Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2025-07-31 17:31:19 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_c97c230f-dc6b-4cb9-996b-277104d095dc.ogg

Segment 1

I'm going to call to order the Berkeley City Council meeting this Tuesday, July 29, 2025.
Clerk, would you please take the roll? Okay.
Council member Kesarwani? Here.
Council member Humbert? Yes.
Treg? Present.
Steve? Here.
Ben? Here.
Susan Wengraft? Here.
Humbert? Present.
Mary Ritchie? Here.
Okay.
Okay.
We are moving on.
I don't believe we have any ceremonial items to see.
It can be adjourned in memory of Dan Siegel, who is going to be moved to a future meeting.
So let's go to City Manager comments.
Thank you, Mary Ritchie.
A couple of things regarding this tonight's agenda.
One, I want to pull item 14 from the consent calendar, which is the urban R contract.
So I want to do a little comment, and we can bring it back for a future meeting.
And then for item 28 on your action calendar, what I'm recommending is that you take up the matters concerning title 23, but not title 21 tonight.
I'm also recommending that staff has more time to analyze and bring back more information for you relative to the title 21 aspect of the item 28 to a meeting in September.
Those are two announcements and requests.
Thank you, yes.
I think that makes sense, and that's how I'll move forward this evening.
City Auditor, I know that you're here somewhere.
Would you like to make any comments? Okay.
Okay, so just wanted to share that the Budget Office and the Finance Department's progress on the recommendations associated with the financial condition audit.
The financial condition audit, this was discussed at the Agenda Rules Committee meeting, and I said I would provide a brief presentation.
I just wanted to acknowledge that the Budget Office and the Finance Department is greatly impacted by the difficult financial situation that the city is facing.
And our audit, these are just things on one slide to share with you.
We have recommended that the city assure sufficient funding in the Section 115 Trust in order to maximize the benefits of pre-funding pension obligations.
In previous updates, the city had developed fiscal policies to fund the Trust, and the city's actuary had recommended maintaining a party contribution goal of $5.5 million.
In 2025, the city was not able to meet this goal, given its financial challenges.
As a result, our office is going to leave this recommendation open and will reassess progress next year.
Although none of the recommendation statuses have changed since the last update to Council, some progress has been made.
Our audit recommended the city complete the risk assessment required by the city's reserve policy, and proposed that the City Council devise a plan to replenish the general fund reserves.
The city has since contracted with GAOA to complete a risk assessment of the general fund reserve policy, and tonight, as you'll see, City Council will be considering an update to the reserve policy based on the recommendation to develop a plan to replenish the reserves and revise the funding goal to align with the city's financial reality and protected risk level.
Additionally, our audit recommended the city implement a funding plan aimed at reducing the city's unfunded capital and deferred maintenance needs.
I think you're well aware that Measure FF, which passed in November, will help with this and will estimate millions annually for 14 years.
The city will be developing a plan to prioritize funds for capital and deferred maintenance needs.
The ballot measure also includes language for our office to audit this every three years.
So, I just wanted to give you that update.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate the presentation.
And we are going to now move on to public comments on non-agenda matters.
So if you have a public comment for non-agenda matters, there's a..
So we'll draw five cards from the drum and then go to remote public comments for the five.
So if your name is called, please stand and come forward.
Carol Morozovic, Gary Ingram, Beno Chiamara, Russell Bates, and Richard Pentler.
So Carol Morozovic, Gary Ingram, Beno Chiamara, Russell Bates, and Richard Pentler.
Those are the five speakers for non-agenda public comment.
One of our public commenters has many people with him.
So just so you know, he'll be speaking by himself.
So whoever would like to come first, any particular order just for those five speakers? Sir, was your name called? Yes.
Oh, he's not.
Okay, fine.
Hi.
Good evening.
Mayor and city council members.
Grant, good to see you.
I'm Richard Pentler.
I'm a resident of 606 West City Park in the City of Berkeley.
I'm here with regard to the non-agenda items submitted to your packet.
You may have had a supplemental letter which was handed to you.
But this is something that involves a tremendous amount of disappointment, frustration, and ultimately dismay on the part of neighbors of mine in Brisbane Peak, having to do with the implementation of the UUD48 project.
We are all in support of this, and we're going to be supportive of this going forward as that program hopefully expands to other portions of Brisbane people who are arriving, for example.
But there's been a lot of collateral damage to neighbors and also to homeowners in that area.
And Gary Ingram is here to give you a little more information on this.
So we're asking the city to basically do two things.
One, ensure that we have..
I'm sorry.
I'm going to have to go to the next person.
We'll be back.
Thank you.
I'm going to let you go next.
It'll be easiest.
Sure.
That's fine.
Hello.
Good evening.
My name is Gary Ingram.
Just speaking to the..
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Gary Ingram.
I live in 1407 Risley Peak.
We lived in Berkeley for decades, went to school in Berkeley.
A number of years ago, we agreed with the city to..
They requested the support and cooperation of us to install an above-ground transformer, a below-ground transformer, and a retaining wall.
And it just turned into a disaster.
The plan confirmed many times in writing and meetings.
Instead, I've been left with an above-ground transformer and a curling mill wall and ballars, none of which we agreed to, and in front of my house.
I don't think any of you guys would like to have that in front of my house, in front of your homes.
We've asked for answers and submitted other requests.
And what we're asking is for the council to instruct the city to follow up and..
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
You're a commenter, but I got your letter.
Thank you so much.
Have a good evening.
You too.
Come on up, Carol.
In early 2021, or 2020, before the pandemic hit, the Homeless Commission brought a recommendation before council, which was unanimously passed, for enforcement of the source of the income discrimination ordinance, a ordinance that was passed in Berkeley in 2017 and passed by the state in 2019 to not discriminate against persons based on their vouchers or their subsidies in housing.
Again, council passed this unanimously with the first-in-time standard sent to the 4 by 4 committee.
To date, there hasn't been any enforcement structure set up locally, and this discrimination continues.
I met a woman on the bus last week again, who I've met several times, who was trying to change buildings.
She has a Section 8 voucher, and she finds herself repeatedly denied the lease.
That is probably because she is a Section 8 tenant.
But thank you.
Thanks, Carol.
Hi, everybody.
I came from 100 Montgomery and 630 East Anderson in San Francisco, dealing with bicycles today that kidnapped somebody from Concord and were on their way to bring them to Sampson.
When they had a medical emergency, they got taken to a hospital, and the high schools would not let the family visit with the person.
These people deserve no respect whatsoever.
And they are a lot of other people.
You may see the children of Gaza by starting them to death over there.
ICE agents and Zionists are in the same category in my mind, and you should be ashamed of yourselves not to put a ceasefire in Gaza and log this genocide to continue.
Thank you.
Thanks, Dr.
Elwood.
Hi, I'm Benno.
I'm a fourth-grade Urban R.
I'm here alongside many of my co-workers at Urban R, and we're members of Industrial Workers of the World, IWW, former union a couple of years ago.
We came here initially to give public comment on item 14 today, regarding Urban R's contract with the city of Berkeley.
I want to acknowledge and appreciate that the Council and the city manager are taking a bit more time to look into this contract and its relation to an ongoing legal dispute.
We were on an unparalleled strike for 40 days back in March and April, signing an agreement with the company to suspend the strike, which involved reinstating all of the striking orders.
None of us, all of us who were on strike here, none of us have been reinstated, even though the company has acknowledged that they met the terms of the agreement that should trigger reinstatement.
Thank you for carrying this out, and we're happy to talk with any Council member or the city manager further.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, we'll go to speakers on Zoom for non-agenda public comment.
The first speaker is Adela Luna-Duchin.
Hi, I wanted to comment on the OWL and the audio-visual problems.
So this is multiple times that it's happened, and I think my comment was misunderstood last time, because I don't need a description of what the OWL does, but my point is that it's, one, we don't need it.
Like it's working poorly, but also we don't need it.
Like we don't need a camera that bounces around the room following sound or a view of the ceiling or like a 360 view.
And then I wanted to encourage you all to talk to the city of Oakland, how they run their Zoom, because they can run it really well, but they can't run it as well as we can.
And then lastly, I want to make sure that we're getting the same audio that actually gives the viewers options.
Like I can, if someone's showing slides, I can make it bigger or smaller, all those things I can't do at the city of Berkeley stream.
And lastly, I want to check about the Council member that is not on site.
Are they getting the same audio that we are out here? Because all we're getting is indiscernible.
And that's what the transcript often says too.
Indiscernible.
Hi guys.
Thanks for taking my comment.
I just wanted to let you know that apparently there's a tsunami warning in effect.
And it hopefully is a nothing burger.
But maybe would be good to use this time.
To, to let people know, you know, people.
People who have an inside line to emergency services, like what we're supposed to do.
It's kind of hard to read the message on whether underground.
I don't know.
But hopefully not a big deal.
I guess it stems from a seismic activity in.
Alaska.
So, and then just briefly, I wanted to offer a prayer for the children in Gaza who are being starved right now.
And anything that you guys could do.
For those children would be really important.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you for the opportunity to examine and we should all be thinking about them because they're, they're being starved with our tax dollars, unfortunately.
And just want to leave it there.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sure.
Thanks for the opportunity.
Our office of emergency services is monitoring the tsunami.
And we will put out alerts if people need to take action.
Thank you.
From a comment.
It's from a phone.
Ending in zero, zero, zero.
That is the quick in that happened today is warning to us.
The big one is coming.
Very large magnitude.
That's a quick and the whole fault is overdue by over 20 years.
Country at least seven to eight.
Magnitude is going to cause a lot of damage.
What was my point? What is happening in Gaza? It's this case, the bottom, all of this.
Innocent children, adults, and women.
We have to stop the genocide as soon as possible.
This could be any of them.
It could happen here.
What power do we have? Nothing.
Because not much of criminals running this word.
Have a good day.
Probably call you later on.
Thank you.
Hi, good evening, folks.
My name is Jocelyn goldsmith.
I'm a Berkeley resident and I'm also an officer in one of our.
And I'm, yeah, I'm just really basically speaking for myself.
And next is Jocelyn.
Hi, good evening, folks.
My name is Jocelyn Goldsmith-Desana.
I'm a Berkeley resident, and I'm also an officer in one of our SEIU 10-1 chapters in the city of Berkeley, the CSU PTRLA chapter.
And I'm, yeah, I'm just really basically speaking for myself.
It's not union comments tonight.
But I just wanted to express solidarity with the urban or workers that are there tonight, and really urge the council to take their comments very closely into account as you're looking to execute this contract.
I'm sorry, I don't know the item number.
But just to express the solidarity between myself and SEIU 10-1 and the urban or workers.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
And the final speaker is Ilana Auerbach.
Hi there.
Good evening.
So while there's starvation happening, thank you for the speakers who have mentioned the starvation in Gaza.
And we have heard not a word from our local leaders.
In the Berkeley REC department, of course, offers a summer camp and sponsors a summer camp.
Well, it was noticed that in San Pablo Park, the camp, which has young and impressionable city campers, were cheering for Team Israel while waving Israeli flags.
So they had a team competition, and there was a Team Israel.
The people who saw them, who were Palestinian, who were Muslim, who were Arabs, were highly offended.
And so wondering whose idea was that, and how was that OK at this moment? Also, I'd like to mention.
Ilana, I'm sorry, your time's up.
Was that our fifth speaker? Yeah, I was just trying to ask.
OK, so moving on to our consent calendar.
Sorry, if I could ask, do any of the council members have anything to promise? It's been a long year to see you.
Now, it's probably my turn.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Oh, so sorry.
If you could please keep it down, because it sounds already tough here tonight.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I just have a few brief comments.
I want to comment on item 20, which is project implementation and staffing for Measure FF, the State Streets Initiative.
And this is an item that would fund three permanent full-time employees to help address that program.
Really excited about it.
This is a critical step toward fulfilling the State Street goals of Measure FF, Vision Zero, our bike plan, our bed plan, and a number of our other city plans.
So I think that's really critical news, and I'm thrilled about it.
Item number 27, I'm pleased to announce that this fall, we will have September 21, Berkeley's first Sunday event.
We're really wishing $500 from the DA discretionary funds to help fund it, and I invited the council members to contribute if they'd like.
It's going to be a renewable energy festival at the Willard Clubhouse, we're almost certain.
The funds relinquished to the general funds for this purpose brought to us by my environment commissioner, Kira Bartlett-Davis.
So thank you, Kira.
And I'm adding, as co-sponsors, council members Triga and O'Keefe.
And if anyone else, there's still one spot that anybody else wants to join us, I'd be grateful.
Thanks.
Thank you, council member.
Council member Dunbar? Thank you.
I'd like to contribute $200 to item 27, and if there's any open spot, could I be added as a co-sponsor? You got it.
Great.
Thank you so much, and thanks for bringing this forward.
OK.
I'm moving on to council member O'Keefe.
You know, I hadn't requested, but I'll speak.
I might have another.
I never press the button.
But yeah, thank you for adding me as a co-sponsor, and I don't think that automatically has me contributing money.
So please also sign that for $200 for item 27.
I've added more, but then I'll actually press the button.
OK.
Thank you.
Council member Kester-Wong.
Yes, thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
I wanted to note that there is an item here.
I believe it's item number four that is putting out an RFP to do the Ohlone Greenway improvement.
So I just want to acknowledge that and say that I'm really pleased that we were able to fund that in our budget.
And yes, it is item four.
I just wanted to confirm.
And then item number 26, I wanted to call out.
Thank you, council member Trager, for putting this forward.
This is an item of support for legislation at the state level, the No Secret Police Act to prohibit non-essential face covering for law enforcement and require officer identification.
It's shocking and surprising that this isn't already the law, and I'm grateful that there's space for me to be added as a co-sponsor.
Thank you, council member Trager, for your leadership on that.
That's all for me.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, council member Gartner.
Good morning or good evening.
We lost you, council member.
It's spotty internet here.
I wanted to also contribute to number 27, the Renewable Energy Festival, $250.
And then.
Oh, you need it.
You need it.
OK, and then also I wanted to just really briefly just send love to the family of Jonathan Guidi.
He was a construction worker working at Sylvia Mendez Elementary School in my district.
And on Thursday, he fell to his death on the job.
And he was known as JD to his family.
He was a loving father and son.
And my prayers go out to his family.
Thank you.
Thank you, council member.
Council member Blackby.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Thank you, Council Member Bartlett for honoring his memory.
I appreciate you're doing that.
I just a couple of comments on the consent calendar.
First is on item seven.
I just appreciate city manager and the fire chief bringing forward this work to basically fund the Alameda County coordinator for wildfire services.
It's an important role.
As we talk about in November, there are a lot of different responsibilities here in our wildfire response.
And coordinating with all of our regional partners and all the different entities is a big building block for that.
So I just appreciate that that position is being filled to help drive that process forward.
So thank you for bringing that ahead.
I support that.
On item number 14, thanks to the urban core workers for reaching out to us, also for being here tonight.
Thank you to the city manager for pulling that item so that we can continue to make sure that before that contract is executed, those labor issues are addressed in a satisfactory manner.
On item number 24, I just want to thank Council Member Kaplan for his leadership on the Berkeley Nightlife Council.
Maybe equally importantly, thank you for not encouraging more nightly to serve, because I'm way too square to serve on the Nightlife Council.
But it's an important effort, and I support it, because I appreciate the work and making Berkeley more of a vibrant place to spend time.
So thank you for your leadership.
And then lastly, I'd be happy to contribute $230 from our office account to item 27 on Sunday, and thank you to Commissioner Vins for her leadership and the Council Member Humbert for bringing this forward.
That's it for me.
Thank you.
Council Member Kaplan.
Thank you.
I'm somehow very different.
Okay.
I think our numbering is off.
Council Member Kuefer, you're number one or two.
What is this? Oh, it says two.
Okay, and you're number one.
Okay, in that case, I think Council Member Trejo.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
I would like to thank Council Member Kaplan for bringing forward two important items this evening.
Item 24, the Berkeley Nightlife Council.
Item 25, the Berkeley Community and Workforce Development honor to co-sponsor both.
Item 26, the resolution in support of California Senate Bill 627 or the No Secret Police Act.
I would like to thank my colleagues for keeping this on consent, and I would like to add Council Member Casarwani as a co-sponsor.
And item 27, Berkeley's first Sunday event.
Very excited to support this item, and thank you, Council Member Humbert, for having me as a co-sponsor.
I would love to contribute $250 from my T13 account.
Despite the best efforts of the Trump administration, as well as a vesperal utility monopoly, to make it as difficult as possible for everyday folks to just be able to control their energy source and be able to have access to local renewable energy, it still is one of the most affordable ways to be able to support our planet and contribute to climate resiliency.
Thank you so much for bringing forward this item.
All clean powder to the people.
Not that long ago.
Sorry, I was just trying to tell you, Council Member, your mic was on.
Yeah.
Okay.
Did you have something else you wanted to say? Yes.
Oh, okay.
Go ahead, Matt.
Oh, that's not why it was on.
I just don't know.
Oh, I've been admonished by my staff that I promised to give $500 apparently to item 27, so let the record be updated.
Sorry, Mark, didn't mean to shortchange you.
And then I also want to thank Council Member Kaplan for adding me as a co-sponsor to the Nightlife Council item, and I'm a little worried I'm not square enough to be on it.
I think people think I've got all the ideas in my place, but thank you for inviting me on it, and that is all my comments for real.
Okay.
Oh, okay.
Go ahead, Council Member.
Thank you.
I just wanted to bring attention to Council Member Kaplan's item 25 and to make clear for the record that we're passing the version that's in Sconston to the south rather than the initial item.
Is that correct? Thank you.
Okay.
I would like to appreciate Director Gilman and his team for the annual report of the Mental Health Services Act.
For number 20, I also want to appreciate the launch of FF and hiring of staff to implement the prioritized projects.
That's very exciting, and I got a chance to attend their first meeting, too, the committee meeting, so very thrilled about that.
And I will also put $250 from my announce to the item 27.
Thank you.
I think everyone has spoken, so is there a motion? Second.
We have Council Member Bartlett on the line outside.
If you need to take a roll.
No, there we go.
Sorry, we had a very mixed-up meeting earlier.
Can I take public comment and send information items only, please? There's 25 and 23A and 23D on consent, the content accessibility guidelines, and is there a correction there? Again, I did add that we did recently compromise with the commission on that for 23B.
The staff have worked with the task force of the commission to come up with some joint solutions to their recommendations, so I can go with this agreement.
Does that clarify it? Right, so the council will be adopting that 23B on consent.
So that's my understanding.
Yes, thank you.
Okay.
Okay, sorry, is there a correction? There's about 1,000 on consent or information items only.
Thank you.
Hello, everyone.
Cara Bartlett is the lead organizer for Sunday, and I also just want to say thank you so much for your support of this event.
We did sign a contract today for Willard Park and Clubhouse, so thank you to the city for making an exception and having that happen early.
We're so excited to showcase the LEED-certified and solar and battery storage facility that's officially available for LEED.
And, yeah, we have some amazing co-sponsors, and we're really committed to making LEED Energy feel doable, local, and joyful.
So I encourage your offices to share this in their newsletters.
We will be collating with every possible resource to get as many people there and to ensure that people can have a cleaner...

Segment 2

Thank you again so much.
Thank you.
Speaking to Item 24, the Berkeley Nightlife Council, this is a very important item and we do need to certainly bring nightlife and also daylife economic activity back to Berkeley.
And so I again would point out to that in February 2024, Council unanimously passed a public safety for women item that at the time that Mayor committed would definitely be budgeted in the budget process and wasn't.
Now we're in a budget crisis, so that's problematic.
But hopefully the issue itself doesn't die as far as the safety esports because they're very much needed.
Oakland is actually having the businesses participate in funding and collaborating with the City of Oakland so that they can do safety esports in their, so that they are doing safety esports in their downtown area.
And we'll be going to Council that also work in setting the work with the DBA, with the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce and any other business associations to see if we can use the model here and how the city can work while the businesses will also be financially contributing.
So that we have a safer environment for people to enjoy both our daytime and nighttime activities.
Thanks, Carol.
Much as I hate to be redundant.
Are you speaking to an item here? Are you speaking to an item? I am speaking to an item.
I'm actually fully for the Berkeley Nightlife Council.
I've been thinking about, there's a lot of gossip right now.
And the bonds are coming down on me.
I was watching my children starve to death on the street.
Now what kind of nightlife is that for people to do that? I think the connection between life and death is a very slight bond there.
And the people over there are suffering so much watching each other die every day.
Starvation.
They're starving to death over there.
What kind of nightlife is that? There is no nightlife.
It doesn't make any sense.
So why, I don't know.
It just seems really a real shame to, well, for nightlife here, we're suffering so much.
There may be empathy, there may be some seeing that.
But it breaks my heart.
That's all.
Thank you.
Thank you, Russell.
Next speaker.
Hello.
Hey.
I'm Jessica Turner.
I'm here as a pre-law student, which is a great round.
For other reasons.
I'm addressing the nightlife council.
Mostly so you can just put a face to a name.
And there are a couple things I'm actually kind of a delegate for that I'm going to talk about.
Offline.
If I can be involved with a nightlife council, I'm a former Swedish Wildfire marshal.
But the last four years, after being stranded at a state site, I work as a, basically I'm a supervisor for supervisors for like last year, the Zach Ryan tour.
A lot of problems that I think you have with homelessness, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I'm used to nominating 30 to 100,000 people in a couple of days.
And that might be useful at Berkeley, since you guys like to do this part.
Usually I don't have a place to be because I work on the road.
But I'm what you might call well-paid homeless.
I'm a student.
And I'd like to provide myself with your services.
So I hope to have some positive emails in the future with y'all.
And one thing I definitely want to bring up for the nightlife council is that there still isn't a film of K.
Dick thing.
And I think more movies that are made out of this than anything.
I think it's probably going to be the 20th century hard to wait.
And his birthday is December 16th, which is a magical day at Berkeley.
So everybody about goes home or comes back home.
So if I could be at any home for any of these days, I would just spend the next day.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi.
Brian, do you have a comment? Yes, please.
I want to thank you for your smile, Ms.
Mayer.
Thank you.
It's been quite a good evening.
And thank you.
I would like to emphasize what Carol said.
I think I've mentioned it at least 2,000 times.
That safety really matters to me.
And no one feels safe when everyone isn't safe.
And coming together is challenging, to be sure.
However, as an elder woman, disabled, who spent, again, eight hours today attending, an elder disabled woman, I'm really, I know it's tougher to deal with us.
I walk slower.
My brain isn't as smart as it used to be.
But it's like, come on.
How we treat our children and how we treat our elders really matter.
How we treat the most vulnerable really matters.
There but for the grace of God.
I never expected to become disabled for an easy thing.
I'm just helping everyone.
So anyway, bless all of you.
And thank you.
And I see you look at me like you want me to stop.
I was just going to ask if you were speaking to a specific item.
I'm Carol.
And I get my brain.
I'm the tracking, the reading, the numbers, the words.
I'm emphasizing safety.
That's there.
And I'm emphasizing care and share.
Because there's too many people that need help.
And there's more than enough people that could.
If we would just do it.
So thank you very much.
Thank you.
I know, Maria, that you are also excited to have that meeting.
Oh, God, I attend every meeting that will let me.
Thank you.
I'm impressed that they don't give it up.
So thank you.
So we're talking about energy.
Talking about the night out.
And there's no fuel or electricity in Niagara.
Or throughout Palestine.
It's limited all the time.
And people are starving because they can't cook.
So since they don't have fuel or energy, they're resorting to burning their clothes and whatever they can to create fire to cook.
And it's just so sad that the city of Berkeley, as I've said before in the past, and I'll stay on topic, so don't even try to interrupt me.
We're talking about energy and nights out.
And people in Gaza don't have energy.
And they don't have a chance to have a night out.
Children are being born and starving to death.
Infants are starving to death.
And I know some of you have children.
Maybe aunts and uncles have children in your life.
And it's just like even freaking 47 is acknowledging the starvation.
And, you know, that's interesting.
And finally, but it's just sad that, you know, they're using starvation as a weapon of war.
And our Berkeley city council isn't caring about humanity.
Except for, I don't know, themselves, maybe.
But they're not caring about the community at large by interrupting and causing trauma by enforcing encampments to leave and all these things.
So I know my time's up, but I'm going to stop in one second.
I'm sorry, but your time is up.
Thank you very much.
And please tell us.
Yeah.
Appreciate it.
If you could start my time over, but yeah, this is Karen slaughter.
And, you know, I'm speaking as a Berkeley native and former city staffer who helped lead some of the rezoning efforts to support nightlife and culture.
And I strongly support the city council.
I'm speaking as a Berkeley native and former city staffer who helped lead some of the rezoning efforts to support nightlife and culture.
And I strongly support council member.
Proposal for a nightlife council, which is item.
Number 24.
You know, we've made some serious progress, expanding business hours, including making downtown a 24, seven district for interested businesses.
And our business community, cultural spaces, and even our police department are in alignment with some of the partnership approaches that balances vibrancy with safety, as well as smart technology.
You know, with Cal joining the ACC, we'll be welcoming tens of thousands of new visitors, many accustomed to visiting vibrant college towns with exciting nightlife.
And I think Berkeley should be one of them.
We get into a lot of positive national attention with ESPN game day.
And, you know, I want to be a city that has salsa clubs and karaoke bars and cigar lounges and comedy clubs and safe, engaging spaces, even for young people like my own kids.
So let's try and activate these plazas and parklets and all these other opportunities with music and cool evening art and continue to invest in our infrastructure that supports, you know, vibrant district.
So proud of the progress.
I'm really supportive of council member Taplin bringing this forward.
And a vibrant nightlife is not just about fun, but it's a serious economic driver nationwide.
So it's generated billions of dollars and it'll be a great opportunity for some of our businesses to take advantage of this.
So I really appreciate it.
And thank you.
Good evening, mayor and council members.
This is Beth Rossner on behalf of the Berkeley chamber of commerce to share our strong support as well for item number 24, the creation of a nightlife council, our bars, restaurants, music and performing arts venues, and other late night businesses are a big part of what makes the city vibrant and unique.
A nightlife council would bring people together, business owners, city staff, artists, and community members to help shape policies that nighttime activity, improve public safety and keep our commercial districts welcoming after dark other cities like SF and New York have done this as well.
And Berkeley has a chance here to build something that values while helping these businesses continue to thrive.
So thank you council member Taplin for your leadership on this and thank you all.
Thank you.
And that was our last public comment you said.
Yes.
Okay.
Very good.
Now moving forward.
So we do make the motion.
Great.
And I think that is council member Bartlett still here on this.
Okay.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
All right.
Very good.
Thank you.
All right.
Let's see if we can.
Think it through.
Take a five minute break.
Show me some technology that might work that we could try out and see if it works.
Okay.
We are going to try something out folks.
We'll take a quick five minute break.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
All right, folks.
Sorry about that.
I think that we are ready to move forward.
We're going to have.
Sorry, I don't have.
We're moving forward to the next item.
I'm going to pass it over to Jordan.
Okay.
Good afternoon.
I'm Jordan Klein.
I'm the mayor.
Council.
It's bad.
This opportunity to present.
To you on.
Amendments to title.
Three.
Regulations.
Accessory.
Presenting for staff will be.
While I move the slides.
Thank you.
And just to clarify folks.
We had a conversation earlier about.
We're not going to be presenting on it.
We're just focusing on.
Amendments to channel 23.
And so the presentation.
Although it may contain reference to that.
They're not going to be presenting on it.
And we're also not going to ask them questions about that or taking any action on that as well.
Okay.
Thank you.
Hi, everyone.
My name is.
And I'm associated planner.
Tonight.
I'm presenting the amendments to the.
To align our.
With state law and planning.
Direction.
I'm going to be presenting the amendments to the planning commission.
In March.
And.
The.
The spring and summer.
And in March, the planning commission review.
And then consider it.
And recommended specific amendments in June and July.
Okay.
Okay.
Regarding the proposed amendments to cycle.
The cycle 23.
The most consequential state law change.
Single family law.
One.
Okay.
And up to eight.
And interior.
25%.
Next slide, please.
Okay.
Removing the parking requirement.
Updating.
And deleting, deleting.
Next slide.
Next slide, please.
Regardless of bedroom.
One.
Limit.
And allowing.
Next slide, please.
Okay.
Recommended by the planning commission.
Next slide.
Thank you.
I'm available for questions.
Okay.
That was the complete presentation.
All right.
Very good.
So.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Appreciate staff's presentation.
Very streamlined presentation.
Type of 23 about us.
What's changed.
Obviously I will have some discussion and some potential amendments later to share.
I was wondering if.
Chief.
Okay.
Okay.
Fair enough.
Priorities.
Priorities.
Priorities.
About fires.
Perception of given fire danger in the hills.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
If she's correct and jump on.
Many conversations.
She's great about this issue over the years.
And I think I have a good handle on the fire.
Position on this.
Yeah.
So.
It was illustrated in the recent evacuation time study that was published earlier this month.
That even with existing buildup of the health side overlay.
During a wildfire emergency.
The evacuation.
Time.
It's to the point where it could lead to loss of life.
And so based on that.
The city should take efforts to do what it was in its power to limit any.
Within the very high fire hazards, very zone and other high risk fire areas.
The.
Acknowledging that there are actually limits.
And so.
The, the evacuation.
Study did recommend.
The city consider establishing.
Separate, more restrictive development standards for any use within the house.
And the.
And she's great.
That's in fact.
Express support for taking that action to me.
Okay.
Okay.
Great.
Great.
And I'll say.
I got a lot longer.
About this during our deliberations.
I just want to start.
Yeah.
That question.
So.
That's on the table.
From staff.
As we go through that.
So.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Great.
Let's move on then to, to.
This is item 28 accessory dwelling units.
And again, we're just talking about amendments to title 23.
Please come forward.
Okay.
Thank you.
I feel like it's groundhog day.
Okay.
I just want to be clear that we support.
Amendments to chapter 23.
Plus an additional amendment to clarify that new construction includes.
Detached and attached.
We.
Don't support Mr.
Blocker base amendments.
Okay.
So, yes, they, they reduced the size by.
200 Square feet.
And the height.
And it's not apparent to us how that is going to reduce the population.
In the hillside district.
Berkeley still allows single family homes to be built.
Large size.
In the hillside district.
And it's not apparent to us how that is going to reduce the population.
With the policy to adopt the minimum state standards.
We appreciate that the proposed amendments are compliant with state law.
But we don't see the connection to reducing.
Risks or evacuation.
Thank you.
Hi, good evening.
I just wanted to swing by and speak on behalf of my fellow.
He dwellers.
And what a corded voice in this conversation.
Technically the thing that I live in is not really.
He was attached.
I live in the backyard of a much larger condo building, but I tell people it's.
And functionally, that's the same thing.
And that is the only home.
That I was able to purchase.
When I became a homeowner in Berkeley, everything else was well out of my price range.
And I just wanted to say that as a millennial homeowner, I'd love to see more.
My fellow millennials be able to purchase homes in Berkeley.
And I think this ordinance is really great.
Step forward to creating new opportunities for homeownership.
Younger and less resourceful buyers.
I just want to recommend that it would be great to modify.
The ordinance to shorten the notification period.
That's necessary for current tenants.
Use to have the first right of recusal.
My understanding is that that's currently listed as one year.
In the ordinance.
And I think that should be brought down to three months.
With what? Most typical home purchases.
Work on Berkeley.
It would be a great way to increase the opportunities for young people.
To buy a starter homes.
I'm proud to live in.
I'm just really happy that the council is taking this up.
And I hope you pass it to me.
Excellent.
Thank you.
And we're doing a supplemental item.
We're not talking about that this evening.
Oh, so we're not talking about either of the supplements from.
Council members.
I'm sorry.
Nor are we talking about the supplements from.
Yes.
Yes.
We're talking about.
Yeah, we're talking specifically about.
Title 23.
Okay.
Okay.
I apologize.
No worries.
I just want to say one sentence.
Which is I would support anything that keeps Berkeley.
Community members.
Extra extra banking to say your last name sometimes.
Okay.
So.
Anyone online.
I saw the slide that you're going to eliminate.
The distance between.
Dwelling.
So I don't think that's a good idea.
That's a fire hazard.
There's no defensible space.
It didn't seem like people care about defensible.
And the flatlands, because if you put all these.
Dwellings on.
You know, A parcel.
You know, there's trees.
Probably being eliminated.
Not good for.
The planet.
And, you know, I don't think that's a good idea.
That's a fire hazard.
There's no defensible space.
It didn't seem like people care about defensible state space.
In the flatlands, because if you put all these dwellings on, you know, A parcel.
You know, there's trees.
Not good for the planet.
And.
It's not good in case of a fire.
The fire danger is high and just as high in the flats.
I believe.
As it is in the hills.
Just a different set of circumstances, especially when we have.
You know, a lot of trees and whatever else is down there.
And the industrial sections of Berkeley and the flatlands.
So we need defensible space.
Thank you.
Free Palestine.
And I've heard that.
She's right.
It's on the line to answer that question.
So let's go to him, please.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
I'm not sure I understand the fire's response or the perception of what the recommended.
You.
Changes are given.
Our concerns.
Thank you.
Can you hear me? Yeah.
Fire's position remains clear and consistent with prior comments.
We believe we should be limiting development.
That adds population at all.
Density in the hills in the fire hazard, And we also believe that.
Those who are at a higher risk for wildfire, especially one driven by high winds.
That poses a real threat to life safety.
I think that's been further validated by the city's evacuation study.
Those findings confirm that we, what we've long understood.
From real life experience, including in 1991, they added more people to these areas.
You can increase the time it takes us to evacuate them.
The more people we allow to be evacuated.
The further.
The larger we allow you to use to be.
The more people that are going to accommodate.
The more people they accommodate, the more complicated the evacuation becomes and the longer it's going to take to move everybody to safety.
Especially those who need more time to leave in past wind driven fires, including 1991.
We've seen how these, the consequences of these actions, The consequences of these actions.
The consequences of the evacuation.
And unfortunately people are overcome by smoke, heat and fire because they simply couldn't get out fast enough.
These are not theoretical risks.
We've seen it happen.
In real life over and over and over again.
Yes, it's low risk.
I guess it's low frequency, but it's high risk.
So I, you know, I think we should be adopting the minimum size allowances permitted by CD.
Within the hillside overlay.
And we should be taking steps to seek a stronger local exemption.
That allows more strict ADU development limits in the hillside overlay.
I think that, you know, our position is that limiting development gives us a fighting chance to not only evacuate the people that are already living in the hillside overlay.
But also to focus our resources on slowing or potentially stopping the fires advance.
Happy to answer any more specific questions.
If there are things to you.
I think council member Humbert has a question for you.
Thank you, chief.
And just following up on an email exchange.
You and I had earlier today.
And it relates to the difference between.
In the hillside overlay.
And the ADU that's 18 feet higher and ADU that's 20 feet high.
Yeah.
My question was, does that really make a difference in terms of firefighting access? And I don't want to characterize the response.
I love it.
I love to hear it.
Yeah.
Assuming that the ADU we're talking about is one that's triggering chapter seven.
Yeah.
I think it does make a difference in terms of.
Elevated windows in the roof.
The ground ladders.
So.
The primary concern is having space adjacent to that structure so that we can position a ground ladder and have an appropriate climbing angle to reach the roof.
Only other concern I articulated to you was.
You know, as long as the increased height doesn't allow for.
The increased.
The height of the roof.
And the height of the roof.
And the height of the roof.
And the height of the roof.
So.
Yeah.
18 versus 20.
And I want to recall one.
One thing that council member.
Roger Robinson mentioned.
I think maybe the last time this came around.
And it's that if, if an ADU was sending that, you know, the volumes, the square footage are the same, assuming everything.
I mean, if you're going to have a roof that's going to be a little bit higher than the 20 foot high, it's going to be taller and skinnier.
And maybe provide a little bit more clearance.
Between.

Segment 3

The Building Next Door.
So, you know, it may actually have a smaller footprint and that might be marginally a good thing.
Is that essentially correct? Yeah, I think that makes sense to me.
Okay.
Thank you, Chief.
Really appreciate it.
Thank you for your service on the tsunami issue.
Yes, thanks, Chief.
Councilmember McAbee, did you have another question? Just one other follow-up, thanks, Chief.
So obviously, given that we can't make any requirements with respect to parking and can't make any requirements with respect to setbacks, in our supplemental, we are talking about square footage and we are talking about height.
One thing you haven't talked about, at least in your perspective, is rooftop decks not being used in the hillside zone in particular.
Is there anything about that feature that also interests you? I think, again, it would be, in my mind, dependent on if the structure below it is being built or renovated to Chapter 7a.
If it is, I'm not terribly concerned about a roof deck.
If it's not a Chapter 7a compliant structure and we're putting combustible materials on a roof deck, I think we're essentially avoiding the Class A roof that's underneath it, which I think would not be smart.
I don't think it's a huge deal, but it would increase the likelihood that additional structures would ignite from embers falling on the roof deck, igniting combustibles, and then burning the structure.
It's essentially similar to a woodshake roof situation that we'd be creating.
Thank you.
Thanks, Mayor.
Thank you, Chief, for being here.
Thank you.
Council Member Keating, did you have, or is it Council Member Trager? You're number two.
I'm not very sure.
Okay, thank you.
Did you have something, Council Member Trager? Again, I guess I'm number one now.
Yeah, I understand this is going to maybe come up later as we discuss some of the supplementals that we can discuss.
But I wanted to understand for the..
so in Table 23-306.1, under the Forward Row Existing Multifamily Dwelling, I know we're going to talk about potentially differentiating between those in the Arbonne H Zone and others.
I think this is a question for staff, although I will later have a question for Council Member Block.
I want to understand from staff, do we..
how many existing condition lots do we have currently in the Hills Overlay that are greater than single family, since that is the designated zoning? Sorry, you're asking how many lots in the Hillside Overlay that are zoned other than Arbonne H that are zoned differently? Yeah, what I'm getting at is how applicable is the standard if we're talking about..
and maybe this is in the context of Council Member Block's supplemental, so I can wait.
But I'm just..
I know we're going to talk about potentially differentiating Hills Overlay from non-Hills Overlay.
And I'm curious for Hills Overlay, when you talk about multifamily, how relevant is that, do we have? Are you asking if we have multifamily developments in the Hillside Overlay? Yes, there are a few, a little bit of R2 and R3 on the north side in the Hillside Overlay.
Maybe a little bit on the south side, on the east end of the south side.
Yeah, I think so.
So, but it's..
yeah, it's not on any parcels.
We don't..
obviously, we don't know the number of parcels off the top of our head.
We could research that, but I don't think we can get you that.
No, this answers my question.
Thank you.
Okay, let's see.
We still have some comments, I think, online.
Oh, that's right.
Next up is Alfred Tu.
Hi, thank you.
I just want to thank you for taking up this item from the Planning Commission.
And I think to address a lot of the fire risk concerns, I think one thing the City could look at is the building code standards.
So, any new building would have to be built to modern fire standards, but one option may be looking into renovations and requiring a higher fire safety standard as well.
Okay, all right.
Next up is Kelly Eberhardt.
Okay, please tell me if you can't hear me because it sounds very bad tonight.
Okay, there are three things that are never considered in our zoning and also with this in the ADUs.
And we're not looking at water runoff as we cover more of the land with the hardscape.
We're not looking at the impact on ecosystems and habitat.
City's urban area is still important for nature.
And of course, we always act as we're the only species living on this planet.
And we're not looking at heat island effect.
I'm very disappointed that we're going to be removing setbacks, separation of buildings, because all three of these things are impacted severely by removing setbacks.
We're going to have more water runoff, less place for nature to live, and we're going to start feeling the heat island effect.
And it may take a while, but it changes heat island effect is when we have all these hard surfaces to heat up, and that actually changes the microclimate.
And one of the things that's so nice about Berkeley is the climate, but we can impact that with hardscape.
So those are my comments.
I can't see the clock, so I don't know where I am on time.
Thank you, Kelly.
You have 23 seconds left, so you're perfectly within.
Next up is Janice Good evening.
Thank you for taking my call.
I want to point out that it sounds like you've asked the fire chief to weigh in on evacuation and fire dangers in the hillside overlay, but no one's asked him about fire danger in the rest of the city.
And it seems to me that evacuation plans have to go somewhere, and so if the fire starts coming down the hill and there is fire danger as you move down, other areas are going to be impacted by that.
I was very surprised to see that the max height is now going to be 25 feet, and it sounds like that's going to take away the it was supposed to step down to 20 feet is my understanding along the backyards.
I don't know if that is still in play, but the other question is the fire chief talked about the appropriate ladder angle, and the ladder angle seems to apply no matter whether you're in the fire zone or not.
If you can't get the ladder at the right angle to get to the top of the roof because you have no setbacks and no building separation, it's going to be a problem no matter where the house is.
And just being able to get people out in time, I'm very concerned about that throughout the city.
Thank you.
Thank you, Janice.
That's it.
Sure, and I just want folks to know the reason we're talking about evacuations from the hills is because of the recent study that was specifically looking at that area.
So not to say that we're ignoring the rusticity, we're definitely aware that fire danger is something, you know, there could be a fire anywhere.
Okay, so moving on, but we have that's it for our public comments.
That would be great.
Council comments? Madam Mayor, just given that Council Member Blackabee and myself, I think Council Member Blackabee probably should go first.
I was wondering if we should present our supplementals.
I would only present the one piece of mine relevant to Title 23, but I believe Council Member Blackabee has a lot more.
So sure, I think it makes sense for Council Member Blackabee to present, and then if there's a piece from your supplemental that you'd like to add, then presenting that as well.
Do you have it pulled up by any chance? I do, and I've got a couple comments that I'll pull up.
That sounds good.
Thank you.
Yeah, great.
Just to kind of set the context, I continue to be proudly pro-housing.
I've proudly supported every pro-housing item that's come before the Council, including the ADU item before us tonight.
I'm proud to support all that work.
To me, being pro-housing means focusing on affordability, accessibility, stability, but also safety.
And the fact is, Berkeley faces real fire safety concerns, as we've heard from the Chief and staff tonight.
They impact all of us, particularly the thousands of residents who already right now are living in the high and very high fire hazard zones.
We take this threat seriously, and we're acting to address it while we still recognize that there's much work to do.
That's why, thanks to the leadership of our department, our City Council recently passed the number initiative requiring residents in a very high fire hazard severity zone to implement zone zero and create defensible space in the first five feet around their homes, as well as incentivizing home parking.
The fire department has staffed up an entire WUI division focused on preventing wildfires, supporting homeowners, coordinating with our partners, and pursuing vegetation management along public rights of way.
As we've heard earlier, the fire department recently commissioned an evacuation study, and the results are sobering.
The study estimates that if given just the current level of population density and anticipated growth in the hills, quote, evacuation time estimates indicate that fast-moving fire could overtake people who are still stuck in traffic.
A scenario that the study examined of maximum permissible EV development could increase evacuation time by as much as 102 percent.
For these reasons, the study, on top of, by the way, already an insufficient evacuation time, right, so we're already saying that people will likely not be able to make it out, and then additional density will make the problem even worse.
For these reasons, the study recommended the City Institute separate, more restrictive ADU development provisions in the hillside overlay.
The amendments, which I'll show in a second, proposed by, and I just want to thank my co-sponsors, Mayor Ishii, Council Member Humber, Council Member Keefe, and myself, do just that.
The height and square footage standards meet the minimum state requirements for ADUs, so we meet the state standard, but limit density in the hillside overlay to address the fire threat, while continuing to support more generous standards, which, again, we all support outside of the hillside overlay zone.
But the fact is this is the bare minimum, and frankly, I would want to do more, but ADU law, the state law has tied our hands.
I'd like to propose five-foot setbacks rather than five feet to match the new zone zero defensible space requirements.
I mean, that kind of makes sense in terms of what we're asking homeowners in the high fire zone, but we can't.
I'd like to at least propose and consider requiring on-site parking to reduce the strain of additional parked cars along ingress routes for first responders, but we can't do that either.
Over the past few years, the state has rightfully focused on kick-starting the production of new housing after decades and decades of failed housing policy.
That's been incredibly important, and it is just now beginning to make a difference.
It's beginning to work.
At the same time, we've seen an escalation in the number and severity of devastating wildfires impacting small and large communities across the state and across the country.
As a state, we absolutely need to keep up the momentum of building more housing.
I completely support that, but I believe we need to focus our collective efforts also on building housing where it is safe to do so and give local jurisdictions some ability to adapt our overall pro-housing policy to specific local fire hazard conditions.
Again, this should not be used as an easy excuse to avoid building housing.
I do not believe that.
I do not support that, but we should also build housing as a community with safety in mind.
I'm eager to work with our state partners to that end.
I'd say these amendments are a step in that direction, but I believe are still insufficient to the threat we face, and there's much work to do to bring housing production and fire safety in a better balance here in Berkeley and across California.
So let me share my proposed amendments with my colleagues and myself.
This is in our supplemental, and I want to thank staff for their work and support and help as we thought through the different permutations of this.
Actually, I'm not on Zoom because I took that.
I can't.
My hotspot doesn't work.
I'm happy to bring it up.
The on-site internet is not working for me.
So with that in mind, I'll take that back.
Okay, I can do it right now.
All right, cooking with gas now.
This is great.
All right, so all of the sections in red..
Sorry, that's section 21.
I'll skip that.
Section 23.
All right, so it starts in section 2.
So all of the pieces in red were already in staff's report, so no changes.
The only changes we've done are marked in yellow.
So staff did a lot of work to help us develop some specific findings that lay the groundwork for why we're proposing different standards in the hillside overlay zone.
Again, I won't go through all these in detail, but they talk about the earthquake risk as well as the fire risk, fire history, our structure separation distance here in Berkeley, which is very tight, and what that looks like in the hillside overlay.
And then they talk about the evacuation study and what we've learned from that evacuation study and what injuries density would do given those risks.
The conclusion from the findings is that all these conditions necessitate reasonable limitations on any use of the new overlay.
So that's the findings section.
And in the table, again, all the changes in red are already in staff's report.
Our additional changes are in yellow where, again, within each of the components of existing multifamily dwelling, we have an outside and inside hillside overlay component.
The difference here is that outside the overlay, it's a new construction need to use of detached or attached type within the hillside overlay.
It's detached.
Proposed multifamily dwelling, so this is not for existing, but newly proposed dwellings, outside overlays, two new construction need to use.
And within the overlay, it allows two detached new construction to use.
In section six about the standards, we've retained the existing 850 and 1,000 square foot standard in the hillside overlay.
So rather than roll that back, we said let's keep that.
That's current policy in the city.
Outside the hillside overlay expands as proposed by the planning commission and staff to 1,200.
Building heights, again, it's 25 feet across the board outside.
And inside the hillside overlay, we have a range of 16 to 18 feet depending on the type of view.
And there isn't a 25-foot limit for an attached view depending on building height.
Well, no changes to setbacks, no changes to building separation.
And then beyond the supplemental, this is just my own.
This is not a supplemental.
I'm not speaking for my sponsors.
Separately, we'll make a separate amendment on the rooftop decks to, again, outside the hillside overlay roofs on ABUs.
Maybe design or use a peaceful open space within the hillside overlay rooftop decks on ABUs.
Sorry, can you scroll down a little bit because the captions are just covering that.
There you go.
So this piece in 9D was not in the supplemental.
This was developed with more conversation with staff.
This is my own, and I'm not speaking for my co-sponsors.
This is something we've also developed today.
So we'll be happy to consider this separate from the supplemental, but that's the only one other change.
Apologies, I'm just reading it.
Councilmember Trencum, did you? I think we were in on that.
Yeah, that's it.
Councilmember Casselwani, actually, if you wanted to add, and then we'll go to Councilmember Trencum.
Councilmember, can you just stop sharing? Yes, please stop sharing.
Stop oversharing.
All right.
Okay.
Thank you very much, planning staff and public commenters and Councilmember Blackaby for your presentation.
I just want to note that this is the first time in my memory that there have been three supplemental reports, and every single Councilmember and the Mayor has thrown their hat into this.
I love that we are so engaged on accessory dwelling units, and I'm confident that we will land very well tonight.
So I had three very brief recommendations, two of which we're going to continue to after the summer recess because they relate to Title 21, which we're not discussing this evening.
So the only remaining recommendation that I did just want to briefly go over is related to the definition of new construction.
So the state ADU law, my understanding is that it's unclear on whether accessory dwelling units on multifamily parcels may be either detached or attached.
Staff has recommended that the ordinance simply refers to new construction ADUs, and for the purposes of clarity and posterity and making sure that everybody is clear about what new construction means, we are proposing a footnote to Table 23.306-1 that would clarify that new construction ADUs, again this is related to the state law that says you can do up to eight.
We are wanting to give the clarity that you can have the flexibility to do that either attached or detached from the primary structure or structures and or attached or detached from other accessory dwelling units in any configuration, meaning if you happen to have space for and the allowance to do four ADUs, if you wanted to attach two to a multi-unit building, you could do that and then you could do two others attached.
You can you sort of do this in any configuration.
So that's all we were trying to do there.
I do want to acknowledge Councilmember Blackley proposing differences related to attach and detach for the hillside overlay and I want to hear from my colleagues on that and I'm sure we could do the cleanup that would be necessary to make our intentions clear once we have a sense of where we want to land on all of this.
So I'll pause there for now and look forward to hearing from my colleagues.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councilmember Jacob.
Thank you so much.
I'll start the questions.
This is for Councilmember Blackley.
So I think I now understand this a little better.
It's more cloudy but I wanted to confirm.
So you're saying outside of hillside overlay for multifamily, keep everything the same within hillside overlay, the eight detached new construction ADUs, would that be specifically for, you know, and I guess this could go to both the Councilmember or staff or both, but we're just talking about those.
Maybe you can explain because we're not building new multifamily housing units in the hillside overlay.
So would this be applicable to, you know, parts of existing construction and not just what was required by state law to be permitted? Yeah, and I'll also, we've been, yeah, it's the intention, it's just decisions within or outside of the hillside overlay.
That's the, that's sort of the common nomenclature we've had that sort of are kind of laid out the fire of its own.
And I agree with you, there may not be a time of new development.
So some of these may not be future of the default.
I'll also just remark, we've changed nothing else.
Again, there's a distinction between outside and inside.
We've not changed or decreased anything outside the zone.
So all of these changes outside the zone were what were previously suggested citywide.
So we've said, if you're outside the zone, let's keep whatever was proposed by staff and Council and Planning Commission citywide, let's keep that outside the zone and just make changes within the zone, if that makes sense.
So we didn't touch or change anything outside.
And I don't know if staff wanted to comment on the detached versus new construction delineation on the outside versus within.
Yeah, I'll just say, first regarding Council Member Casarwani's proposal of the new construction footnote, I think her footnote is consistent with staff's interpretation of the existing text of state law and the ordinance as proposed.
We see no problem with the addition of the footnote in order to eliminate any ambiguity.
So that seems fine with us.
There's one given with the addition of that footnote, there's one section of the of the Blackivy, Southern Federal, if I may, where we would delete the clause new construction and have it just say two detached areas in order to eliminate that.
And I'll do that here.
So that's here, this portion.
Sorry, oh, I'm not sharing.
I'll reshare.
Okay, thanks, Paul.
Did you have a question? Yeah, I have, I think one more.
So then within the Hillside overlay, this is going forward, it's two detached new construction ADUs.
So one, I wanted to just, well, the question for staff or maybe Council Member Blackivy is, can you add some color on, you know, what is it specific to the detached nature of an ADU in the Hillside overlay zone that, from your perspective, would lead to heightened fire safety? We'll get to that as well.
The conversation between detached and attached in the Hillside overlay.
Sure, well, I think that what is proposed in the Blackivy supplemental mirrors state law, the minimum requirements in the government code.
The Planning Commission recommended more, a more permissive standard where up to eight new construction ADUs either attached or detached, which is slightly more permissive than what we're obligated to allow under state law.
I think my question is a little different.
It's about the attached versus detached.
Is it the fire separation that we're concerned, like the building to building separation that we're concerned about, which is why what's proposed is two detached new construction ADUs specifically detached? Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
And then, so then to Council Member Kesarwani, and I appreciate the footnote, and I'm curious if you would be open to, I guess a footnote would be specific to, if you were open to the footnote applying to the non-overhilled overlay, the non-hilled overlay areas and then keeping it as detached.
So, you know, we don't have any motions on the floor, but I think that we have, let's just acknowledge that it seems like we're going to land on something different for the cosonic overlay zone.
And if and when we do, I believe Council Member Blackbee has sort of already addressed it because he took out the word, the phrase new construction.
So he defined in the area where he was referring, where he wanted to limit it to detached, he has to just delete new construction.
And then it stands even with the footnote, meaning he's saying only detached ADUs in the hillside overlay zone and then in the last, or the outside of the hillside overlay zone, we keep the phrase new construction.
We've defined it to mean attached or detached, if that makes sense.
Yeah.
And so my comments are that I would support.
This reminds me of being in the middle of the middle housing ordinance discussion.
I feel like we are going to find a middle ground here and that might be that.
And so I just want to commend the authors of both supplementals and look forward to seeing if there can be a motion that synthesizes these two proposals, all of which I support.
Okay.
Council Member Dunbar.
Thank you.
I have two questions for Council Member Blackbee.
I want to follow up on some of the questions that Council Member Turner was hinting at about the attached versus detached ADUs.
I'm curious.
So the premise of this is that separate construction from the main house is more desirable than construction attached to the main house, even if it's four feet away.
Why is that? Again, it has to do as much with density, right, as anything else, which is to say it limits the amount of development that can happen on the parcel, which from a density perspective means fewer people.
But if a lot has eight detached ADUs, how is that less density than eight attached ADUs? Because a given parcel may not accommodate all eight.
So it's saying you can have up to eight, but the parcel may not accommodate all eight.
So because a parcel is more likely to fit the eight attached ADUs versus the eight detached ADUs.

Segment 4

They attach a user up to a whatever number can fit on a carousel gives, provides less density than if they were all attached in whatever number.
Because it's less likely that they'll be able to max out.
Okay, thank you.
That makes more sense.
And then the next question I have, this is a clarification about the building height standards that you're adding.
This is a decrease from the current building standard height, correct? That is so.
What is the current building height standard, do you know? It is, it's 20.
Okay, 20, thank you.
And currently the size of ADU is 850 square feet, so that stays the same.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Great.
Council member Humbert.
Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.
This one's pretty loud.
I don't have any questions, I have some comments.
And first I want to thank Council members Blackabay and Council member Castellawanyi for their supplements, supplementals.
Only a small part of Council member Castellawanyi's remains, but I think it's important.
But I will address my comments primarily to Council member Blackabay's supplemental, of which I'm co-sponsored.
I want to thank him for his presentation.
It's a very clear presentation, has a very clear answer to some of the questions that were posed to him.
And I want to thank him and his staff for the really large amount of work that they've dedicated to this.
Thank you so much.
And perhaps it's obvious because I'm co-sponsored, but I do agree with Council member Blackabay that given the results of the evacuation study and what our fire department has told us, we should keep AU development in the hills close to that that's mandated by the state.
And I'll be candid and say I don't really like this outcome.
I don't like anything that creates a degree of geographic inequity in the city with respect to housing, but I have to pay heed to the data and evidence that are available to us.
And that evidence shows that more people up in the hills will need more congestion and delay fleeing fire.
And we know more larger structures in the hills needs more energy fuel for potential fires.
The structures are huge sources of fuel.
And if contrary evidence comes before us, I'm open to changing this position.
But I think there is a fact-based argument for limiting, not banning, but limiting AUs in the hills to something closer to the standards set by the state rather than the more permissive ones we're adopting outside the hill zones, which I enthusiastically support.
Because the hills, frankly, don't have good transit.
It's just, it's awful.
We've sent letters to AC Transit to no avail.
It's really, really scanty bus service.
And hence, they don't have good transit access to jobs, really not good pedestrian access to jobs.
And it's all houses and not urban amenities.
I'm somewhat less dismayed by this outcome than I would otherwise be.
But I'm still disappointed that climate wildfire trends are pushing us into this position.
But in fact, they are.
I think the square footage limits on the hillside overlay areas suggested by Council Member Blackerby are a reasonable compromise for safety and equity.
I'm a bit more agnostic about the question of height, especially as it relates to attached AUs, but also detached AUs.
I think that square footage is the main thing to control, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to adopt a limit closer to the state standard.
And as we heard from our fire chief, they're probably, you know, it's six and one half dozen or the other.
And maybe actually, I think, better to have a structure that's taller, given the same square footage, because it will be, you know, theoretically separated from its adjacent buildings.
It'll be taller and skinnier and the extra two feet don't make a difference.
So I would be more in favor of a 20-foot limit rather than an 18-foot limit, just hewing to our current standard.
And anyway, I think that's pretty much it.
Well, I guess I respectfully might disagree with Council Member Blackerby on his sort of amendment that he created today about rooftop decks.
We heard from Chief Sprague that, you know, if it's new construction and it's Chapter 7 compliant, he doesn't see a problem with rooftop decks.
So I think, you know, they're very cool and you've got great views of the hills.
So I'd be in favor of, you know, allowing rooftop decks in new construction.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Moving on to Council Member O'Keefe.
Yes.
Thank you very much, Council Member Blackerby, for taking the lead on this.
I'm just happy to co-sponsor your supplement.
I just want to say, I'm pretty sure this is probably clear to most people, but I really want to just return to the basic philosophy of the supplemental, which is this is the minimum required ADU-developed standards that we could pass and still comply with the state law.
That's where this is coming from.
This is consistent with the recommendation of the Fire Chief and with my own approach to what I consider to be a life-scale, a matter of life-scale public safety.
Given the magnitude of the risk that's presented, the risk of wildfire, especially after seeing the evacuation study, I am what I would call a maximalist when it comes to preventing any more density in the fire zone.
And so that approach naturally leads to what we're proposing here, which is what I said, to do just the minimum.
We have to comply with the state law, but nothing more.
So that's all I want to say.
I just wanted to really highlight that as the philosophical underpinning of at least why I'm supporting it and I think why Council Member Blackerby wrote it in the first place.
And I join him.
And also, Council Member Lefkowitz on roof decks.
Sounds like there's some disagreement about that, but it's a marginal thing.
But even the marginal things matter to me.
I really wanted just to take every opportunity to minimize more fire fuel and certainly more density in the house.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member Traita.
I have one, I think, final question.
Just on the height of the two voices or roof decks, is height being defined the same way that just height in general is being defined in the hills overlay, given that there are some non-standard existing conditions, things are inclined? Just wanted to inform.
Yeah, so the height that we are using to determine the height of the roof top decks is the maximum height because they're flat.
So that's consistent with how they measure height for us zoning districts.
Yeah.
So on the height issue, and I'm in the flux, so I'm just going, I'm going to defer to, and sounds like there may be a bit of a disagreement between the Hills Council members on just that one piece, and I am going to defer to the majority of the Hills Council members.
I know that all of us are just trying to find the right balance between maximizing opportunities for housing and reducing fire load.
Thank you.
Yeah, so I think that, I don't think that anyone else is commenting.
Okay, I just wanted to check.
So, oh, go ahead Council Member Wood.
I'm the last, Madam Mayor.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
Just give me a moment here.
Okay.
So I want to thank our planning staff again, the public commenters again, my council colleagues, and I don't think, well, I think Director Klein had stated this, and I just want to reiterate, we're here because the State Housing and Community Development Department sent our planning department a letter last year, noting certain aspects of our existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance were not in compliance with state ADU law.
In addition to making those corrections, there are, as we heard, some additional important changes that the Planning Commission has recommended that have now been incorporated into the proposed ordinance before us tonight.
I just want to speak in support of two of them.
And I also just want to recognize and appreciate that my colleagues haven't asked to alter the standards outside of the hillside overlay zone, because as Council Member Blackabee has said, we need to be flexible where it's safer to do so.
And so I do want to explain, you know, increasing the maximum allowable size to 1,200 square feet, this is the maximum size allowed under state law.
This increased maximum size would give homeowners the flexibility to design a backyard cottage that could be large enough to accommodate a family or accommodate more than obviously what you can get within 1,000 square feet.
It just, it doesn't require you to do a larger ADU.
It simply gives you the flexibility to do so in the event that that makes sense for your family arrangement.
But I think it's also important for all of us to keep in mind that construction costs are very high.
And in my experience, people are not going to build the additional space unless they really need it.
So I think we shouldn't let our rules be the barrier to giving people the living space they may need.
Next, on increasing the height to 25 feet for attached and detached ADUs, you know, again, I think we all agree that that is appropriate outside of hillside overlay zone.
The attached ADUs already have the ability to go up to 25 feet.
So, you know, when I saw that the Planning Commission had proposed that both the attached and the detached should have that same height standard, it did make sense to me.
It seems a little odd to allow a different standard based on whether you're attached or detached.
I don't think people should be changing their decision about their ADU based on how much height they can get and whether they have to be attached or detached.
I think we should give people the flexibility to do things as they see fit for their property.
Maybe, you know, the parcel is designed such that you have the main house at the very front of the parcel, the very little front setback, and they want to have the taller structure at the very back of the parcel and have a shared backyard in the middle.
I don't think we should get in the way of letting people do what they want to do.
And finally, I respect the concerns that Council Member Blackaby expressed in the supplemental report.
I recognize that there were three other council members and two other council members and a mayor who had co-sponsored it, and I do appreciate the specific findings related to wildfire risk.
I think the sort of intellectual struggle that I have is that this council and prior councils have approved remodeled and new large single-family homes in the hillside overlay zone.
Earlier this year, this council approved the demolition of a 2,760-square-foot single-family dwelling and allowed for the construction of a new two-story, 25-foot tall, 3,600-square-foot single-family dwelling at 1048 Keith Avenue.
And I think in the back of my mind, I assume in the back of a lot of our minds, we're thinking, gosh, that's pretty darn big in an area where our fire chief is telling us any new structures poses increased fire risk.
As you can imagine, it's hard to accept that we have no restrictions on the large, unaffordable home.
We ask no questions about how many people are going to be housed in the 3,600-square-feet.
Maybe we make assumptions about that large single-family home and how it will be used, but we are proposing restrictions on small homes that are more affordable by design.
And in my experience, the people making the accessory dwelling units, they're doing it because they just don't have the living space.
They really need it.
So I'm going to wrap up here.
So I think we should keep the current height standard we have for the hills.
I understand Council Member Blackaby has proposed to reduce what we currently have.
Currently, people have the flexibility to do 20 feet.
And we heard from Chief Sprague that 20 feet of height, two additional feet, would not pose a greater fire risk.
And the current height standard for detached ADUs in the hills is 20 feet.
This means that we probably already have a few 20-foot ADUs in the hills.
We could have homeowners who are designing ADUs of 20 feet right now.
And I'm not inclined to take away the flexibility that we are currently providing, especially when we are hearing that there is no increased fire risk.
We also know that 20 feet makes it easier to build a two-story ADU that could take up less space in the yard and potentially create greater building separation.
Thank you, folks.
Okay, I'm really done.
Almost done.
I do appreciate that Council Member Blackaby is proposing to keep the current size standards, not reduce it.
I do appreciate that we want to keep the same standard.
And I do just want to say, Alex, she's speaking, and someone else has given her some time, so let her finish.
Thank you.
If you are an elderly couple who wants to age in place and have their adult child live in the main house, maybe one of them uses a wheelchair, and they need more square footage to maneuver, and they only want one bedroom.
So, you know, that's where I think the Planning Commission was coming from when they removed the bedroom requirements and just said, let's let people design what they need.
So, you know, I'm personally not willing to deny that couple the living space they need to be able to age in place the way they want to.
But, you know, I respect that the will of the Council will move forward.
And can I make it clear on what you're actually, what's your, what are you asking for? I'm making my comments.
I want to make sure I understand the comment that you're making, what you're requesting, if you're requesting something different from..
I'm not requesting anything.
I'm making an argument that I think, let me be more clear.
I think if we're going to do something that keeps this current status quo over the hills, but is more realistic about how people want to live, I think we should just, we know people are going to do a thousand square feet.
They can do it if they do two bedrooms.
What I'm saying is, let's remove the bedroom requirement, and let's just let them go to a thousand square feet if they want to.
It's only 150 square feet more.
I did hear, I got the respect that I heard from Council Member Hubbard, who represents the hillside zone, that he's less comfortable doing that.
I wanted to take my time to explain why I think it's worthy of consideration.
I do want us to land something.
Let me stop, because I've gone way over my time.
That's it for now.
Thank you.
Okay.
Council Member Blackby.
Two points.
I guess, one, on the rooftop, that component, I understand and I hear the feedback on that.
I think that my concern and the concern of others I've talked to is less about the construction of the deck, but also what will be on the deck.
It's the flammability of the chair, whatever.
It's what's on the deck.
That's consistent with what the concern is around zone zero and the area around the side of your home.
Again, to me, it's not the deck itself.
The deck can be built to a great standard.
It's what's on the deck.
Is that actually going to be removed during fire weather? It's the same concerns we have about zone zero and what shows up in zone zero.
That's why I do have a concern about the rooftop deck.
That's why I'm making that point.
Second, I would just make a point.
Santa Barbara has done a similar bifurcation of what we're proposing here.
So I do feel comfortable with the approach that we're proposing, which is in a fire zone, go with a more conservative standard, and outside the fire zone, go with a more generous standard.
So, again, I feel comfortable with what we're proposing and the structure that we're proposing there.
Can I yield to Council Member McKeith, who I think also wanted to address a component about the new construction? Sure, go ahead.
Thanks, Council Member Blackman.
I just have a counter to the argument that Council Member Casarwani brought up regarding the collegiate, like, the credibility of us approving a large construction or a construction of a large single-family home in the hills.
And I think one important thing to realize is that most of the existing structures in the hills are not up to modern fire standards.
And so actually demolishing one and building a modern building is actually a huge win in terms of fire safety.
And right now we're talking about building new structures or not, all of which will be up to modern fire standards.
So that issue isn't at play here, but that is at play when we're talking about demolishing.
So that is actually a different situation.
Okay.
Council Member, just to be clear, I wasn't asking you, I was just trying to understand what you were saying, because I think I agree with parts of what you're saying, but I wasn't fully clear.
So let me just, yeah.
So I want to just make some comments by saying that the reason I joined on to Council Member Humbert's item was because, as was mentioned, we've been doing a lot of work with EMBER.
And it makes sense to me that we would be concerned about this.
We removed from the middle of housing ordinance the hillside overlay.
So I think that there's a bit about being consistent.
At the same time, you know, after thinking about it a bit more and having heard from the chief, I am interested in having there be 20 feet across the detached.
So there's consistency.
And I do understand, I think your point, Council Member Kesawani, about bedrooms is similar to our conversation that we had around the middle housing ordinance, where like, if the square footage can be the same, it doesn't really matter how many bedrooms, it should be kind of consistent across.
But I hear what you all are saying.
I understand different points of this.
And so I'm wondering, folks, if there's a motion.
I don't have a motion, but there's something I wanted to bring up.
Thank you.
I think that what Council Member Kesawani brought up makes a lot of sense.
So I want to defer to her, but I also wanted to say that while we were on ZAB, we approved a new single-family home on an empty lot that was three stories.
And so the point of this isn't necessarily that we approved that specific house that was getting demolished and rebuilt, but simply that our standards for single-family homes do not match our standards for ADUs.
And that doesn't make any sense.
And I just want to add also about the decks, that I'm also supportive of the deck on a new building, because those requirements are stricter in terms of fire safety.
So did you have another comment, Council Member Fletcher? Okay, great.
So my motion is that we accept staff recommendation for the Title 23 changes with the Kesawani-Taplin recommendation, Part 3, that speaks to Title 23, with the Blackview-Humber-Yishuni-Bo'Keefe supplemental as is, plus the rooftop deck piece that I added tonight.
So that's my motion of those three parts.
Staff recommendation, Kesawani, Number 3, Blackview, as is, plus rooftop deck.
Second.
Mayor? Yes.
State? I was like, okay.
I just want to request one further edit to be reflected.
I would like to ask that you also remove from the staff recommendation the amendment to BMC Section 23.306.040C2, which is a reference to Title 21.
So, yeah.
Good catch.
Yeah, the motion could also reflect that deletion, plus that, if that's acceptable to my seconder.
Council Member O'Keefe, is that acceptable to you as well? Yeah, it is.
Okay, great.
And, Clerk, do you have that? Because I know that was a little complicated.
Yes.
Okay, I just wanted to make sure it was clear.
Okay, go ahead, Council Member.
Okay.
I want to thank Council Member Blackabee for that motion.
I'd like to make a substitute motion to adopt the amendments to Title 23 as recommended by staff, except for the proposed amendment to BMC Section 23.306.040C2 that represents Title 21.
Incorporate Council Member Blackabee's proposed amendments in full, except to change the height standard for detached ADUs to 20 feet in all three cases.
So it's 16, 18, and 18 becomes 20, 20, and 20.
And incorporate Council Member Kastelwani's proposed amendment related to the footnote for new construction with the tweak that Council Member Blackabee has already made to strike new construction in a hillside overlay zone.
That's the motion.
Sorry, just a quick clarification, because you didn't mention this, the decks.
Did you have anything different about the decks? Oh, I apologize.
I was going from the prior Council Member Blackabee's proposed amendments, so I guess I would have to change that.
Incorporate Council Member's proposed amendments as published.
Could I do that? Would that be okay? So as published, with your clarification, changing the height for all detached ADUs to 20 feet.
And, sorry, I lost that.
And that's really it.
So I can just repeat it again.
So move amendments.
Adopt the amendments to Title 23 hours recommended by staff.
Accept references to Title 21.
Incorporate Council Member Blackabee's proposed amendments as published.
And to change the heights, except to change the height standard for detached ADUs to 20 feet in all three cases.
And then incorporate Council Member Kastorwani's proposed amendment related to the footnote for new construction.
And I'm leaving out the concept of the bedrooms, because hopefully I want it to be a consensus vote, and I want to take into account some of what I heard from folks.
So that's the motion that's been seconded by Council Member Minnetonka.
That's all, thank you.
I'd be curious to see if Council Member Humphrey has any comments about the bedroom.
Yeah, I'd love to make a friendly amendment to the substitute motion to add the permissibility of rooftop decks.
Although it's already there.
And maybe I should just say it, as published, with allowance for rooftop deck.
So you don't have any comments about the bedrooms.
In an outside overlay zone.
Okay.
Okay.
So I just clarified that it is in there.
Okay.
All right.
So we'll vote on the substitute motion first.
Could you please take a roll call? Procedurally, we should post a public hearing.
I'm going to post a public hearing.
Second.
Post a public hearing.
Council Member Kisarwani? Yes.
Pat McPartlin? Yes.
Very good.
Aye.
Cookie? Yes.
Lackley? Yes.
Lunaphara? Yes.
Humber? Yes.
And Mary? Yes.
Just to clarify, the secondary on the main motion by Council Member Black, it was? O'Keeffe.
O'Keeffe.
Okay.
So voting on the substitute motion by Council Member Kisarwani, Madam Mayor.
Oh.
Before we do that, is it possible to stamper out the part about the decks right now? The deck height? No.
Because it can't be taken separately by itself.
To my knowledge.
That's my understanding, at least.
Well, I might ask planning staff, can you just put the amendment about rooftop deck speed? If that was the only thing being voted on tonight, would that be a valid amendment? Yes.
And it would be severed.
That's good to know.
Very good.
So you want to sever? And can I just, for clarification, can I ask for just the Council Member Black of the proposed language on decks? Can we see that? Sure.
One moment.
Because that's new, right? Yeah, that was just, that was a motion from, yeah, it was not in some amount.
So that's here, it's section eight.
Sorry, section of nine.
Okay.
So the municipal code is amended to read as follows.
Again, the red text was already in staff recommendation.
So what we said is rooftop decks outside the hillside overlay, roofside AVUs may be designed, converted or used as a local space.
All those provisions within the hillside overlay, rooftop decks on AVUs are not permitted.
Okay.
I'm going to ask again, what, what, a vehicle roof deck height apart, what are the remaining principle of what are the remaining differences between the two motions? It's the height.
It's the height.
Oh, it's the 18 to 20, correct? 16 and 18 and 20 versus 20 across the board.
Okay.
I guess the point I would just make to that is that, yeah, The heights, again, are more effective than the density.
So just to be clear on what is, is there a request to sever? On the deck language.
And then the deck language is the same in both motions.
So, so, So, so the customer says all the decks are permitted as in separate work.
The severability is to say whether or not we use my language for the decks in substitute motions to start.
It's that, So since the latest hashed out bonus ending is the substitute.
So do you want to sever the.
Rooftop deck provisions that have a substitute motion.
I would.
Yes.
Yes.
So, yeah, Mr.
What does that mean? Because I just want to do.
What's published in the proposed ordinance.
So we were saying, so when we separate, we go on rooftop deck separately.
What are we voting on? I would think that if you.
Well, okay.
Okay.
So, if you.
The.
Most staff amendments regarding rooftop decks and a substitute motion.
And that motion is that are passed.
That would be that there would be no amendments.
Okay.
So the problem there is we make no amendments.
I think it's nonsensical.
Yeah.
So I think we would have to go back and say, we cannot sever it.
That's what I was saying.
I don't think it was severable because I think that it's okay.
Yeah.

Segment 5

Council member Kesarwani.
Council member Kesarwani.
Yes.
Taplin.
Yes.
Hartman.
Yes.
Yes.
Tregub.
Basque.
O'Keefe.
Abstain.
Blackley.
Abstain.
Lunaparra.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
Mayor Ishii.
Yes.
Council member Tregub.
Aye.
Okay, that motion carries.
Okay, thank you.
Thanks, everyone.
Thank you, staff.
Appreciate it.
I know we're going to come back to you for the other matter later.
All right, I need like a 10 minute break.
So we're going to take a 10 minute break.
Everyone have a stretch.
We're going to come back.
We have one more item left on the agenda.
That's item 29.
Okay, thank you.
Thanks, everyone.
All right, we are moving on to Item 29.
Ordinance vacating a portion of Crossing Street from Westerly Terminus extending 381.23 feet easterly.
Oh, we're missing our city manager.
Okay.
Okay.
I know there's a presentation for this, but I was going to ask him a question.
So we will wait a bit, actually.
Okay, since he's on the phone, we can take public comment.
I can open the public hearing and let's take public comment.
Is there any public comment on this item? Item 29.
If you have public comment, please line up.
And actually, you can, first person, you can come on up.
Yes.
Thank you for your time.
Go ahead and pull the mic up so we can hear you better.
Thank you.
Thank you for your time, Council Members.
My name is Thad Boyd.
I am with the Zio Ordinance as well.
I work at Pelham Street in Camden.
I'm homeless.
I've been in Berkeley for about six years.
What I do is I provide service, not to mention, well, basically service, blankets, clothing, things that people need out there.
It's rough, especially at night, there's people coming to me.
I've been in a safe house for about six years, and you know, I provide the service of peace, and I'm asking for at least a 36-month extension.
I have a number of things to move, and they take my things about 16 times, and that's all I'm really actually doing, is helping out young women, so to speak, and serving the community.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
As soon as someone finishes, you can come up.
Okay.
Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members.
My name is Travis Smith.
My family have moved to Berkeley, and I'm still living in Camden.
I have a number of things to move, and they take my things about 16 times, and that's all I'm really actually doing, is helping out young women, so to speak, and serving the community.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
As soon as someone finishes, you can come up.
Okay.
Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members.
My name is Travis Smith.
My family have moved to Berkeley in 1957.
I currently have been living in Berkeley for 50 years.
The Garfield Street, they provide good services for the homeless that need to survive, clothing, socks, tents, tarps when it rains, everything that a homeless person needs to survive, and I'm asking that it be possible that you guys meet me by Friday at a six-month extension on vacation.
Thank you.
My name is Lynn.
I'm in District 5, and I noticed that there's a picture here of a Carl Street vacation.
What a cynical thing to say.
They mean vacating it, clearing it, sweeping it, cleaning it, and right next to it is Bear, and we're being asked to let Bear, the bot, Monsanto and Roundup Ready and pesticide making.
They have one of the biggest polluters in the world, and we're going to give them this little strip of space that some poor people are trying to find a place to live out of the cold, and where will they go? Where will they go? There may be 500 people, 1,000 people, and only 50 beds.
Where are the beds? Where are you going to set them? Next door? This is inhuman, and to give this to Bears.
Thank you.
Hello.
I don't stay on the phone, but I'm here to support them, because Michael is a friend of mine.
I've known him for about five years, and he and I have been, abnormally, I don't even know what word to use, targeted by this thing.
He's 16 times swept in, and just in the past seven months, I've been asked to move eight times.
So, he just needs more time.
He's got to come away with too much stuff.
I mean, I need to move now, because they decided that where I was staying was a park.
So, I'm just asking to give him some more time to move his stuff, because there's still a lot of stuff.
It's a whole store.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
I also have another minute for one of these.
Is he here? Yes.
Okay, thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Linda Davis at his director of biotech partners.
Biotech Partners provides a nationally recognized biotech academy in Berkeley High School.
Most of our Berkeley High School Academy students are from income challenged families and were faced with food, home and transportation insecurity.
Through its development agreement with the city of Berkeley, there has funded biotech partners to train young people for quality biotech jobs here in the Bay Area.
Quality jobs in the biotech health business sectors that pay more than a living wage are in both sectors and have opportunities for advancement.
Some of our alum have worked at their over 25 plus years.
We have found there to be a committed partner making a difference in the lives of our students and community.
There has gone beyond buying dollars to providing the necessary technical support such as wraparound services and paid internships and valuable introductions at the local, state, national levels to advance our mission.
We understand there's need to protect their people, operations and their patients.
We understand and support their desire to have a secure campus that includes the roads where they own property on both sides of the street.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello, Council.
My name is Jennifer Cogman and I'm with Baird.
I have asked for an extra minute from our colleague, Yang Tseng Zai, who is in line.
Baird is a biotech manufacturing campus and the majority of our 850 employees have not completed college.
And we're the most diverse site in the global network.
We make medicines for people with inherited complex bleeding disorder and in countries in more than 50 countries.
And we're also working on a new cell therapy for Parkinson's disease.
Through our development agreement, as Ms.
Linda mentioned, we pay roughly a million dollars per year in community investments, and that's over and above our $10 million in property taxes.
About Carleton, we purchased 811 Carleton at the end of 2024, and it was always our intention to request a vacation of this small portion of the street.
This approach mirrors how we build the streets across our 46 acres, where we own property on both sides of the street and there's no food traffic.
We like to take that over from the city so that you don't have to maintain a road that is mostly servicing our people.
We look forward to maintaining that street and building a bioswale to deal with surface water runoff in the Carleton corridor.
And we're thankful to the city for the outreach that they're conducting to those who are living in the public right-of-way who've been there since January.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And sorry, who did you have your minute from again? That's my thought.
So you know you can't give another comment.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
I think the word that I'm supposed to use this evening is amnesty.
This is still an issue that a lot of people have wrongfully been flushed like a turd.
And life does not get better when forced to move.
And I think that with the unethical disposal of everything, the CDC should probably be notified.
Because I've seen purple dozers take buckets of paint and smash them and mix and trash electronic waste.
And that's a huge concern of mine.
I'm a recyclologist.
And right now I'm using my space at the Carleton place as a maker space.
Thank you.
I'm going to need a minute.
Okay.
I still haven't seen any indication that this city is making any effort, genuine or otherwise, to find any alternative places or places for the population that is currently living on Carleton to move to when this vacation was executed.
Communication is key.
Regardless of what those people may look like on the outside, they look red, just like the rest of us, and just like all of you out there.
They are humans and they deserve to be treated as such.
At the very least, tell them well ahead of time exactly what date they have to move by.
The city of Berkeley has a contract with BATS for provision of various homeless services.
But time and time again, various unhoused residents of Berkeley have told the city council that BATS is not doing their job.
There was even a news story covering the awful job performance of BATS regarding their contract with the city of Berkeley and still nothing changed.
Just today, I found out that about three months ago, Wayne from BATS went down to Carleton in a white city of Berkeley car and asked everyone who lives on that street if they want housing.
Literally every single person living in that encampment said yes.
Wayne then showed up again the following Monday.
I'm going to need another minute.
Thank you.
He showed up the following Monday, driving an Audi, and spent some time talking with one of the residents.
He then told all the residents that he would be back to do paperwork and assessments with them.
That was three months ago.
Absolutely no one has been back to talk to them about getting housing or any other services since then.
To this day, Wayne has had more interaction with people living on Carleton than anyone on the Homeless Response Team has.
In September of 2013, I conducted a census on all 17 members of my community who live on the Albany Polk by myself, using copies of the Seattle and Sheltered Needs Assessment that I had printed out at Office Depot using my own money.
As a result of this, I had data about all the residents, such as basic demographics like age, gender, and ethnicity, ways of time homeless, causes of their homelessness, ways of time living in Albany, ways of time living in Albany at the time, disability issues, status, etc.
I then sat down with all the papers and entered all the information onto a spreadsheet using my phone, therefore making all the information easily extrapolated should anyone ask for it.
Granted, it was only 17 people, but I did that by myself while homeless myself, without any financial incentive.
If I could do that, then the HRT could do better than they have been doing.
The city isn't really doing this to merely pass the buck on to Bader.
I would send the HRT down to really talk to the people who live on Carleton, convert their needs, and actually help them to have an alternative instead of moving on to some other sidewalk or back alley.
I know it's not possible to go back in time to do things right from the start, but the HRT has to start doing their job right someday.
Why not start tomorrow with the community that is currently living on Carleton? We could do better.
You can do better.
We all must do better.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello, Council.
We have less than a minute.
I'm Rebecca Grove from Horses and Workshops.
We provide youth job training and operate two-level cycles, a youth bicycle shop in Berkeley's Aquatic Park.
Here is a development agreement with the city of Berkeley.
Bader has funded our organization to provide services to people and helping people avoid homelessness.
We give free bicycles and bike repair service to people who need them.
We also help the homeless youth in our program secure housing.
We have found Bader to be a good partner, making a difference in our community.
We support Bader's efforts to support the health of the lagoon.
We also support Bader's desire to have a secure campus that includes the roads where they own property on both sides of the street.
We understand their need to protect their people, operations, and patients, and we admire that they make access for people living with hemophilia and working on self-therapy for people suffering from Parkinson's disease right here in Berkeley.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Kirsten Schwartz.
I've been a Berkeley resident since 1991.
It was not easy to come here tonight.
Last city council meeting I attended was in October of 2023, where I was already arrested here.
And last day in California, we decided to publish a full short film, which you can see here.
I came here for the first time, and there was quite a number of questions.
The second point that I want to make is, is this relevant to this item that we're on? Is this related to the item? No, it's referring to the specific item number 29 on the agenda.
Yeah, so I want to get to that.
And actually, as a result, speaking of homeless, I became homeless on November 7th last year.
And I've been living in my car ever since.
Can somebody else give me their minute, please? I'm sorry, I don't think there's someone who can.
Okay, I will be back after this, and make a point about..
Thank you.
About..
Yes.
Human trafficking, because that is the reason why..
I'd like to speak about human trafficking.
Later, we'll have an office agenda.
Thank you very much.
Go ahead.
Help me understand.
Help me understand.
Are we talking about the city of Berkeley giving Bayer, who's connected with Monsanto, who makes Roundup for free, displacing unhoused people, who the city of Berkeley has refused to give any sanctioned place to go, who has..
The HRT, who has not done their job, reading that report tonight, they're not giving dumpsters.
Don't look at 8th and Harrison Street.
They're not providing toilets.
And you are going to give Bayer, that is connected with Monsanto, are you listening to yourselves, for free? And you will not give the people of Berkeley who need homes a place to bring their children and live safely.
Terry Tafflin, do you hear me? You are my representative.
We still have to ask Councilmember Kennedy.
I'm sorry.
He's my representative.
He does not respond.
It's disgusting.
Okay, next speaker.
Hi.
I presume, I'm speaking in individual capacity, I presume that the city has good reason for making this decision, but we're back in the same position again, repeatedly, oh, we're over again.
Where are the people going to go? Who's going to work? Are people going to the homeless response team? Is someone going to come up to them and actually offer them a place to stay? Based on a report that I have had, something that was referred to me from a District 1 homeowner who contacted me, he's trying to help somebody who hasn't been contacted in about three years, last for housing, but they've fallen aside in the system.
So how are we going to take care of additional people and give them a place to stay? Well-educated people in this community don't understand our homeless system because it's so complex and everyone says, what do we expect? People who are homeless with various challenges, whether literacy or cognitive challenges, when they have to deal with years of homelessness, think down to the top.
We have to get an assistant.
Thank you.
I have an assistant from college over there.
Again, thank all of you and thank everyone here.
As I mentioned a bunch of times, there's a lot of people on this planet and in this city and they have different gifts they're giving and different challenges they're presenting and our city can become a stardom.
The reason why I really keep from crying as I witness the patience with regard to the internet, the meticulousness with regard to all the rules and specifications about ADUs, it's confounding to be a human being, but I'll tell you something.
I don't have any patience right now for the people, attend some that I know personally, that I literally have to watch almost die or die or be in jeopardy of dying.
I don't have patience anymore because each life matters here now and each human being on this planet, even if it's just my, I don't know, foot and a half width, need that space to stand.
And I've mentioned this before.
And I understand all the rules and rights and, I don't know, three feet and nine feet and I don't know, setbacks, etc.
But if there is no safe space for a human being to be safe, who is then re-traumatized? Again, Gordon did this experiment.
Just imagine.
It was the first meeting that I went to.
I said, oh please, or God forbid there's an earthquake, y'all will get to experience what I personally have and what I've witnessed.
I can build something and have something like within a week.
Please help me.
Indeed.
Are there any more comments on that? Yes.
On my vote comments for item 129, first is Leslie Berkler.
Leslie.
Hi, can you hear me? Yes.
Leslie Berkler from the Women's Daytime Drop-In Center.
I wanted to kind of acknowledge the complexity of the issue with Carlton Street.
I am grateful to Bayer who, with the City of Berkeley, provided development funds for our Bridget House in 2004.
And since 2004, we've been able to put 80 families into permanent supportive housing because of having that site rehabbed.
We also have been given a six-year contract of a small subsidy from Bayer to be able to help our homeless families in Berkeley since there's not enough city and state funding to go around.
So I want to say that I really appreciate the support of Bayer.
And I also want to request the continuation of the City staff looking for another Horizon Transitional Village like the one that Dorothy Dayhouse had a couple years ago because I think that's low.
Hello again, Mayor and Council Members.
This is Beth Rossner on behalf of the Berkeley Chamber to share our support for Item 29.
Bayer has been a part of Berkeley's economy and community for decades.
Through their development agreement with the City, they contribute about a million dollars a year to programs focused on STEAM education, climate action, and public health, especially in West Berkeley.
Their plan to fold in this short section of Carleton now that they own the properties on both sides of the street is a logical step in their campus planning.
It also takes the responsibility for street maintenance off of the City's plate.
We recognize the homelessness crisis is real and complex, and we trust the City to continue addressing it with urgency and care while also supporting long-time partners like Bayer.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Other comments? Next is Cheryl Baffler, a former Councilman.
Hello, I'm here.
So Bayer, yeah, they've been here a while.
I've been here 44 years.
They already have a large footprint, and now you're going to allow them to colonize, be a settler colonial footprint, move the unhoused.
It kind of sounds like it's not real, a.k.a.
Israel, and how they're dominating and controlling what and moving people out of places where they live.
And I also have an extra minute for my husband, Robert, who is also online with his hand raised.
Again, Bayer, like they said, is Monsanto, Roundup, also is GMO, which also genetically modified foods and things, which we know isn't going to be good for us and is not good for the planet.
It contaminates everything around it.
So why would you give a multibillion, probably trillion dollar company a piece of street space where there is a community of people living? It's in a redlined area.
You need to stop doing this to people within these lines and stop acting so discriminatory and hateful towards parts of our community who live on the streets, in their RVs, provide services.
And it's shameful, shameful, shameful that Peter Ragu, as I call him, isn't doing his thing.
We have to stop him.
That's the last comment.
Okay, thank you.
Earlier, I'm sorry, we jumped the gun, and you weren't sitting back here.
I wondered if you could please speak to what the city is doing to try and support people across the street.
Sure.
Sorry about that.
The HRC has been and will go and will continue to go down to Carlton Street to talk to people who are there and figure out who's there, put together a list of names and cross-reference that with what services people are eligible for in the system, hopefully connect people with those services that they may be eligible for, and continue that work as they can moving to you.
Thank you.
And could you speak to, you know, if you have any information about how many times they've gone, or if there are any shelter beds available, that would be helpful.
Yeah, well, shelter, you know, it's constantly in flux.
There is not much shelter right now.
So it's going to be sort of the same type of matching exercise of looking at what shelter beds are available at the time that they're talking to people and seeing what people are interested in doing.
Thank you.
Council Member Tefft? I've received a minute from this gentleman.
I'm sorry, but you've already spoken, and we're fedulars, I'll let you on this.
I'm really sorry, 15 seconds.
We've actually moved on already.
I'm really sorry.
This has to do with the imminent domain of the boundary.
It's also a major space.
I'm really sorry, but your comment period's already ended, and we're in the middle of council comments, so I apologize.
But Council Member Campbell? I'm going to close while I'm hearing.
Second.
Okay.
The vote has never been so loud.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Are there comments? I have no comments.
I have no comments.
I have no comments.
So there are no other comments.
I just wanted to speak to what I said at the previous meeting, but just in case folks weren't there, that we've been advocating for Measure W funds, and tomorrow the County Board of Supervisors is going to be taking a vote.
I believe that at the last meeting that they agreed on 80% of the Measure W funding going towards homeless services and housing, so I am very excited about that.
And I just want folks to know that we are really actively looking for a place for people to go.
This is a huge concern.
And we have this conversation often.
So I really thank you all for your public comments.
And with that, I think if Council Member Bartlett is still online, then we will need to take roll.
Okay.
To approve the second reading.
Council Member Gastelwald? Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Thank you.
That was our final item for the evening, but there is still public comment for items not listed on the agenda, and I know that there is someone here who would like to speak.
Yes.
You will have two minutes to speak.
So, this is something that does not come new to me, but I think this needs to be addressed.
I'm a survivor of virtual abuse, human trafficking, and financial trouble.
This is something that is going on right in the city of Berkeley, right under our noses as we speak.
And the reason ..
Well, I'm sorry.
I can't hear you.
I'm listening.
Is that OK? Yeah, that's fine.
We're being recorded.
Oh, you're on mute.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
I can't hear you.
I'm sorry.
I can't hear you.
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
I can't hear you.
OK.
I'm sure we're all hearing you.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Yeah.
OK.
I'm sorry.
No, no, no, no.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.

Segment 6

I actually ended up homeless, it's because my perpetrators were able to make deals with the city, basically.
You know, I'm not very good at public speaking, so what I had prepared, I kind of, I lost my train of thought.
So I basically came here unprepared, but it was like a last minute decision, and I feel like I have to start speaking out.
I've had threats through my life, and I think people did not expect me to make it this far and to appear tonight.
I think at this point, I'm going to kind of wrap up this conversation, but I would like to take the remaining time and be silent for the victims in Gaza and also for all the people that are still being trafficked.
Thank you.
I love Berkeley.
It's a city of people.
It's wonderful.
Lots of flowers.
And today was the most beautiful summer day that I've ever known.
It feels like I lived that day a thousand times, and it was less than a thousand more.
I have a request of joy to the artists and joy to the art.
Every time there's a homeless artist, there's a danger of losing their masterpieces, their work.
It's happened time and time again, and I'm not looking forward to facing that day for myself, which is why, if there was any one thing that I could ask of the people of Berkeley, and that would be to sustain an artist in a situation where the art would be safe, because I value that in my own life sometimes, and nobody wants to be wasted.
Nobody wants to lose everything.
The art itself is speaking for itself at times, and I can't wait to show what I have discovered.
So that being said, it would need to be done under an ethical way with rules and things, and money would be needed for that.
Some of the places that they have, those little dead-end streets, are just empty and could be civilized in a fashion more comfortable to them, and more comfortable to artists and makers, and perhaps people going to their schools.
Thank you.
I was interested to find a report on that table there, of Julia Wong's audit of the homeless response team, and I think it's really enlightening, and I really recommend that everybody in the room tonight, and all of you study this well, because Julia Wong has a really good sense of, I'm on the Berkeley Mental Health Commission, and I've been wondering why the Berkeley Mental Health Department didn't have their homeless response team anymore, lack of staffing, and so somehow the city manager took over that job, and obviously it is not up to it.
Are there any social workers or anybody of compassion on any of the response team? Do they go out? The opportunities that she speaks of in the last Berkeley Times issue are very great and very deep, and as a commissioner, to give advice about mental health issues, I feel like it is my duty.
I have sworn to uphold the city's mandates to take care of our people, and if this homeless response team is not doing their job, why not? Why is the city council getting money to police surveillance things, and pennies, and no hiring of people to do this job? It was taken away because it wasn't being done, and it still isn't being done.
I'm really concerned that, you know, is this real? This is not the way it should be.
I really respect Julia Wong's understanding, and I think this is a big, important thing.
You should put this on the council agenda next time, anytime, as soon as possible.
This is not going to get worse.
It's going to get better as people lose their homes.
Thank you for your comment.
Her name is actually Jenny Wong, is the auditor's name.
Actually, she was supposed to give that report earlier today, but we had technical difficulties at our special meeting, so we are going to have her come back, just so you know.
There will be a report later, in public, yes, for everyone during a special meeting.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
When I first heard Auditor Wong speak, I said, wow, you make auditing sound interesting.
I have always looked forward to hearing from you.
What I want to mention is block cameras and their connection to volunteer and connection to ICE.
They all are very much connected.
Since federal agencies have a way of extracting information from local agencies to give to ICE and enable ICE to visit those block cameras, block cameras have blocked out a whole bunch of the country now.
Their connection to ICE is just irrefutable.
Volunteer also, their connection to ICE is all connected in various ways.
I'm not making it very clear right now, but there will be a presentation at some point from the police accountability board on the connection to ICE.
ICE is becoming a big threat to this country right now.
I mean, it sincerely scares what they're doing and what they plan to do.
Like I said, the person today was taken to the hospital, released from the hospital, ICE arrested him again.
He's somewhere, he's going to need to be visited there.
But block cameras really need to be looked into.
Please look into that.
It's crucial for people's security and people's well-being.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yes, Cheryl Dablow, former counselor.
So yeah, block cameras, surveillance.
What does that sound like? Sounds like it's not real.
Fascist tactics coming, invading Berkeley.
And the way that you just give things away to multi-billion dollar corporations.
When you have a whole, like the whole aquatic park is for biotech.
And what is it? Empty, vacant, nobody's, no businesses are there.
Why can't Bear move over there? That might serve them well.
And also, I want to take the rest of my time, which I can't see how much is left because you don't show us the clock for a moment of silence for all the martyrs in Palestine.
And the recent martyr today by settlers, when he was trying to protect his land, his homeland, his property, killed by Zionist settlers in Palestine, in Gaza.
So, this silence for Palestine, free us all from the isms that keep us apart.
I'm praying for Berkeley City Council to be non-Zionist.
Hello, this is Kelly Hammergren.
I think of all the times that I've watched city council remotely.
Tonight is the absolute worst sound system, and it's just been really difficult to follow the meeting.
I couldn't really tell whether you actually did the homeless meeting or not, because on my screen so much of the time.
It was just blank and looking through the captioners record is just indiscernible indiscernible indiscernible.
So I would be interested in hearing are we going to hear from Jenny Wong after recess that would seem to make the most sense, since you all go on recess tomorrow.
And then, in closing, I would highly recommend that all of you pick up the book.
One day, everyone will say they were always against this by Omar Aqid.
It's a very powerful book, and if you're only going to read one book on Palestine and Israel, that's the one I recommend out of the 24 I've read.
Thank you.
Thank you, Kelly.
Is that the final comment? I just want to confirm what I said earlier, which is that we weren't able to finish the special meeting, which was a presentation from both the response team and our auditor Jenny Wong.
And so we will be returning to that, having another special meeting.
I apologize for folks.
I know the sound has been so bad, and we are working on both fixing it and also working with the district on just figuring out what's going on.
So thank you very much.
Is there a motion to adjourn? Second.
Can you please take the roll? Okay, to adjourn.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
All right, thank you, everyone.
I will see you all after the meeting is adjourned.