and it's in a landslide area.
The reason why this is moving forward to me is just crazy.
And when I went to the first meeting, I described to other people that what makes Berkeley meetings entertaining is what happened that night when people talked about their houses moving and that somebody wants to build a brand-new house on an active landslide.
This is all crazy.
The next speaker is John Docky.
The next speaker is John Docky.
Thank you, Kelly.
Okay, and next speaker is John Docky.
Hello.
Thank you for having this hearing.
I support the appellant as well.
I live across the street from the appellant, just a couple doors down from one of the other speakers.
But when I first made an offer on my house, I had a geotechnical engineer who told me that if I had given him an even numbered address on that street, he would not have come.
We all know that that slide has been happening for decades.
I don't know what's active or not.
But the very prospect of the domino effect that many of my neighbors will face from this decision is really terrifying that that precedent would be set.
I trust fully that Lindsay's design will be beautiful and will respect the environment.
I have full respect for her abilities.
I'm entirely concerned by the precedent, and I ask the City, if it's not Zab's responsibility to look after the precedent and the business will set for all of the hills, then who will prevent a chain of lawsuits from taking place? Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, that's it.
There's no more raised hands, no more commenters.
Okay, so we are going to take Council questions only starting with Council Member Chaplin.
Thank you very much.
I just have two questions for the applicants.
Would it be possible to share your slide deck with the City Clerk so that it would be published in the materials? Thank you very much.
And then your last sentence was cut off at the end of your presentation.
I was just wondering if we could re-hear your last sentence.
Please come to the podium.
Yes, in fact, both the applicant and Pelley, it might be helpful to be nearby because we might have questions for you.
Okay, so, sorry.
I'm just trying to figure out where I ended.
I believe you had just begun to address the claims of the appellant.
Okay, I mean, I can read that part here and then the next sentence.
Thank you very much.
Okay, the appellant has submitted a geotechnical report and an addendum to the City, which concludes the site is not part of the Act of Keith slide.
This contradicts his claims that the street monuments used by our surveyor are inaccurate.
Beyond offering his own opinion, the 1050 owner has not supplied a competing survey or any actual evidence.
As to the need of a lot light adjustment, the appellant has admitted many times that the encroachment from his uphill neighbor is due to unpermitted addition at 1054 Keith.
That neighbor's trespass on to 1050 Keith does not justify 1050 Keith's unit laterally claim to 20% of our land.
The requested lot line adjustment can be resolved only by the superior court, where the parties are litigating 1050's encroachment and trespass on to 1044 Keith.
There is no need for our project to be delayed on the basis of ongoing lawsuit.
The appellant has previously filed for a preliminary injunction to halt the project as part of his lawsuit, but it was denied on procedural grounds.
Appellant should renew his challenges in the lawsuit instead of requesting the City to perform a lot line adjustment under the guise of zoning ordinances.
Thank you very much.
Those are all my questions.
Thank you.
Okay, Council Member Trageb, don't go too far just in case we have other questions for you.
Thank you.
Maybe stay over here since we might have other questions.
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Council Member Jacob.
No, no problem.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I was looking at the administrative record, because I was curious the reasons for the dissenting opinion on Zab by I believe Commissioner Sanderson, and it starts on page 180 of the record.
And so my question for staff is, if you can provide some background of the extent to which it has been the practice to make recommendations based on lot line surveys.
How that relates or does not relate to being able to make a non detriment finding.
And if there are alternative methodologies you're aware of by other jurisdictions in situations like this.
I'll just say first that submittal of a stamp survey is is part of the application submittal requirements.
I'm not aware of any other practices from other jurisdictions that we could cite here as precedent.
Yeah, I'm not aware either.
And to address the point related to Commissioner Sanderson and her vote earlier this year, she.
As you probably know, worked for the city as the land use planning manager over 10 years ago and noted that the concerns around slide or kind of an ongoing issue that were haven't been addressed or resolved through any sort of city policy.
And there was some frustration she had had that we continually end up in this situation where an application comes in, it's evaluated.
We have the same concerns, but we don't have a mechanism by which to address the slide issue.
And so the problem just goes unresolved.
But you're not aware currently of any other methodologies in other cities to resolve them.
No, I'm not.
Do you want to mention the.
Yeah, well, we are aware of.
It's a broader policy it's known as a geologic hazards assessment district.
And there are several in the area.
So, for example, San Leandro has 1 and the town of Moraga has 1 and it follows a known slide area can enter into a district.
And there is a guiding plan that's required that's prepared by a geotechnical engineer.
I distinguish it out a little bit from the zoning issue because it's it's a special district.
So it doesn't follow entitlement review, which is before you tonight, but it is a broader mechanism that is used by other agencies.
Thank you.
So, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but can you speak to how the non detriment finding was made by staff? Sure, the non detriment finding for this project was evaluated based on the subject property and the specific topographical survey that was submitted to the city.
And that was reviewed by public works department and the building department, and it was based on the subject properties conditions and the overall effect.
If the surrounding neighborhood relative to the reasonable development that's being proposed on the site, what's being demolished is a 2670 square foot, single family dwelling and in its place is a reasonable development of approximately the same size.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Following up on council member trade line of questioning, because I find that interesting about how we evaluate and determine the non detriment finding.
So, it's really, you say tonight, it's based on the non detriment with respect to that particular property, whether it's following the particular rules and conditions and has been basically faithfully submitted and in that historical practice.
Is there a way that we can evaluate the detriment to the community from this sort of domino effect that would be introduced that if we allow one, and then the next neighbor proceeds, and then the next neighbor thinking it like one step further about what happens from a detrimental perspective, thinking about it in that way.
Can we think about it that way? Have we thought about it that way? If that makes sense.
Yeah, we have and recognize that different areas of the hillside have different conditions based on the subject properties, the individual site block, and that may vary depending on the different side of the street.
We've heard from neighbors tonight that the north side is separate from the south side, and that would require a more extensive survey of the entire neighborhood by block or area to know exactly what we're dealing with it in terms of what's going on.
That would require a more extensive survey of the entire neighborhood by block or area to know exactly what we're dealing with it in terms of the soil conditions and which properties are sliding where it's not necessarily because one slides in one property that this relates to the entire block or an entire area.
So, a more comprehensive analysis of the different blocks and affected soil conditions would be necessary.
And I think that's partly what the abatement district or the GAD, the geologic hazard abatement district mediates is those different conditions between those properties.
So, within the context of this development, looking at the subject property in the neighborhood context of character and if the development fits within the neighborhood is what was evaluated.
Great.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
And, I mean, from all, all depictions and descriptions and I mean it looks like an amazing project, it would be a beautiful addition to this.
Sorry, just to be careful about comments.

Segment 4

Before we close, thank you, but anyway, I am thinking about this, the detriment in terms of a broader sense, question on appeal issue one, when we talk about not altering or modifying existing lot lines.
Again, help me understand, is that, is there any commentary about this? You know, yes, it may not modify the existing lot line, but how it comports with what the kind of current community understanding of the property line is, right? I mean, those are two different things, right? The lot line that might be understood or have been accepted by community standards over time might be very different than this particular lot line.
Is that fair to say? Or the historical piece of this? Yeah, the lot lines are what is being reviewed is in the title report that's described by Meats and Bounds, and that's represented in the survey.
I'm not familiar with if that coincides with what is expected on site.
You know, that's a different kind of interpretation of the lot line.
Yeah, I think that's right.
I would just add, I'm not sure that we have the capacity to evaluate for the community understanding.
Sure, right.
I'm not expecting, yeah, I wouldn't be expecting, but just thinking about what that standard is, that's helpful to understand.
And the last bit, in terms of the process of filing an appeal, if a neighbor does file an appeal, what's typically necessary? They can just sort of file an appeal letter and say, I object to this personally, right? But it only takes one neighbor to file an appeal.
Yeah, any party could file an appeal.
Is it typical that you'd receive an appeal letter that's signed by like 45 neighbors in a neighborhood? Yes, that's it.
Okay.
Because in this case, it does feel like there are a number of people that, as we saw tonight, that also are interested.
I think that's it for questions.
Thank you for the clarification.
Thank you, Council Member Taplin.
Did you have additional questions? Oh, okay, very good.
All right.
There is a motion to close the public hearing.
Is there? Oh, okay.
I don't know which one was first, but unless there are any objections, I will have as listed as aye to closing the public hearing.
All right, it is unanimous.
Thank you very much.
The public hearing is closed, so we will not be asking any more questions.
We'll be moving on to deliberations.
And in that case, Council Member Taplin, did you have comments? Yeah, thank you so much, and thanks to everyone who spoke.
I did want to speak about hazard because we did just adopt an update to our local hazard mitigation plan.
And the plan update cites that one of the challenges to our older structures are that they are a greater hazard than new structures built under modern standards.
So, I wanted to share that with the community, and I wanted to say that I don't think us upholding the appeal would make any of the existing homes safer or magically protect them from landslide.
And I recognize that there is a civil suit happening.
I don't think it makes sense to leverage the city's discretion as part of that.
And I did just want to thank the applicant for your proactive outreach to the neighbors.
The sensitivity that you gave to the architectural history of the neighborhood and the city, and I want to also, and for your attention to modern standards, and I want to thank you for your generosity in sharing your family history and your personal history.
And I will be supporting this type of recommendation.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Council Member Traiga.
Yeah, thank you.
This is a really interesting case.
I think I'm.
I'm hard pressed to think of.
A zoning board hearing or appeal I have dealt with that deals with this particular set of issues.
And so.
We are, as a council legally bound to.
Approve projects based on.
You know, if we can make a non detriment finding, or we can agree with the zoning board that did.
I'll be it's not unanimously, but did by a super majority make that non detriment finding that's based on the staff put it the individual attributes of the project.
It could be a no pun intended, but a slippery slope if we started to.
Create inadvertently a new precedent tonight on the dice by doing something that looks at the domino effect that has been talked about.
That said, I, I.
Certainly do not wish to dismiss the concerns of the appellants out of hand and.
Perhaps this is something in the legislative arena.
We are in quasi judicial space tonight.
But I was interested in hearing about the presence of these geologic.
Hazard assessment districts, and that is something that I would be curious to learn more about.
That said, I think we are, in my opinion, pretty well circumscribed by the limitations of how we are able to rule on this tonight with the understanding that.
To the extent that there is a pending appeal in the courts or a court hearing anyway, and it would be up to the courts to look at some of these attributes that would not be within our abilities or powers to address here tonight.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council member Humbert.
Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor, but this is not my district.
I'd like to give council member Blackaby the opportunity to speak before I do.
Thank you, council member Humbert.
I do have, I have real concerns about the precedent that we do set, and I do believe we have the discretion here.
It's not a multifamily project.
It's a single family project.
It's a neighborhood that has dealt with these landslide issues for decades and sort of a generally kind of community accepted process of respecting where the lines have settled.
And in terms of community cohesion and, you know, the good of the community and respecting neighbors, I mean, that feels like, in the absence of policy, it feels like a pretty good place to be.
I know that there's the letter of that is harder to define, but I appreciate the community standard in this neighborhood and other neighborhoods in the hills where we deal with with those issues.
And so I, you know, I have a lot of respect for the, I appreciate the desire and the project, and that would be an improvement over what's there.
But I also respect the interest of the neighbors who have sort of lived in these conditions for a while and have houses in these, on these lots where lines have moved.
And if then all of a sudden the game changes, anyway, so I have real concern.
So my thought process is more that I think that we should ask, I'm intending to ask, I intend to ask ZAB to look at the community detriment finding in a broader way.
If they have the mechanism to do it, if we need more evidence to do it.
I'd be hard pressed, I think, tonight to make a decision, you know, overruling the project, but I do feel like it warrants additional attention and additional data.
And so that's, that's kind of where my head's at.
And that would be my intention tonight.
Okay, back to Council Member Humber, and just for the record, Council Member Bartlett did get skipped, but go ahead.
Oh, no, I'm happy to.
No, no, he got skipped.
He got skipped when you jumped to Council Member Blackabee, so go ahead.
Sorry, my apologies.
And I guess I want to start out by acknowledging Council Member Blackabee's concerns, and there is something there.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's something that's within the Bailey-Wicker jurisdiction of ZAB or this Council, at least at this juncture, this point in time.
I would align my comments with those of Council Member Trigub.
I've reviewed the staff report and the administrative record for the project, and I find nothing therein that was wrongly, that indicates this was wrongly adjudicated by the Zoning Adjustments Board.
My understanding is that the site has been the site of multiple surveys.
The results of those surveys have not presented any material issue with us with respect to the zoning questions before us.
My read is that the key question is whether, and really the only substantial question for ZAB was whether the rear setback is justified per the Hillside Overlay's various criteria and purposes.
But I believe ZAB rightly found this encroachment, and it's not an encroachment, it was an adjustment in the setback, is justified given the topography of the lot, and it's generally consistent with the existing layout of structures on the site.
And although this is not necessarily strictly germane to the zoning questions we are being asked to adjudicate, it is my understanding that the applicants have conferred with neighbors, made revisions to the proposed project to address concerns.
If anything, this reinforces staff and the ZAB's finding of non-detriment.
I'll therefore be voting to affirm the ZAB's decision and deny the appeal.
Thank you.
Council Member Bartlett.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Thank you on both sides for coming and presenting such good arguments and staff for your diligent work here.
This is one of those instances where I sort of regret having to be in this role, doing these land trials, because they hinge on so many, I guess, architectural and engineering planning nuances that it's almost not appropriate, not a good venue.
And essentially, when we're asked to override the staff recommendation, the expert, diligent focus presenters tonight, there's a bit of a, it's a big leap and there has to be glaring.
And the thing that keeps leaping out to me is actually outside of our purview, this property line issue.
But again, I remember hearing tonight that the deed did state that there's some drift, possibly so many feet, right, over the last number of decades.
And it just seems like this is something that the courts should figure out, the disputes among neighbors around property lines, they're very common.
But in this, in my purview, in our purview tonight, I don't see how we could vote against this with any proper basis within our powers.
And I'm curious, too, about this Jihad, the Geologic Hazard Assessment District.
I want to learn more about that, what we could do, we could explore that for our city.
But thank you.
I'll be voting to maintain the decision.
Yeah, I want to strongly disagree that we're setting a new precedent tonight, as it says in the report that the City of Berkeley does not have jurisdiction over property line disputes as these are private civil matters between property owners.
So, I just want to say, I really appreciate staff and I understand that when it comes to neighborhood disputes, that things can get quite intense.
And so I just want to acknowledge that there are clearly a lot of feelings around this, and I hope you all are able to come together after this as a neighborhood, because we all still live near each other.
We all still live in this really small community, so I hope you'll have opportunities to kind of heal and recover from this situation.
And with that, I will ask if there is a motion.
I will move to affirm the ZAB decision and deny the appeal.
Second.
And a second from Council Member Keserwani.
Yes.
And I think we should take roll on this.
On the motion to affirm the zoning adjustments for decision and deny the appeal.
Council Member Keserwani.
Yes.
Taplin.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Trago.
Aye.
O'Keefe is recused.
Blackabay.
No.
Lunapara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mayor Ishii.
Yes.
Okay, motion carries.
Thank you all.
And thank you all so much for coming here and being here this evening.
Thank you, staff, for your reports.
And I now that we have finished our action calendar, is there any public comment on items not listed on the agenda? Carol is coming up to the mic.
Thank you.
So I'm exclusively speaking in my individual capacity.
I am not speaking on behalf of the Peace and Justice Commission, but it is regarding something that happened transpired to vote last night.
I was in the dissent with four other commissioners, so I'm definitely not speaking on behalf of the commission.
I attempted to, before I talk to the actual vote, I attempted to bring a alternate resolution that would have supported.
Sorry, folks, can you keep it down so we can hear her comments? It would have supported the city's efforts on the legal deportation fund was introduced by Council Member Blackabay and the mayor's efforts on the immigration and this critical importance of the city as well as continuing to provide education and to also refer to the city manager to have community education on the internments, deportation and detentions during World War Two to show the parallels that are going on.
Unfortunately, the main resolution passed, or unfortunately, in my opinion, but it is asking essentially in a lengthy resolution for the Council to write a letter to President Trump and Vice President Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegzit condemning the Alien But Enemies Act and to endorse the Neighbor But Enemies, a Neighbors Not Enemies Act, which has been sitting in Congress for two years since the Biden administration installed in judiciary.
And I'm really concerned that we focus on our legal strengths and our local strengths and our local issues.
Thank you, Carol.
I'm sorry.
Your time is up.
Yeah, if I can just conclude briefly.
No, I'm sorry.
You've had two minutes.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay, it looks like we have two hands raised on Zoom.
One first is Leigh Bridges.
Yes, can you hear me? Yes.
So briefly, I just want to correct for the record.
I am the owner of 1054 Keith and the applicants for the project at, I believe, 1054.
There was something on the agenda.
We've already closed that conversation.
It's a factual correction, very briefly.
No, I'm sorry.
You can't speak to an issue that's already been heard.
Next is Tony.
Good evening, Council.
Getting back to Berkeley City history, I would like to tell you about one of the greatest mayors in Berkeley history, who was Louis Bartlett.
Louis Mel de Fontenay Bartlett was the mayor of Berkeley from 1919 to 1923.
In the vote of the City Council 3-2, he overturned the zoning by petition method that the real estate interest tried to get through to make Elmwood Park single family.
You've heard a lot about this.
And then he passed the first comprehensive zoning ordinance for the City of Berkeley, Ordinance 666.
Not perfect, but it was ratified by a vote of the people.
What is so interesting about Ordinance 666 is that it was passed just before the Berkeley fire of September 7th, 1923, which destroyed 600 buildings.
So when Berkeley had to rebuild Northeast Berkeley, it was according to that zoning ordinance.
And that's the most important thing about the zoning ordinance, is that it sets up a pattern for a city to rebuild after a great disaster.
Two other great accomplishments of Louis Bartlett was that he started the city manager form of government.
And he also started the East Bay Municipal Utilities District.
And one of the reasons he did not run for reelection was that he wanted to serve voluntarily on Elmwood.
His great accomplishment was clean water for Berkeley.
His papers are at UC Riverside.
Nobody has ever written a biography of Louis Bartlett.
So if there's anybody out there getting a PhD in Berkeley.
Thank you, Tony.
Maybe you can write us the story.
I appreciate the history lesson always.
Is there anyone else online? No other.
Okay, I see there's another person in person.
Thank you, Council.
Go ahead and move the mic up.
Good evening, Council Members.
My name is Tosh Ritz-Baptiste, and I'm speaking today to strongly urge you to not forget about emergency medical services in our city.
During this time of funding uncertainty.
EMS professionals are a critical part of our city, are a critical part of our public safety and healthcare infrastructure.
They're often the first to arrive during a crisis, whether it's a medical emergency, a mental health episode, or a disaster situation.
Yet despite our essential role, EMS services are chronically underfunded and stretched thin.
We are asking these professionals to do more with less, longer shifts, outdated equipment, and increased call volumes, all while managing complex situations with professionalism and compassion.
This is not sustainable.
Our community deserves an EMS system that is adequately staffed, well-trained, and equipped to respond quickly and effectively to emergencies.
Increasing EMS funding would not only improve response times and patient outcomes, but it would also help retain experienced personnel and reduce burnout, which is a growing concern across the profession.
Furthermore, stronger EMS services can help support community health initiatives, such as non-emergency response teams and mental health crisis interventions.
Areas where traditional policing is not always the most effective solution.
I urge you to consider EMS not just as an expense, but as an investment in public health, safety, and community well-being.
Thank you for your time and leadership.
Thank you so much.
Appreciate it.
Carol, you already spoke.
No, I'm sorry.
You already spoke.
Yeah.
All right.
I think that's it for public comment.
Is there a second? Okay.
Okay.
Unless there are any objections, we will adjourn unanimously.
Okay.
All right.
We are adjourned.
Thank you very much.
Sorry we didn't get a break, but I thought we were really close to the end.
Yeah.
Recording stopped.