Transcription

October 13, 2026 · 7:00 PM

Document Information

Whisper version: 3
Generated: October 14, 2026
Archive URI: berkeley_b1fc0044-08d9-4f87-b296-b1c0cb6b0b1a.ogg

Segment 1

Segment 2

Bars. The city must take serious and immediate steps to improve pedestrian safety for all Berkeley residents and visitors, including the elderly couple from Barcelona who were the latest victims of a hit and run on University. Two obvious places to start are better lighting and consistent traffic enforcement. Repainting the faded crosswalks all over town would also help. This needs to be a top priority and not just a long-term goal. The statistics are appalling. We're close to or at the top of the list of similar cities for such injuries. I urge you to imagine how you'd feel if you or your loved ones became victims of this ongoing traffic violence. Keeping its citizens safe is the first duty of any government. The status quo is simply not acceptable. We need to change it now. Thanks. That concludes non-agenda public comment. There is another non-agenda public comment period at the end of the meeting. There's another non-agenda comment period at the end of the meeting. Thank you. Sorry, I couldn't quite hear you. Okay, so it is the first meeting of the month, and so are there any public comments from employee unions? Anyone online from an employee union that would like to speak? Please just raise your hand. I don't see anyone. Okay. Okay. We will move on to the consent calendar then. Oh, just turned on the parliamentarian. Okay. All right. Moving on to the consent calendar, council members. Anyone? Okay. Councilmember Blackaby. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just had a couple of quick comments on consent. On item 10— Please, as you're walking out, if you could please keep your conversations down, Kelly, please. On item 10, the BORT Adaptive Sports and Rec 50th Anniversary Celebration, the item from Councilmember Taplin, I wanted to relinquish $100 from our office account towards that event. And on item 11, the Creations Berkeley tour, sponsored by Councilmember Bartlett, we also wanted to relinquish $100 from our office budget towards that item. And then I had one request around information reports. There's three really good chock-full-of-data housing-related reports, number 18, 19, and 20, and was asking consent, and I think I need a couple of colleagues to support, if we could pull those to action just for the purpose of having a quick discussion and some Q and A. There's some really good data about our progress on building affordable housing in Berkeley, and I wanted to at least highlight that. So if there were a couple other colleagues— Yes, I'm happy to pull that as well. Okay. So, Madam Mayor, we'd want to put it maybe around when Director Gillman is doing the other item. We could kind of do it in that sequence. Yeah, I think that makes sense, because I think what I'd like to do for our action calendar is have our former business from the— oh, sorry, where is it? Oh yes, thank you, our old business, which was item 15, moved up to the beginning, and then we could have the environmental health item and then those items. Great. Yeah, sounds good. Thank you. That's all I had. Okay. All right, moving on to Councilmember Bartlett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I want to thank the Vice Mayor for your item tonight around the Hate Week, happy to be a co-sponsor on this one, around Against Hate Week. And briefly wanted to, the BORP Adaptive Sports and Recreation 50th anniversary, I'd like to give $200 office. And of course, thank you everyone for considering this great group of kids dance group going to L.A., item 11, Creations Berkeley. And I think that's about it. Thank you very much. Moving on to Councilmember Tregub. Thank you, Madam Mayor. First of all, I want to appreciate Councilmember Taplin for including me as a co-sponsor on item 10, and I would like to contribute $150 out of my G13 account to item 11 by Councilmember Bartlett. Thanks for bringing that forward. On item 4, I understand that this is a contract amendment. I would just like to appreciate the great work that Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency has done at the McKinley House and all across the city. Thank you to BOSS for all your work. I really appreciate my colleagues supporting my item, a resolution in support of Proposition 4, the California Fair Elections Act of 2026 on the November 3rd general election ballot, which is item 12. Prop 4 will allow other cities and counties in California to have similar opportunities that we have here in Berkeley for fair, publicly funded elections. And lastly, I just wanted to, if I may ask the city manager if he could just confirm that on item 1, it would be with the amendment to the timeline for the first report that the council adopted at its previous meeting. Yes, Councilmember, that's right. The first report would come to you in November, as we said at that last meeting. It would be November 17th, that first meeting in November, and then subsequent reports would come in March, starting not that few months later, but the following March. Thank you, and no further comments. Thank you. We're going to go to Councilmember Kesarwani and then online to Councilmember Humbert. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. I'd like to be recorded as donating $100 to the BORP Adaptive Sports and Recreation 50th anniversary celebration, and thank you, Councilmember Taplin, for that item. And I'd also like to be recorded as donating $100 to Creations Berkeley for the dance group. Sounds like it's a road trip. Okay, great. And thank you, Councilmember Bartlett, for that one. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Humbert. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to, with respect to item number 10, the BORP Adaptive Sports and Recreation 50th anniversary celebration, I'd like to relinquish $100 from the DA office account. Thank you, Councilmember Taplin, for bringing that. Item number 11, brought by Councilmember Bartlett on Creations Berkeley, would like to relinquish also $100 from the DA account to contribute to that. Resolution, number 12, resolution in support of Proposition 4. Thank you, Councilmember Trigub, for bringing this item. Public financing of elections is good public policy, and I'm in favor of extending this privilege to all cities. In California. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We're going to go to Councilmember O'Keefe. Parliamentarian keeps kicking you out of the queue, but you are there. No, I'm in it. I'm number 31. Oh, yes. I'm going to build us an— I've been building doing microelectronics. I'm looking forward to that. Go ahead. Yeah, I just have— thank you, Mayor. I just have two quick— three quick comments. I'd like to donate $100 to item 10, $100 to item 11 from our office account, and I just want to thank Councilmember Tregub for item 12. That's it. Thank you very much, Councilmember Lunaparra. Thank you. I'd like to donate $150 to both items 10 and 11, and thank you for authoring them. Thank you very much. I'm also going to add $100 to item 11, and then also thank Councilmember Tregub for item number 12, as I don't know if I would be here if we didn't have public financing. So thank you very much. All right. We are now going to go to public comment on information items or consent items only, please. Come on up, Kelly. Okay, and I have two more minutes, and I'll take another one if anyone wants to give me one. Okay. Someone's giving you a minute in the back. Okay. You have four. Thank you. All right. So I'm commenting on item number 2, the San Pablo specific plan, which is your second reading tonight. And the San Pablo specific plan is going to impact Berkeley for decades to come. And I think it earned more than a 10-minute presentation, and I think it deserved a lot of questions that weren't asked. And I ask you to consider some reconsideration of that San Pablo specific plan. And that is, number one, that you approved moving affordable units to 120% of AMI, and I ask that you limit that number to no more than 10% of the units in affordable housing building. I ask that you return the family units to 50%, as you heard Margaret Ernst say at your last meeting, that it was very difficult to rent the one-bedroom and the studio apartments, and that we have a really big need for affordable family units. And those of us from the community really had misunderstood the intent of the city. We thought it was going to be family units and affordable, not family units or affordable. And I really wish that you would put those two together, family and affordable, at the Muni sites. We also took out the 50 feet of commercial space at the street level in the front, and this was really to encourage activity on the street so people would enjoy and feel comfortable walking on the street, and that was removed, and I would ask that that be returned. It was a long discussion at the Planning Commission to encourage the first 50 feet as for commercial space for street activity. The Planning Commission also had long discussion on removing the density standard and to put that as no minimum on the density standard, so that on different site lots, especially awkward-shaped lots, there could be flexibility in design, whereas it was brought down from 145 to 100 units per acre. The Planning Commission recommended that it be no minimum for that flexibility. Open space and gathering space should not be an incentive; it should be a requirement. If there is anything that you pick up today on health and community, it is about open space and gathering space. In fact, it was in the book Superagers when I left the meeting on the 29th and I picked up where I left off, and it was on mental health. And mental health was measured with access to nature, and that access to nature can actually be measured in reduced emergency room visits. This is critical. It is important. And the NatureScore, they suggest it should be above 80. I put in my zip code here in Berkeley and it came up as 39. I ask that you reconsider these items and have discussion about it so that we can have the best for Berkeley. Thank you. Council, just two minutes. William Powick and Carol Marasovic. I am here to speak on consent item number two, the second reading of San Pablo Plan, and what I think is a significant abuse of ethics and discretion on the part of this council when they pass the amendment. I was appalled at Councilmember Kesarwani's conduct at the last hearing on this matter, and so should you, given the referendum that you proposed today. How many times are you going to let CM Kesarwani bring in substantial amendments to a plan at the last minute without not one of you even objecting to it? I get that some of you agree with the outcome, but the fact that you let her abuse the process and the Brown Act is insulting to the constituents you and she claim to represent. Clearly, it gives you no chance to check her data. I submit that these significant last-minute changes to height, FAR, unit per acre density in the SPA, as proposed, are a violation of the Brown Act. Kesarwani is laughing right now. That shows how disregard she is to the constituents that she claims to represent. What's worse is her M.O., and you continue to let her do it. At each significant proposal before you, she comes in with a last-minute amendment. Do you understand you're telling Berkeley that litigation, referendum, and complaint to higher office are the only thing that force you to listen to constituents? You spend all your time thanking staff instead of asking the hard questions. If you'd research them, perhaps you'd understand how harmful these changes are. It is this game that this Kesarwani pulls at every controversial proposal, which is plain insulting to Berkeley. Let her laugh. Keep on laughing. She clearly had time to speak with the Planning Commission staff and the Planning Department before about the amendment, and yet she first presented it to the public on the dais. This council never portrays her childish Trump-like rants, such as the one that happened last time, even though your rules say you should. Should she unreasonably berates well-intended citizens who supply facts in opposition to her process, her ethics, and her data. More importantly, despite her claims, she does not represent the interest, care about her D1 constituents, the unhoused, the disenfranchised, and those who cannot afford housing. She's smiling. She thinks this is funny. She clearly cares more about her social media. I don't expect this will make much difference today because you've chosen to put it on the consent calendar. Many of you have hopes for higher office. But one thing has happened because of Kesarwani and insensitivity and disparagement, there are more neighborhood associations that have risen up, and we're going to be here until 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Dr. Stephen Alpert. The actions of this council regarding construction of new housing are profoundly disappointing. The San Pablo Specific Plan, similar to the pending three-quarters upzoning, purportedly provides affordable housing for families. Indeed, council members proudly proclaim they support housing for families. However, as documented by Kelly Hammergren in her detailed activist diary post on October 9, the vast majority of new housing approved by the city's Zoning Adjustment Board, whose members you appoint, allow for studio and one-bedroom units. For example, the 11-story structure recently approved for 2900 2029-2920 Shattuck has 242 units, of which 219 are studios, only 13 are two bedrooms, and one, only one unit is three bedrooms. That building will not provide housing for families. Stop this farce. Councilmember Tregub and Mayor Ishii support Councilmember Kesarwani's proposal to allow developers to remove the small percentage of on-site affordable housing mandated by state density bonus and instead pay in-lieu fees to the housing trust fund. City staff, along with paid consultants, spent several years formulating the San Pablo Specific Plan, engaging with the community members to offer their vision for the transformation of San Pablo Avenue. The resulting ideas and recommendations were disregarded by this council. Similar to the Hopkins Bike Plan, majority of council members simply disregard and ignore information and real-world data that contradicts your predetermined agenda. These public comment sessions are now entirely performative. We pretend to listen to us, but have already predetermined your votes. It's a disgrace. Hi, I'm Gail Alcock, and I'm D2, and I'm just thinking about the last meeting where I was left with the question I've been asking from the beginning of middle housing: what's the cap, how much? And the two comments I'm referring to are, we have to build as many housing units as possible for as many any number of people that want to come here, and the other comment was, we need as much housing as possible, which I also heard Saturday from one of our council members, that more housing is the answer to our economic problem. So in case we forget that the affordable housing is actually what we need, not just more housing, and I consider what's being built on San Pablo as middle housing. Not affordable housing. Here's in case any affordable housing does get built. Thank you. I'd like to speak for the surveillance technology accountability requirements. Transparency and accountability is sort of a necessary common sense thing, and I go to the board, the police accountability board meetings, and try to emphasize that in construction, if I'm going to get a permit, I know I'm going to be hit with an inspection. So it's like, it could be simpler if we're making agreements to also be able to break them when there's a breach in trust of some sort or another. And if we don't track these things in fact and evidence, we're sort of steering without a steering wheel. So bless all of you. Thank you. Gosh, there's so much to do. Thank you. Thanks, Maria. I have two minutes. More. So I have three total. Thank you very much. So it's interesting that you have item on the— you're talking about hate, and none of you did jack diddly squat for About the genocide. Zionism is equal to hate, which is equal to racism. Which item are you referring to? Are you talking about item— are you talking about— I'm talking about Hate Week. That was not on the consent calendar or an information item, so you're welcome to speak on one of those. Surveillance. And you know what? I'm so tired of you interrupting me. I want my freaking time back. She does this every fucking time. It's really annoying, Mayor. I will give you your time back, but profanity— just watch your profanity, please. If you could give her more time back, please. Yeah, get the smirk off your face, because it's really annoying, Kaswani. The other person talking is talking— you didn't stop one person who was talking about any member of the council, and that's something that you do, I guess, sometimes. So if you're going to have these rules, you should be consistent with them. Period. Which you're not. Yeah, keep smiling. It's not fucking funny. Okay. Excuse my language. I think you are welcome to make your comments, but you should know this is not okay. We don't need flock, and we don't need a mayor that continuously interrupts the constituents just because she doesn't want to hear what they have to say. There's a genocide going on. You're talking about hate, yet y'all, you are all haters. And the fact that we have all the Zionists in the room tonight— I'm happy I wore my anti-Zionist Club sweatshirt. I hope y'all can see it, because Zionism is equal to hate, which is equal to racism. Maybe y'all don't know that, but it's a fact. When you don't allow a certain group of people to live, to breathe, have different set of rules— I'm sorry, this is clearly not about consent calendar information items. It's about surveillance. I'm not even hearing you talk about surveillance. All the time, everywhere, we're being surveilled. And these things should not be happening. And I hope these rules that you guys are having on the surveillance policy is a good one. I haven't read your item, but yeah, I don't know why she's over there choosing to ignore this constituent of the city who has lived here for 45 years. And some people don't appreciate the fact that the council doesn't even listen or pay attention. That has been mentioned numerous times at numerous meetings, and you still continue to do it. You continue to be rude to the people that vote in this city. It's not okay. And there has been a genocide going on, and if you can't love everyone, treat everyone equally— Sharon, please stick to conversations on the subject. And you don't have to control everything, Mayor. You should check yourself. You can refer to us as a body. Oh, see, now you're going to your little rule that you only apply sometimes. So, you know what— Cheryl, Cheryl, the rule is to address the council as a whole. I was addressing the council as a whole. Okay, and folks can talk about certain things that people are doing. That's their right, but they can't address individual people. They're not addressing people. So I don't want to argue with you, Cheryl. Okay. All right. Is there other— excuse me. Is there any other comment on consent calendar or information items only, please? Anyone online? Looks like we have a few hands raised. We have eight hands raised right now. So we have M. Jones. First, this is for consent and information items only. Although— I'm— M. Jones is waiting on non-consent item. This is public comment only for— I understand. You're waiting for an action item? I'm waiting for not on the agenda item. Oh, okay. All right. I'll put you back. We'll get that at the end. Okay. All right. Rachel Bradley. Hi. I attended the recent public hearing on the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and was deeply disappointed to watch the council ride roughshod over the deep concerns of the community to adopt a plan that will actively discourage affordable housing and that gives short shrift to residents' documented concerns about gentrification and the lack of family housing, as well as undermining our small businesses in the area. Not to mention allowing the last-minute amendments that further undermine the community's wishes and goals. More and more Berkeley residents are feeling ignored and unheard by their representatives. This is not a healthy environment that encourages trust and pulling together to achieve common goals. I know I'm not the only one who's deeply disappointed by your short-sighted adoption of the plan. It's not too late to reconsider. Okay, the next speaker is David Sheer. Hello. I just wanted to speak briefly about information items, I think 18 and 19 on Measure O and inclusionary housing. They tell a really important story. It's kind of a bummer to see them on information, but they tell a really important story, and I think part of it is that the City of Berkeley is actually a regional leader in building affordable housing. That's building affordable housing through inclusionary, through the Measure O bond, through the in-lieu fees. So this is something where we really need to, like, I think, be shouting it from the rooftops, and I hope that we can find ways to do that. Another important story that it tells is that inclusionary units and inclusionary and the in-lieu fee is totally dependent on the private construction market, and it's a real problem because it means that there's a lot of times we're not getting what we need to be getting. Measure O and bonds are a way around that, and Measure O is almost done, so we're going to have to re-up. Thank you so much. Okay, next is Janice Ching. Janice, go ahead. I see you're unmuted, Janice, but we can't hear you. Is that better? Yes. Okay. I want to add my concern about the loss of public engagement when substantive changes are brought forward at the last minute. This is about the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. People who have been watching that plan for such a long time deserved but did not get to review and comment on the proposed changes. They didn't get enough of an opportunity. I'm also very concerned about giving away height by right, and that will take away the incentive to build the affordable units we need and get from the state density bonus. So, you know, I'm against that. And lastly, I want to warn against the loss of commercial units on our corridors. This is already happening on Shattuck, and I worry that it will turn San Pablo Avenue into a less safe and less welcoming area. Thank you. All right. And we have Toni. Good evening. I do want to remind the council that every bit of money you spend comes from us, the taxpayers. And you took about a million dollars from MTA to do the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan planning. And everything that the planners came up with was overturned, such as the nodes, such as maximum density, such as height limits that would incentivize the use of the density bonus and affordable housing, and many other items. And I have been trying to understand where the changes came from in March of 2025, and I haven't been able to figure it out. So I'm going to continue to ask. In the meantime, I do not like the zoning on San Pablo Avenue. I am a fairly expert person in Berkeley on zoning. Zoning is sort of like labor negotiating. You use comparative standards. Thanks, Tony. Next is Dietmar. Hi, my name is Dietmar Lorenz. I'm an architect in Berkeley. I share the concerns previous speaker mentioned about the process of the San Pablo plan and the last-minute motions, which were obviously circulated by staff, but the public didn't learn about it until the hearing. I think this is really poor conduct. And then, you know, many of you on the dais deliberated, well, you know, is it, you know, are we doing a five-story base or a seven-story base? Basically, you know, does the affordable housing come through the state density bonus or through the housing fund? And, you know, with all this struggle between the two, many of you said there's merit in both approaches. It's, in hindsight, very surprising that nobody suggested, why don't we meet in the middle and allow a six-story base? You know, if you're really concerned about compromise, and it's also always this false statement that you wouldn't get anything into the housing fund if it runs through the state density bonus. The facts, you know, say the opposite. Thanks, Dietmar. Your time is up. And last speaker is Carla. Hi, good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Carla Appleberry, the founder of Creations, and I just want to thank you all and the taxpayers of Berkeley for supporting our proposal on tonight's consent calendar. And I just want to clarify something. This opportunity was described kind of could have been as a road trip, but it's so much more than that. It's professional development and giving young African American girls access to training, performance opportunities, and a world of arts beyond Berkeley. And with concerns like gun violence and human trafficking affecting our youth, Creations is doing its part to keep children safe, engaged, uplifted, and encouraged. Every child we reach matters. These girls have spent years dancing at Berkeley's annual celebrations, and we look forward to continuing. Thank you for investing, and have a good evening. Thank you, Carla, and thanks for clarifying that. And we do have one more speaker. We have Della Luna. Yes, I wanted to also speak about the amendments that came in last minute. That has happened recently twice with the San Pablo, the first reading, and then also with the tear gas. And it was Councilor Wani, council member who did that both times. And that was just like in the past 30 days. So it is surprising what that first speaker said, that nobody on the dais even mentioned it or said anything. And it does eliminate the public giving us an opportunity to review and then make comments on it. And then I wanted to say that there is a marked difference in how some speakers are treated, as the one speaker was addressing Councilmember Kesarwani directly, and there was no intervention. So I just wanted to say that. And then I also wanted to say that Christian Zionism does exist, and Christian Zionists do live in Berkeley, and I feel like that's being erased from the conversation. And that's it. Thank you. Okay. I think that's it for the public comment. Is that correct? Yes. All right. Councilmember Taplin, yours is up first. Yes, there's a lot I could say, but I'm just going to move adoption of the consent calendar. I'll second that. And I did just want to thank folks who have commented about the San Pablo Avenue specific plan. And I do just want to say for the record that all council members and the mayor are free to introduce amendments to any item during the public council meeting. Believe it or not, that's the point of the meeting, to debate the item and consider amendments. And I do just want to remind everyone that I wasn't the only one who had amendments. We had council members Tregub, O'Keefe, and Blackaby who added important substantive amendments to the item that made it stronger. And I am very proud of the plan that we passed. And I regret that my smile and listening to public commenters has upset them. And I look forward to passing the consent calendar with a second reading of the San Pablo Avenue specific plan. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Blackaby. Briefly, this is in consultation with the city attorney on items 18, 19, and 20. Just wanted to confirm before we vote that the ask is to consider them together, one block. It's not three separate things, one question period, one public comment period on all three reports, just so it's clear on the agenda. Thank you. I appreciate you clarifying that. Yeah, and I did just want to say out loud for folks, you know, we have had a lot of conversations with the city attorney's office about what's appropriate and not appropriate in stopping people. And certainly when people are speaking off topic, not on consent or calendar information items, it is appropriate for me to interject and ask that they speak on those items. And also, I think it's important to acknowledge there's a difference between when you're addressing, you know, something that a council member did or said versus saying, You, councilmember, I think that, you know, you need to do this better, or something. There's a difference between addressing— Individuals or the council as a whole. And so, you know, I will continue to uphold the rules that we have agreed to on council. You know, and I think it's really unfortunate that we have people who are oftentimes trying to shoehorn in their own issues into the business of the city because it prevents us from being able to move forward. And I also do want to agree with Councilmember Kesarwani's statement. The purpose of us having, you know, conversations on council is not about last-minute amendments. It's about this is what we're deciding. And actually, at that meeting in particular about the San Pablo Avenue corridor plan, we had people present their amendments before we even had public comment. So it did give people an opportunity to speak to it. And that is actually something that we've been talking about too. It's something that was recommended to our Ad Hoc Rules Committee, and I think it makes a lot of sense. So, you know, I want folks to understand we are absolutely listening. We are here. We're taking notes. We're paying attention. And our staff are also here listening, taking notes, paying attention. And sometimes we just don't agree with the commenters, and that does happen occasionally. And so, you know, I don't want folks to feel like we're not listening. We absolutely are. It's just we may not agree and change our minds on issues all the time. So I think that's important to say. Okay, we have a motion on the floor. There was a second to approve the consent calendar. So I believe we need to take roll because Councilmember Humbert isn't online. Okay, to approve the consent calendar, Councilmember Kesarwani? Yes. Taplin? Aye. Bartlett? Yes. Tregub? Aye. O'Keeffe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Lunaparra? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Mayor Ishii. Yes. Okay. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you very much. I am going to give us a 10-minute break. We are going to switch into the presentation for item 15, which is the Affordable Housing Preference Policy. So I will give 10 minutes to just let everyone take a quick bio break and for folks to set up for the next item. Thank you. Recording stopped. Recording in progress. Right. Yes. Recording stopped. Recording in progress. Okay, hello everyone. We are back from the break. Thank you very much for your patience. We are jumping to item number 15, Affordable Housing Preference Policy Pilot Assessment and Policy Update, which was continued from the September 29, 2026 meeting. Thank you so much for your patience with us. Thank you so much for coming back. Thank you so much in advance for your presentation. Go ahead. Yeah, good evening, Mayor and City Council members. Thank you so much, and not a problem. We're happy to be here tonight. My name is Mike Uberti. I'm the Senior Project Manager and Housing Policy Supervisor with Health, Housing, and Community Services. I'm here tonight with the Housing and Community Services Manager, Margot Ernst, and my colleague Anna Cash, our Housing Policy Specialist on our housing team in HCS. And we're here tonight to present to you about the Affordable Housing Preference Policy. We're going to provide you an update on the policy, how implementation has gone so far, and prepare some recommendations to help the policy hopefully work more effectively for both applicants and affordable housing providers. So Anna has provided a presentation tonight, and I'm going to pass it to her to get started. Thanks, Mike. Good evening, Mayor, Council members, and the public. My name is Anna Cash, and I'm a Housing Policy Specialist in Housing and Community Services Division. Is that better? Thanks. So I'm going to start walking through the policy, and we've had new council members elected since this was first adopted, so I will give a grounding of the policy to start us off. Berkeley's Affordable Housing Preference Policy was first adopted in 2023 and took effect January 1, 2024. Preference policies are a tool that cities can use to prioritize applicants in affordable housing lotteries based on specific criteria. And Berkeley's preference policy implements goals identified by the community and City Council of helping people who've been displaced from Berkeley return, preventing additional displacement from Berkeley, and acknowledging and addressing historic injustices. The story of Berkeley's housing preference.

Segment 3

Segment 4

We can get into, but the fact that you're invited back and have access to your home is important. And so to realize that for a long time, these lands were drawn to keep people out, and now despite the challenges, both internal and external, we are acting with intention to create pathways home. And I want to celebrate that and celebrate you and all of you. I'm proud to be from Berkeley tonight. Alders open. Thank you very much, Councilmember O'Keefe. Thank you. I just have a small thing I want to highlight. In the presentation, there was a reference to the partnership with the libraries, and I'm the Board of Library Trustees representative, and I just wanted to just highlight the work of Jeff Finley is actually the name of that librarian at the Central Library who's been doing that work, and it's my understanding is it's really, really important work. He's been working directly with families to help them gather the documentation they need to show that their families were displaced. So I just wanted to recognize Jeff. It's really amazing work, so thank you. Thank you. Okay, we are moving to Councilmember Tregub, and then online to Councilmember Humbert. Thank you. I would like to echo many of the comments, just thanking staff and also thanking the community. I think this has been a beautiful partnership. It has been, you know, the work you've documented has been painstaking, but I'm very excited and proud to be voting on this policy tonight, and just wanted to— in strong support of this item, creating opportunities for more folks that have been displaced and uprooted out of Berkeley to be able to find a place that they can call home again. And I look forward to the continued partnership that I know we will have on this topic, as there are opportunities to refine, to address some additional structural impediments to getting as many folks into housing they can afford as soon as possible. And lastly, I want to—one commenter mentioned how the transition to the new system would work if someone is already in the pipeline, and I trust under your leadership that will be seamless in the transition process. But thank you so much. Thank you. Going online to Councilmember Humbert. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I want to thank Director Gilman, as well as Margo Ernst, Anna Cash, and Mike Uberti for all of the really hard work on this. I also really appreciated Councilmember Bartlett's heartfelt comments. I found them really Inspiring. So thank you, Councilmember, for your wonderful comments. I truly appreciate how careful, how much careful thought and community engagement went into developing this policy. It's deeply important that we try to right historic wrongs while also being cognizant of current needs. And I think this approach does an impressive job of attempting to balance a variety of factors and stakeholder interests and simplifying things in a way that's much more elegant than the original framework. I truly appreciate Health, Housing, and Community Services, and I am pleased to be able to, that we're going to be able to move this forward tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Kesarwani. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. I just want to thank our staff for bringing this item before us and refining this proposal that we previously adopted. And, you know, I think it bears repeating: the reason why we have an affordable housing preference policy is because we don't have enough affordable housing. And, you know, we had the debate last time and heard some public comment tonight about the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. And I just want to be clear, from my perspective, every opportunity that we have in our city to create more homes, whether they are market-rate homes or below-market-rate affordable homes, it's necessary. And people are asking how much. Well, we are in a deep hole as a region and a state, and so that is why I think we did a very important thing along San Pablo Avenue. We paved the way for thousands of new homes to come to that corridor, and many of them will be below-market-rate or affordable homes. And we need this policy as well so that when we place people into those units, you know, we do it in a way that seeks to, as much as possible, redress prior harms that were made. So thank you again for this policy, and look forward to adopting it tonight. Thank you. I also want to add my thanks and just say that, you know, I really do want us to take a look at how we can provide more holistic support. I think that makes a lot of sense, and looking at other kind of common-sense things that we can do. I do think it is frustrating that people have to apply to new buildings over and over again. I hear you all calling out some of the challenges and ways that we can do better. So I just really want to thank you for Thank you for doing that, because if we don't come back, we can never improve it, and the fact that we did this in the first place was a big deal, so thank you. Okay, so is there a motion? Because I've got a lot of comments. I move to approve the staff recommendation. Thank you. A second from Councilmember Bartlett over here. Okay, let us take the roll, please. On a motion to approve the staff recommendation on item 15, Affordable Housing Preference Policy, Councilmember Kesarwani? Yes. Taplin? Aye. Bartlett? Yes. Tregub? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Lacabe? Yes. Lunaparra? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay, motion carries. Okay, very good. So, thank you so much. Thank you. Those of you who are not relevant to items 18, 19, and 20, please feel free to depart. Councilmember Blackaby has brought items 18, 19, and 20 from the information reports onto our action calendar as sort of a singular item, and so I will ask if there's anything in particular you wanted to present, or if this was mostly just for questions. It's mostly for questions. I'll just have the reports up so we can refer to them as we're talking through it. And I shared some of the questions with staff ahead of time, so hopefully we can— so there's no gotchas here. It's really just to kind of dig into the numbers a little bit. So starting on number 18, where we talk a little bit about the pipeline of BMR program, I know in the report, and I've got it here in table 2, we're projecting across all projects at some point in the future about $32.5 million in projected revenue, fee revenue. Remind us just in the context what's currently in the housing trust fund this would be supplemented against. Yeah, sure. Thank you. So across all of our sources, so the Housing Trust Fund plus our other sources that fall under the Housing Trust Fund umbrella, which includes like Measure O, Measure U1 commitments, and some other one-time sources that we have, across all of those, we have about 4.9 million that is uncommitted. And I do want to acknowledge this is going to come up in one of your later questions. There's actually a mistake in the Measure O report. There's not 17 million uncommitted. There's only about 2.9 of Measure O uncommitted. So we will be preparing an update, a revised Measure O report, and bring it to a future council meeting with the correction. Okay, great. Yeah, come up to that. Okay, thank you. And I did also want to clarify, I'm not sure if this was part of your question, but we don't typically commit future fee revenues, so we don't have any of that 32.5 million that you note. None of that is currently committed. The only time historically that we've committed future fee revenues was when we pre-committed 13 million of mitigation fees to the BART station development projects, and that money has since come in, so those reservations are now cash on hand. Right. It's only really recognized as the project comes online. Okay, great. And then remind us, so for a typical project, again, we leverage this Housing Trust Fund money. It's a force multiplier, so it's maybe one piece and then four to five X of other funds come in against it. Is that, again, a just roughly order of magnitude? Yeah, we leverage between four and five dollars for every one dollar of commitment for a typical Housing Trust Fund project. There are exceptions to that, and there's also another exception, which is our Small Sites program, which has a much lower leverage. We leverage about 30 to 80 cents for every dollar commitment in those projects, and that's largely because there aren't— The resources, the programs statewide and federally don't exist to support that type of preservation project. Got it. Okay. Flipping to the next page. So this is then actually saying what was actually produced in fiscal 2026. So the pipeline is hypothetical and potential going forward. In fiscal 26, 34 newly constructed BMR units were actually made available for lease. So roughly, you know, 10% or so of the pipeline actually came through in terms of new units. Should we expect that? I know a lot of that's driven by market conditions, but that would suggest that this pipeline of 292 units might actually be kind of an eight- to 10-year process to fully go through. Is that a reasonable expectation? Yeah. You know, it's really difficult to determine at a predictable pace because each project is unique. So, you know, it's really dependent on the project size, the number of units affects the number of materials, the type of financing they need, the developers' options, the developers' option to how they want to comply, if they want to provide more on-site units or not, and as well as changes to state law that might encourage more on-site units, such as most recently the density bonus law. And then, as you mentioned, just broader economic conditions, right? So the higher interest rates affect how people can get loans. So as those shift over time, you know, it's difficult to say with a predictable pace how each project will come through. But we do want to note that if a project does install, it's typically the timeline will be three to five years from development, you know, entitlements through occupancy. So that's kind of like a gauge. But, you know, as we've seen throughout the community, I know there's been talks about it recently, specifically for like downtown. It is possible that projects might not follow that timeline. Okay. Yeah, and I'll just add to that to say, you know, there's only like a single point in time when we count the units, whether it's units or fees. So it really can vary widely year to year, because if we have a large project that, say, has a higher number of on-site inclusionary units, then whatever year that that CFO is issued is like when that's going to hit. So, you know, it's like it really can vary widely, but if you look at it over, say, like a 10-year period, there might be some average that we could talk about. But year to year, a lot of fluctuation. And you'll see that again, I was looking at Table 3 here was my next question, which is significant fluctuation too in terms of when we recognize that fee revenue, right, from a high of $16 million four years ago to a million and a half this last year. So again, that cyclicality, again, just what you're talking about. It's driven by market forces. It's driven by things outside of our control. But we recognize the fee revenue as the project comes online. Yeah, that's correct. We collect the fee revenue at certificate of occupancy, which is also a bit different than other city fees, which typically happen earlier in the permitting process. So that also kind of changes the timeline for revenue collection as well. So we have to kind of wait till the very end of the process. Okay. I will add, too, that, you know, recent changes, somewhat recent, in the last few years, changes to density bonus law that sort of increased the percentages of on-site affordable units and the corresponding density bonus did shift what percent of on-site units we tend to see now, which is a higher percent. So it used to be that— You know, maybe more projects would fee out, or if they weren't feeing out and they were a density bonus project, they would kind of cap out at 11% on site. And now it's like tends to cap out at 15% VLI on site. There are some other changes in density bonus law that might change that over time. So that is another reason why we might see a reduction in fees. Although we do have a, as you noted, like there is a healthy pipeline. We anticipate there will be years in the future, the near future, where we have a, you know, a larger fee collection. Obviously that's just current pipeline. I mean, we add to the pipeline every year, so, right? Yeah. Okay. Shifting to Measure O, so this is the next report. So what we just talked about was Housing Trust Fund. This is from development fees, right? And then Measure O is the Affordable Housing Bond that voters passed. Remind us, and me because I don't know, but can any one project use money from both O and the Housing Trust Fund, or do they pick one or the other? It's, yeah. So they, the way we define our trust fund, and there are some sources that support housing development that don't, aren't technically like part of the Housing Trust Fund itself, but they're still in the umbrella of our Housing Trust Fund program. And so we, you know, they, it's common for projects to have a mix of funding across multiple sources, and it usually has to do with which sources are available at the time that we fund that project. Sometimes you'll notice we'll bring a resolution forward that will say it'll commit an amount to a project. It might say like, you know, 15 million from a combination of, from the following sources, and we don't even, we haven't even identified which source it's going to come from yet until we execute the loan agreement, which might be three to four years down the line. So it is common that they will, it'll be kind of pieced together from a lot of different sources, and we look at it holistically. So like we're looking at the local commitment collectively when we're looking at things like the trust fund guidelines in terms of the funding caps or— Percentages and things like that. So, so yeah, it's common. Rarely is it because they're applying specifically for Measure O versus Housing Trust Fund. More commonly, what can happen is certain sources can't be used for certain activities. Maybe it's pre-development. I see. Or, sorry, what were the other? Pre-development or— Like typically Measure O is for hard costs, and our other funds are more flexible, so we put those into pre-development. Yeah. So it also depends on that. They all kind of feed the same pot, but then some have restrictions in terms of how they can be used. That's right. Sure, yeah. So by packaging them, we are able to piece them together to kind of help the applicant. Okay. We were just talking about the remaining Measure O bond capacity you mentioned. I know in the report it looked like it was something like 17, but it's actually much less than that in terms of what's left. It's closer to 3 million. It's about 2.9 million. And we don't anticipate issuing an RFP for that. We might at some point in the future, if we've pooled enough resources to really justify an RFP. We do have certain projects that qualify for over-the-counter applications, and we try to keep some money available for those types of applications, which are like emergency health and safety rehab for our existing pipeline, or gap financing for projects that we've already committed resources to. And if they're at the stage where they need just some gap financing and without it they might lose other commitments, substantial commitments through the state or, you know, tax credits, then we can consider those applications over the counter. So, coming back maybe to the city manager. So I know in the report there was sort of a discussion that as we were nearing the exhaustion of Measure O, we should think about timing of whether or not we do the next bond, and that's something we'd have to talk about maybe starting next year. Any thoughts on that? Yeah, that councilmember would be something we would want to talk about next year. I'd work with our team, our finance director and HHCS team to get a sense of how much capacity we have to go out to market for more bonds, where we're at with the housing pipeline and what the future might look like, and then come back to council and see if council would like us to actually explore that more formally. Okay. Yeah, and I know you had asked in your questions that you had sent about sort of like which a bond or the trust fund and which is most impactful or makes the biggest difference. And I did want to respond to that and just say, you know, both are immensely valuable. Measure O was a huge infusion of a large amount of money that allowed us to really get this robust pipeline and really invest in the two BART station developments, as well as a lot of other significant projects throughout the city. But we also have, you'll notice in our pipeline—I say you'll notice because I think we— You did separately, yeah. I think this, the updated list was sent to you earlier. Yeah. But we also have right now $45 million of housing trust fund dollars committed to our pipeline, and that's primarily mitigation fees. It's mitigation and in-lieu fees and a little bit of home funds. So it's, you know, both are so valuable. One gives us like a certain fixed amount, an infusion at a single point in time that's incredibly valuable. But the mitigation fees are, they're kind of like the bread and butter. I mean, those are the dollars that, even though they do vary from year to year, they are a constant. A constant revenue source for the trust fund, and it's what allows us to do the gap funding. It allows us to do the emergency repairs on our existing pipeline. We do have an aging pipeline. We have a lot of older projects. And then it allows us to even conceive of new projects. And so I did want to say both are so immensely valuable. And they work really well together because, like I said, having the influx of the Measure O dollars really gave us this robust pipeline. But the mitigation fees are what are allowing us to keep these projects alive. Almost, I don't know if it's the right way to think about it, but the housing trust fund and the in-lieu fees is just sort of continuing to steadily kind of refill the pipe. But a measure or a subsequent bond could be kind of, again, a larger infusion for a particular project, for particular needs. That could come on potentially, if supported by the voters, kind of comes online much faster, whereas the housing trust fund is sort of a steady increase over time. Okay. One kind of comment, and I love this chart because this was sort of the chart that was showing cumulative city-assisted units by year. So this is actually where we are so far and the forecast for where we hope to be by 2035. And just my thought here, and maybe this is also for the city manager, but it would be probably useful at some point to just, you know, the data is fantastic, but then putting the context around it, like what's good or where do we want to be? You know, like to meet the targets of what we think we need to do, not just for RHNA, but just as a community in terms of the number of affordable housing units that we want to have ready and in place to support the kind of community we want. What's good or what's the target that we're shooting at? And that also might be useful when we talk about a bond because it's like, you know, if we're going to be at 2,300 by the end of 2035, that's probably not enough. Ultimately, we probably want to be farther, but what do we need to do to get to the bigger number? So anyway, that kind of planning exercise I think would also be really valuable at some point. I can just say, yeah, we would agree. I mean, I think that would be an important exercise, also kind of fun, and also uplifting when you think about tying it to the preference policy and thinking about all the people that were displaced and what would it take to bring them back. And then looking at that in the context of the funding required to do all that would be. And the other thing would be interesting to look at is compared to other cities and what are they doing. Yeah, great. Last thing, this is the last report, which was the, again, all the data here is fantastic because it just, you can dig through this and dog-ear it, and I marked up my stuff. The last one is on the condo conversion report, and I note here's the number of applications, number of completed and pending. It seems, you know, incremental, marginal. Any thoughts on what we could do from a policy side if we really wanted to accelerate this process? Like what other tools might be in our toolbox as a council, as a policy body, to move this forward more quickly, if you had any thoughts? So, yeah, we wanted to acknowledge that the condo conversion, the council has done a lot to advance ownership opportunities and make them more flexible over the past couple of years. The condo conversion ordinance exists to kind of regulate the process, and, you know, I want to acknowledge that some advocates may, you know, consider that by going through the condo conversion process, you take away rental housing, which might lower affordability in the community, and that's why the city assesses the affordable housing mitigation fee on the process. So there actually is a cap of 100 units per year for this reason, but the program hasn't come close to approaching this in practice. Many applicants are what's called a tenancy in common owners who are seeking to transition their ownership structure into more formal condos. So in terms of ownership as well, you know, most federal and state sources for affordable housing that we've just discussed are targeted towards rental housing, which further limits the city's ability to invest in ownership. The city previously had a down payment assistance program in the '90s and early 2000s in the form of shared appreciation loans, but this program was ended because council determined at the time that the median purchase price of homes kind of negated the city's ability to really effectively provide meaningful loans for people. So, I just want to say, in terms of increasing condos and more ownership opportunities overall, we submitted a separate info report back in June that kind of further expands on these options. But, you know, the City Council established the same inclusionary housing and LUFE for rental and ownership projects. Previously, it was higher for ownership projects. So this is a way to kind of not make developers lean towards one way or the other. They can choose what pencils better for their project. Adopting middle housing rules to encourage small-scale multifamily infill development. Amending the zoning code for streamlining provisions for middle housing infill projects compliant with SB 684, which allows small lot subdivisions for projects under 10 units. Amending the zoning rules to permit the sale of ADUs separately from the main property. So, you know, these are all examples of the regulatory aspect. In terms of condo conversion, you know, possibly lowering the fee could encourage them more, but it's a fine balance with protecting sitting tenants as it is. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you for the indulgence, and I appreciate all the great information in these reports. So, thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Jacob. Thank you. Just two quick questions. I think they're quick. Figure one on page four of the first report, the inclusionary housing program fee revenue. I know you mentioned that there have been some changes in how the density bonus percentage is calculated at the state level and, you know, where the cap is, but that's a pretty precipitous drop, and I'm wondering, does that fully account for it, or what other—I also recognize that, you know.. Funding is funds are not always collected at the same time, but can you just speak to what accounts for this drop and what factors may lead to an increase in fee revenue again? Yeah, well, you know, a big reason a lot of projects have paused is the really increase in interest rates have really significantly increased since 2002, as well as increased labor. I'm sure we're all aware of the tariffs. That's increased, especially for larger projects costs, as well as—sorry, that would be increasing material costs as well as labor costs. So those have all been kind of deciding factors outside the city's control that have affected projects moving forward. Yeah, I think some of it is development cycles or trends, and I wasn't here back in the, you know, when we had that peak year of 16 million or whatever. I don't know how much of it might have been, like, pent-up progress from things stalling during COVID. I don't know if that was the case here in Berkeley. I know it was where I previously worked, is like there was sort of like a pause, and then everything kind of went into construction at the same time. So I don't know if that influenced the amount of fees that were received in those one or two years. But I would say economic factors certainly have contributed feasibility issues with development that might make some projects stall or some not even come through. And then the change in the density bonus percentages, and I will say it's not just that it went from 11% to 15%. I think that developers got a lot more savvy about what density bonus they could achieve through density bonus. And so I do think there overall, there had been a trend during that time of just more developers utilizing density bonus in the way that it really worked for them. I also wanted to acknowledge, you know, this probably isn't the best graph, and if we went back further years, you know, it would show kind of more of a trend. And by doing it in that peak year, it kind of makes it seem more precipitous than it was. Hi. Thank you. And my other question, I think it's just an accounting question for my own edification on—this is on the second report, the Berkeley Way, the 2012 Berkeley Way. There's the bridge affordable component with 89 units. There's also the permanent supportive housing component. I know the two are co-located. I'm just wondering how to read this. Is this additive, the 89 units plus the 53 and 44 on the other page, or is this all going together? Thank you. I'm trying to catch up to where you're at. Sorry. Sorry, pages one and two of seven on the Metro report. It is additive. Yeah, so they would be—they're all individual sections of the development. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions? Okay. Very good. Is there any public comment on these items? Anyone online for public comment? Nope. Moni's running to the front. Go ahead, Moni. Sorry. Quick question or point on the Nexus study that was done some years ago that found that you could set aside 20 percent. Of the units for affordable and still meet the ROI. So the rate of return was actually justified at even putting that many. And I think part of the reason that I've seen over the last few years, and others have agreed with me, and I'm not an expert, but by allowing a developer to take an alternative, like you said, they've become savvy, of course, there are fewer that are being built on site, even though the study that the City Council itself actually ordered to be completed, and they paid for it, and it justified more units on site than just the 10% that a lot of agreements have been developed for. So it should have been set up in that way. If it's still possible, that would help a lot. Also, for the Housing Trust Fund, the only, I think the only building, as my understanding, that's been built is the Berkeley Way project from the mitigation fees and the in-lieu fees and the fund that's sitting over there to be built at some point in time. And maybe there are more that are being built that I've missed, but I think it's just Berkeley Way. Is that correct? Yes, that's all. And we could do better things. Thank you. Any public comment online for items 18, 19, or 20? One, Andre for Cheryl Davila. Former Councilmember Cheryl Davila, please be respectful. I know it's hard for y'all. Yeah, so while the RENA number's not a good number, I don't know how truthful and accurate that is. Also, yeah, 10%, it's supposed to be 20% in-lieu. Well, and if they don't put it in, they're supposed to pay the in-lieu fees. So I think they should be more than 10%, and at least the minimum 20%. And that's even a low number. We need affordable housing. We need affordable for the very, very, very, very low income. We need affordable for people that are on Social Security or disability or disabled, and for others that can't afford these market rate units. And yeah, the in-lieu fees, only one project. I'm wondering, like, what's in the pipeline, because I haven't heard of anything. And it's interesting that now you're giving two minutes when usually you only give one minute. I know nobody comes to these meetings because they're not listened to, heard, respected, honored, and it's pretty much a waste of time. So people don't join these meetings because they're not. You can have 400 people in the room and you don't pay attention to those 400 people unless, like, the tier gas thing, which I'm happy you kept the ban on, but it's an election year, so that's probably why that passed. Next is Janice Ching. I appreciate the staff report that shows how robust the pipeline is, and I am wondering, you know, the range of projects that have been in that pipeline, because I know that some of the projects sit there for some time and that a lot of the developers are trying to sell these projects. So anyway, that's one point. And the other thing is just that with the number of projects that are in the pipeline, we're still trying to incentivize developers to come forward with more projects, and I understand that we need to keep that pipeline robust. But when the economic situation is as dire as it is, showing that precipitous drop, it just seems that, you know, maybe now is not the time to be giving gifts away to the developers to get more projects going, you know, proposed, when they can't build it and possibly for years. So, you know, I just want to say there has to be some kind of balance here between what we incentivize so that we can get the affordable housing that we need. Thank you. Thanks, Janice. Okay, that's it. Okay, thank you very much. Any other comments from council colleagues? Thank you. No. Okay. All right, very good. I don't think there's any action since this was an information report, but I'll just thank you both for your time and for answering our questions. So thank you. Thank you. Okay, we are going— You need a break. Okay, all right. Let's take a 10-minute break, and then just to be clear, because I know we jumped around a bit here, we will come back to item number 13, and then 14, and then we will be at 16. 13, 14, 16. Okay, thank you. Recording stopped. Hello. Oh, there we are. Okay. All right, everyone, we are back in session. No, we're not. Okay, we are not back in session. Recording in progress. Now we're back in session. Okay. It is not clear to me, did Councilmember Kaplan actually leave? Is he gone? Okay. All right then. So we are moving on to item 13, which is revisions to the approved environmental health fee schedule. So I'm going to open the public hearing for item 13, and I will pass it over to our city staff. Thank you very much for being here. I can just say, Madam Mayor, we don't have a presentation, but if there's questions, staff are here to answer. All right. Are there any questions for our city staff? Thank you so much for waiting and your patience. It's been a long night. Okay. I am not seeing any hands raised. Okay. Is there any public comment on item 13, revisions to the approved environmental health fee schedule? Kelly, are you walking up? Okay, yep. Kelly's walking up. It looks better and let's vote and go home. The chairs are so uncomfortable. You've got the great ones and we've got the hard ones. Okay. Thank you. Any unmanned comments? One from Cheryl Davel, a former council member. I don't know, maybe that's from before. Nope. It's not. Okay. All right. Any comments from council members? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. Can we take a roll on that, please? Okay. To close the public hearing, Councilmember Kesarwani? Yes. Taplin is absent. Bartlett is absent. Tregub? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Lunaparra? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay. Public hearing is closed. Public hearing is closed. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to— I move we approve staff recommendation. Thank you very much. Is there a second? Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Can we take the roll on that, please? Okay. To approve the revisions to the Environmental Health Fee Schedule, Councilmember Kesarwani? Yes. And Tregub? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Lunaparra? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Is it possible that people online can't see us? Can we double-check that, please? Can't see us? Cannot see us. I mean, I could test it and see. Okay. Okay. There you go. Kelly says that they can see us online, so perhaps this person has a screen that's frozen or something. Okay. All right. Very good. I'm going to open the public hearing for item number 14, which is amendments to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.30.100, site features in residential districts to require undergrounding of electrical transformers on private land. I will pass it over to our director. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Councilmembers. I'm Jordan Klein, Director of Planning and Development, joined here at the staff table by Justin Horner and Branka Tatarovic from the Land Use Policy Team. And Branka is pulling up the slides and is going to present on behalf of staff. Take it away, Branka. No, no, it's on already. Thank you, Mayor Ishii and the members of the City Council. My name is Branka Tatarovic, and I'm an associate planner with the Land Use Planning Division. Tonight I'm presenting an ordinance that amends BMC 23.304.100 site features and establishes a clear land use rule for electrical transformer placement while preserving the separate authority of the city engineer and PG&E. The presentation focuses on how those decisions fit together. The issue at hand is not that transformer siting lacks technical review. Under the current process, there is no zoning standard, so siting is negotiated on a project-by-project basis. This results in late and inconsistent siting decisions, often long after the site and frontage design have been finalized. At the same time, PG&E favors pad-mounted above-ground equipment. All of this can reduce usable frontage and developable space, while applicants lack a predictable early design standard. The cabinet or the vault, if the transformer is underground, is only part of the land use impact. PG&E also requires clear level working space, vertical access for replacement, and a constructible trench route. As noted in the staff report, the minimum clear working space in front of the equipment door is eight feet. While these photos show suburban locations, Berkeley is largely built out and most of the development occurs on constrained infill sites. This slide shows two Berkeley examples. On the left side of the slide, the photos show an above-ground transformer on the property on Dwight Way. Despite multiple efforts and review processes, the project was unable to obtain a variance from PG&E to place the transformer underground, even though the property is a designated landmark. On the right, the photograph shows three vaults in the sidewalk containing underground transformers that serve the new Berkeley City College campus. This slide shows how the ordinance fits within the existing decision-making structure and clarifies who is responsible for each decision. First, PG&E determines whether a transformer is needed and establishes the capacity and other technical requirements for the equipment. The ordinance does not change PG&E's authority over utility service design. Second, the applicant is responsible for coordinating with PG&E and the city early in the project and developing a siting approach that complies with all applicable requirements. The third row, the zoning and land use, is the change made by this ordinance. The new zoning rule prohibits above-grade electrical distribution equipment on private property. For residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects. This establishes the city's electrical equipment siting expectation at the beginning of project design. The rule does not authorize placement in the public right-of-way. If the applicant requests placement in the right-of-way, it is a separate decision made by the city engineer and Public Works through the engineering permit process. Approval remains entirely within the city engineer's discretion. If the city engineer determines that placement in the right-of-way is not in public interest, the ordinance provides an exception that allows above-grade equipment on private property. The applicant or property owner remains responsible for all costs associated with design, permitting, installation, maintenance, relocation, and removal of the equipment. Finally, all required approvals remain in place. PG&E must approve the utility design, and the project must obtain all applicable city permits. So, the ordinance establishes the zoning rule, but it does not replace or override any other decisions shown here. The amendment is intentionally narrow. It establishes a zoning standard for residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects in residential and commercial zoning districts. It does not make the utility decision, grant an encroachment, or transfer design and cost responsibility to the city. In all, the amendment does not create a siting entitlement. Every siting and encroachment issue remains a separate engineering decision under the city engineer's sole discretion and based on the public realm criteria listed on the slide. The recommendation to the City Council is informed by utility, interdepartmental, and developer input. The Planning Commission recommended Council adoption with slightly different language in June 2025. Based on the input received, staff identified the land use benefits and operational tradeoffs shown on this slide. On the land use side, undergrounding protects active frontages, preserves limited infill land, reduces visual impacts, and provides applicants with a predictable standard. On the operational side, underground equipment may be more costly and difficult to maintain, raises water intrusion concerns, and may constrain future capacity upgrades. These considerations frame the policy choice presented by the ordinance, while technical feasibility and right-of-way impacts would continue to be addressed by agencies responsible for those decisions. And finally, staff recommends that City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt the first reading. The ordinance supplies the missing zoning rule while preserving the existing lines of authority and responsibility. That concludes my presentation. Thank you, and I'm available for questions. Thanks, Bianca. Thanks very much for the presentation. Any questions from folks? Okay. I was going to check and just ask about the space constraints. Is it possible to—would you have to expand the space later to allow for more equipment, or how would that work, just so we understand? Well, there is a constraint, but usually, as we heard from PG&E, those transformers are designed to allow for.

Segment 5

A larger capacity, so whatever the needs increase, that capacity should, you know, be fit for for a while. But they are designed for a certain size of a transformer. So if the need is completely outside of the calculated capacity, I guess they would need a bigger transformer and a bigger vault as well. But I think that would, in terms of development, also change the nature of the project entirely. Thank you, appreciate that. Okay, I don't see any other questions up, so I will see if there's any public comment on this item. Good evening, Ann Marks with PG&E. I'm pretty new to the company, and I got to read back in the archives, and there's been a lot of back and forth. So I want to really, you know, commend the staff and the council for the time that's taken to sort of understand all the intricacies of this issue, you know, and what is there. I think, you know, PG&E, our goal is, you know, safe, reliable energy, and we want that to be provided in a way that's cost effective, that takes into account things like aesthetics and operational needs. And so it's not that we are always trying to put in a pad-mounted transformer. I think there's definitely situations where that is not the case. So I think this, you know, understandably, this is a way to express a desire to not have pad-mounted transformers and to put them subgrade. And so I think that is stated in a way that I think allows us to continue, you know, working with each other and understanding how to make that happen. And so, you know, but I think when you, you know, look at that conversation, the conversation you have with PG&E, I think you understand that obviously when it comes to making it safe and reliable, there are certain recommendations that we make, and there are certain things that are the preference as expressed through the CPUC, which is, you know, obviously our state governing body. Thanks. Thank you. Other comments? Mayor Ishii, I have a thumb drive that has the images for the public. I think that typically we wouldn't have public commenters give a presentation. You're welcome to speak to the images and hold them up if you'd like. Okay. Just thought the public might want to see them, but whatever. I'm a member of the Planning Commission, as some of you may be aware. I'm Shoshana's appointee, and brought this issue to Planning Commission a year ago, and there was unanimous support for the commission. The problem being that although our PG&E representative, thank you, was somewhat neutral about this, I appreciate that the actual formal edict from PG&E prior to that vote, and still in effect, is above ground on the private property. And I wanted to illustrate for you what that means from a design standpoint for our community. So I provided this put together just today. You're familiar with the Edge project, probably on Bancroft, recently completed. This is with the old policy where AltaTech was a letter from the Planning Department to PG&E asking for undergrounding in the sidewalk, and we got it, and that's what we have there, undergrounding in the sidewalk, as shown by Bronco earlier. And we have on this important—this is right at the intersection of Telegraph and Bancroft—we have.. Eyes on the street. We have windows. We have got a commercial front in addition to the lobby there. The image on the right, if you vote no on this ordinance, that's what we would have for this project, would have had, or would have for a similar project. The next project, I think, is one that should be close to your hearts. This is actually not a middle housing project, but it looks very much like one. This is the kind of project that could be and should be approved under the middle housing ordinance. And it's a project that I think looks nice as designed, but assumes that you vote yes tonight. Thank you very much. And I think the— Thank you. —is self-explanatory. If you have any questions, let me know. Thank you. Thanks so much. Appreciate the images. It is helpful to see. Good evening. My name is Avi Foreman. I'm an architect, general contractor, and developer deeply affected by the proposed legislation. Today, there is a non-governmental body that single-handedly has the ability to void any multifamily housing development based on nothing but their own profit motive. At 2800 Telegraph, the site of the former Kareem Cycles, we were approved for the construction of 75 beds by the City of Berkeley, only to be told by PG&E that they would not install the transformer as designed because it was in a subsurface transformer, which is marginally more expensive for them to maintain. This would have required us to place the transformer inside, which would have required 20-foot vertical clearance, cannibalizing about 1,000 square feet from two floors out of our extremely tight footprint, required large street-fronting doors, and effectively voided the planning approval granted by the City of Berkeley and rendered our approved project unbuildable. This effectively leaves— leaves a private for-profit corporation able to unilaterally deny approved projects and unilateral authority to stop the construction of new housing units in the interest of their shareholders. Whether indoors or outdoors, pad-mounted transformers are unsightly, unsafe, and in many cases, such as mine, untenable. To let this critical city planning policy, which deeply affects the city residents and developers alike, cannot be left to be made unilaterally for a for-profit institution whose interests are their shareholders and not the City of Berkeley's. The legislation is critical for infill developers like me to ensure that PG&E is required to abide by the laws and approvals as established by the Commission and Government of Berkeley. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Patrick Kennedy. I'm a developer. I have been building for 35 years in the City of Berkeley, and every project I have built has been a buried transformer. And in 35 years, I have never had a problem with PG&E maintaining it or replacing it. And the idea of having to replace it with a much bigger one is probably unlikely unless a building is scraped and a much bigger building is built, in which case you can do another buried transformer. So I think that's not a particularly big issue. I think the much more important issue is that if the city wants to promote middle housing throughout its neighborhoods and enable a large number of smaller developers to re-knit the fabric of our neighborhoods with triplexes and fourplexes and middle housing, it must. Support this ordinance because pad-mounted transformers on small sites essentially destroy 25% of the value of the site and make many projects untenable. Just to give you an idea, I know several of you attended the groundbreaking we had for our six-unit project on Cedar. If we had to put a pad-mounted transformer on that site, we would have lost one of the six homes. We would have denied one family the opportunity to move to Berkeley. We would have removed a million and a half dollars from the city tax roll, and we would have had a blighted transformer on a corner that otherwise would have had a beautiful new house. So the cost of the buried transformers, by the way, is always borne by the developers. So we're paying for the cost of that, and the only matter of consequence to PG&E is the purported difficulty in maintaining a buried transformer in the public right-of-way. Thank you. Thanks, Patrick. Thank you. Bye-bye. Thanks. Okay. Kelly? So I actually love looking at plans, architectural plans, and when I see the plans making space for the transformers at the front of the building, they're just plain ugly. You can't really make a nice flowing design across the front of the building because you have to leave this great big giant space for the transformer, and you can't put anything in front of it. You just got these great big giant doors. It's just plain ugly. I don't need to take any more time to tell you how many times I want to say it's just ugly and they should be undergrounded. So I would ask that you approve this. Thank you very much. I love any issue that unites the two of you. So thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone online? Speakers online, first is Cheryl Davila, former councilmember. So, who knew that I would ever have any agreement with the speaker prior to Kelly, but I do agree with the points that they made, as well as Kelly. Things should be undergrounded, but I'm just curious, like, how that works in an earthquake if that research has been done. And yeah, it's interesting that PG&E doesn't want that. But yeah, who knew? We're all in agreement here. Thank you. Love that. Thank you. Next is Brianna Morales. Hi, good evening, everyone. I'm Brianna Morales, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. We're a member-supported advocacy organization that works to advance California's housing goals to settle our housing and affordability crisis. Our members are the building industry. They are builders and architects and labor who actually deliver housing, and so their experience has shaped our recommendations tonight. We support the intent of the ordinance, and as we heard tonight, small infill lots can hinge on where a transformer goes, and that matters to a lot of small builders doing duplexes and other missing middle housing. So our ask is to make sure it works for them, as well as community members and other builders. So first, you know, certainty. Staff's own slides say that public works isn't required to find or approve a right-of-way location, and the exemption depends on a city engineer finding, with no stated criteria or deadline. And for a small developer with one tight lot, that open-ended step is a pretty real risk. So please make the exemption, you know, objective and time-bound. Second, options. Our members tell us that side and rear placements are preferred in some ways, and that even though right-of-way is still better, a few cities are generous with it, and so underground works on many sites. But not all. So please keep these options practical and open, including the front setback with objective screening when it's the only feasible spot, so a standard meant to protect homes, never costs the project one. We also kind of saw that Fremont lets commercial and mixed-use projects either go underground or screened. Third, you know, data staff's slides list higher cost and constrained equipment supplies tradeoffs, but the report doesn't quantify them, it seems. So we'd welcome independent cost data from local builders before second reading, and HAC is always happy to be a partner in doing this. So thank you so much. We really appreciate all of your hard work, and have a good rest of your night. Thanks. And Maria Sol. So again, I am so unimpressed with PG&E. I don't trust them. They have been culpable for death and destruction, this endless deferred maintenance, exploitation, shutting off people's electricity when their life depends upon it. I just do not trust them. I do not like them, and I'm very concerned about—well, I've even reported leaning, what do they call them, power poles, you know, the ones that are everywhere above ground. They're tipped like at such serious angles, with lines pulling them over. It's like, you know, when they cut trees to free the lines, they butcher the trees. I just— Recommend extreme caution when it comes to anything with regard to them. So I'm just going to the foundation again. Do they care, or are they just there with greed and lack of accountability? So I'm just speaking to the premise. Thank you. Thanks, Maria. Is that it on our comments? That's it. All right. Coming back here, Councilmember Tregub. Thank you. I would like to sincerely appreciate staff for bringing this item forward. This same proposal was included in part two of our Renaissance item, and I think we definitely channeled each other's vision. And I particularly appreciate that this question this item provides to the city for installing electrical distribution equipment in the public right-of-way for ADA accessibility and pedestrian access, not to mention all of the salutary reasons why undergrounding should be allowed. I'm glad that everyone appears to be unanimously behind it, and this is the part that I rarely get to say in public, but I would like to thank PG&E as well for coming to the table and working with staff and stakeholders through this issue. With that, I'm very happy to move this item. Thank you. Councilmember Kesarwani. Oh, sorry. Is there a second? Second. To close the public hearing. I move to close the public hearing. Second. Thank you. Hi, actually, let's just take the roll on that and then we'll come back. Close the public hearing. Councilmember Kesarwani? Yes. Tregub? Aye. O'Keefe? Yeah. Blackaby? Yes. Lunaparra? Yeah. Humbert? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Kesarwani, and then Councilmember Humbert. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. I want to thank the Planning Commissioner Khan for bringing this forward to the commission, and I do also appreciate all of the people who've spoken in support of this. I think this makes a lot of sense. I was just wanting to double check, and I think I have the assurance that I didn't want, you know, one additional ADU on a block to lead to an individual homeowner getting hit with a bill to underground a transformer that benefits the whole block. But it looks like this is just for private property, not for the pole-mounted transformer in the public right-of-way, correct? Correct. Okay. With that, I am eager to approve this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilmember Humbert. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I also want to thank Commissioner Khan for bringing this item, and Director Klein and Branka Tesarovic for their work on it. I think this is a really important measure to help ensure that we're keeping our sidewalks clear, also helping to ensure that we're maximizing space in new mixed-use buildings for retail space and active street frontage. In a highly urbanized area like Berkeley, putting electrical infrastructure underground is very important and should generally be done as a matter of course, and it sounds like it has been. And I think it should be seen as the cost of doing business for our utilities. I do want to briefly acknowledge that staff, including our own sustainability and toxics teams, identified some real tradeoffs here around maintaining and upgrading underground equipment as buildings electrify, around resiliency, and around water intrusion. Those are important considerations, but on balance, I think the design, land use, and public realm benefits clearly outweigh them, especially since, per my understanding, this ordinance still leaves PG&E to determine whether a transfer is even needed and keeps the city's engineers' discretion over the public right-of-way. I also understand that PG&E would generally prefer not to underground the equipment, and I understand the practical considerations that they have raised in writing. At the same time, undergrounding is a reasonable and increasingly standard expectation in built-out cities like ours. I'm hoping PG&E will work constructively with us and with applicants to find compliant solutions. Utilities have managed this in other jurisdictions that have adopted similar requirements, and I think we can do it here. So thank you, everybody, for this item. Thanks. I'll support it. Thank you, and thank you again also to Commissioner Khan, and also to our city staff for all their work. Thank you, everyone, to the commenters, both for your comments but also for your patience this evening. I do want to thank Ann for being here in person. It's amazing to have a PG&E rep that we can actually call, so I do just really want to thank you for that. Thank you very much for being here. And with that, I will see if there is a motion to— Move to approve. Thank you. All right, and then is there a second? Second. Okay. Can we take the roll on that, please? Okay, to approve the amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code to require undergrounding of electrical transformers on private land. Councilmember Kesarwani? Yes. And Tregub? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Lunaparra? Humbert? And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay, motion carries. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone. Okay. All right. Guess what? We have one more item. Okay, so we are moving on to item number 16, which is establish 2027 City Council meeting schedule. I will—I don't think there's a presentation for this. Does anyone have questions on this item? Seeing no questions, I will ask if there is any public comment on this item. Kelly's coming up. You know, I'd really like all of you to take more time off. And I mean that sincerely. I really would like to see you take more time off. And I would appreciate it if you just extended this a little bit and made your vacation go through Labor Day. I know that schools start before, some schools, some schools start after Labor Day, and I think that would be a good thing to do. Thanks. Thanks, Kelly. So Labor Day is on September 6th in 2027, so just, you know, make it another week. Yeah. We have one less meeting, and some of us would be really happy about that. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Kelly. Anyone else? Public comment for this item? Anyone online? Show dabble, a former council member. I don't see how that's funny, but, you know, whatever. Yeah, so I don't know about taking more time off because you already got a raise to shorten the agendas. It's 10 o'clock and you're pretty much done. So, like, I don't see how that that's a good thing. You give less time to the people to speak on items. You don't listen anyway, but the point is, I don't know if you are working that hard, honestly. I don't see it, and a lot of people in Berkeley don't see it. I know a lot of people aren't happy with the entire Berkeley City Council currently. So, yeah, you don't need more time off, and thanks for letting us know all the time you are going to take in advance. And free Palestine, free us all. Thanks for your comment. Are there any other comments on this item? No. Okay. All right, coming back. Councilmember Humbert, I know you have something you want to share. I do. Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is an amazing night because I'm finding myself totally agreeing with Kelly Hammergren. So we're getting all these concordances here that are unusual. You know, I do think that her idea is a good one. I think that, you know, a schedule where the final meeting is July 7th and we eliminate the August 31st meeting makes a whole lot of sense. We come back after Labor Day. That way we don't have an awkward first meeting right before the Labor Day holiday. And during a period of significant filing activity during election years, we're also able to have more of July for recess for council members and city staff with school-age kids. So we talked about this at agenda and rules, and if I'm recalling correctly, the clerk said elimination of the August 31st meeting wouldn't necessarily be a problem. I mean, we have so many special meetings and closed sessions that we do meet our, you know, basic requirement of number of meetings. So, you know, I'm offering the Kelly Hammergren plan. So thank you. Is that a motion? Because I want to second it. Yeah, that is a motion, and there's a second from Councilmember O'Keefe. Can we clarify the dates just in the motion? Would be July 7th, the last meeting. The 6th. July 6th would be the last meeting before the summer recess, and the first meeting back would be Tuesday, September 14th. Okay. Is that clear? Okay, very good. All right. There's a motion on the table. Any other comments on the floor? Sorry. Yes. Yeah, I just want to say that this, I mean, whether we keep August 31st or not, I'm in favor of that. But just, I just want to say how appreciative I am as a teacher. I know, you know, anybody who has kids in schools has the same, like, I've never understood why our recess does not overlap with the school break. And I'm just so grateful that we're making this change. It's going to make a huge difference in my life and the lives of a lot of people, not just up here, but the staff who work with us. Absolutely. I think as we consider, you know, wanting to have our council be inclusive, thinking about parents who have children in the schools, I think that's really important. So thank you. Thanks, everyone. And thank you for your suggestion, Kelly, and also Councilmember Humbert. There's a motion, so can we take the roll now, please? Okay. To adopt the 2027 City Council meeting schedule, modified to remove the August 31st regular meeting. Councilmember Kesarwani? Yes. And Tregub? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Lunaparra? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Okay. Is there any other public comment for items not listed on the agenda? I believe— Oh, sorry. We have— oh, go ahead. Okay. Well, thank you for all of that. That's very nice. But now I have something difficult to ask of you. And on Saturday night, I went with three friends to the film Naza. And I, it's a difficult film. I already knew about Lavender and Where's Daddy. But I would ask all of you to go to that film. And if you don't know what Where's Daddy is, Where's Daddy is tracking someone who may or may not be a member of Hamas, their phone. And when they get home, that's the place to bomb. And so watching that film and listening to the conversations, knowing about this procedure, this plan, that's when we go. That's when someone is killed, is when they're home with their family, their children, their babies, their toddlers. It's difficult. I suggest that you all go. I think it's good to bring someone with you so you have someone to talk to afterwards. Thank you. Thank you. We were actually just talking about that film earlier today, so thank you. Carol? So it's meaningless to pass laws that are, of which there's no education that the public doesn't know about and there's no means of enforcing it. I've mentioned the elevator ordinance before. Yesterday on the bus, I met someone in a wheelchair. He had no legs, and he said really, he was really surprised because he lives in one of our affordable housing providers, and his elevator was out for four days. And they told him, no, it has to be a month. And that's one of our recognizable affordable housing providers. Somebody else told me she was really happy that she could afford to buy a home because when she was in an elevator building, and she has a visible disability, she was frequently stuck in the building. She didn't know this was a law. It was a law since 2018 that someone has to be relocated after 24 hours. So two weeks ago, I didn't talk on items not on the agenda, but it was very much on my mind because I had been advocating for my friend for several days from another well-known affordable housing provider in Berkeley, that when their elevator broke down, they were told by the property management it's an amenity. And she's 82 years old. The only reason she was able to be relocated in Berkeley was because she knew pay to Redu in the city manager's office, and she called there, and he called Scott Gilman, and someone talked to her and worked it out. Everybody doesn't have that connection. And when I was trying to help her, the rent board didn't even know this was a law. The rent board employees, I was educating them on various provisions. So we have to be able to enforce things. Thanks, Carol. Hi, Michael Casey, longtime Berkeley resident, 40-plus years. Tended Washington through Berkeley High. My dad and I own a property for the last 40-plus years. It's owner-occupied. I was a city planner for City of Oakland Planning and Building Department for 15 years. Last week, I received a notice from the Rental Housing Safety Program. I got two notices, one as a tenant, one as an owner. Over the past two to three years, I've been getting a letter from RHSP. And it states, you know, it's a rental property. It is not. They say, just go ahead and pay the $120 fee. I just go ahead and pay it. Now I'm told that I'm supposed to do an inspection to see if this is my own residence. After living there for 40 years, told likely just administrative error, blah, blah, blah. I mean, as working for the City of Oakland Planning and Building Department, I know you have to have a search warrant or an active building permit to come on someone's property. So this feels like a violation, especially all that's going on in the world with ICE and COVID, to just want to inspect people's properties. I called the inspector. Oh yeah, we're going to come in. It's a four-hour window. You take off work, and my dad, who's 85 years old with health problems, is supposed to miss doctor's appointments to sit there and wait for this inspector to come through to tell him that he's an owner of a— just check to see if he's an owner of a property. I mean, I think this is ridiculous. I think we can do better than that. I don't know who to talk to about this and what should be done, but I think it should be brought to everyone's attention, especially at this day and age where people are uncomfortable having inspectors or city officials and government officials coming on people's property to see if they are an owner. So thank you for your time, and sorry it's so late, but I wanted to get that in. I'll email it as well. Thank you. I appreciate that. Definitely interested to know what's happening with that. That's, yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much. Is there any other public comment online? M. Jones. You have two minutes. M. Jones. There you go. Hello? Yes. Oh my God. Anyway, I would like to speak on—I sent an email to the mayor and D2, D3, and planning departments, and I would like someone in that email to get in touch with me. I am living next to a rat and raccoon infested building that is a historical landmark, formerly Reed's Records, and—oh shit, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, sorry for—anyway, and then I'm having to deal with the traffic, the parking challenges being next to the Creekwood Restaurant. And now the commercial building that I live above has opened up a smoke shop, and I never got a notice about it, about a smoke shop opening. Isn't that the policy that a smoke shop has to have a public meeting before they open up? Question. Sorry, we don't address questions during public comment, but you can finish your comment, period. Yeah. So yes, I would just—I sent an email to the mayor and the planning department weeks ago. I never received any follow-up from anybody of those departments. I call all these different departments. There's always a voicemail. There's never a live person. So, you know, I'm just really frustrated, and I would like someone to address my concerns. And that's it. Thank you. Thanks for your public comment. My staff has received your email, and we will follow up after the review. Thanks for— Thank you. I'm so sorry you had to come to council this way. Is there anyone else online? We have Del Luna. Yes, I wanted to speak about earlier, one, Christian Zionists exist, and Christian Zionists live in Berkeley, and Christian Zionists might be on the dais. So when you all were talking about, like, the political campaigns and the way you were trying to define hate speech and then tie that into Anti-Hate Week, I just felt like you were erasing Christian Zionists who do exist and do live in Berkeley. Secondly, the statement talking about a nation of immigrants, that's actually a white supremacist dog whistle. Immigration law didn't exist till the 1970s, so everyone who came in before the 1970s was not an immigrant. And then the laws were, of course, only created for Black and Brown people to restrict them. So when you say a nation of immigrants, you are erasing the history of this country and for certain populations who are often marginalized, which I think you all were attempting to address that, but then you kind of side-handed, like there were some underhanded things that were stated, and I don't think you stated it on purpose, but I just wanted to bring awareness to it. And what's characteristic about that is that it wanted to erase colonialism, and then it was the settler moved to innocence. So it's like saying, Oh, we're all immigrants. You just kind of, like, erase everything that happened and then kind of proclaim an innocence stance. So I wanted to offer this book. It's called Not a Nation of Immigrants: Full Title, Settler Colonialism, White Supremacy, and the History of Erasure and Exclusion by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, and she went to Cal, so there's a connection there, and she lives in the Bay. But I just would encourage you all to read this so when you make statements like that, you aren't coming with, like, underhanded cuts. And you didn't mention racism against Black people or hatred against Black people, so it kind of felt— Just imbalanced, and you used it for, like, to talk about the political campaigns unnecessarily. And we have Cheryl Davila, former councilmember. I agree with everything that last person said. It was only geared towards anti-Semitism, not geared towards Black and Brown people, and barely mentioned Islamophobia, which is really prevalent right now and has been since 9/11. So it was really sad that the Zionist with that horrible symbol, yes, a Holocaust survivor, however, in these times, sitting in a Berkeley City Council meeting with that symbol during a genocide and ethnic cleansing and apartheid murder of children and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians starved, martyred, disabled, living under the rubble, trying to maintain a life with no toilets, no water, no food, but yet they're steadfast and resilient. It was really kind of disgusting to be there this evening, and that's the only thing you talked about was hate for one group of people, which just shows your racism and inability to have compassion and empathy as an elected official supposed to be representing the constituents, but you only represent those that were Thanks for your comment. Thank you. All right, and Maria Sol. Oh, wow. Jeez. You know, I want to take this moment to thank Kelly Hammeran. She's just so diligent and efficient and amazing. And the fact that she brought up another opportunity to develop compassion and empathy for everyone. I keep saying, we're one family, and of course we're exceedingly diverse. This evening that we've discussed has to do with, are we going to prevent harm, or are we going to exert our power and privilege and benefit personally at the expense of many? So I keep bringing, I try to keep bringing us back because I have every faith in the heart. I know you all are so smart, but I know you all have hearts, and we are in fact in this together. So I don't mean to be boring and repetitive, but if we don't start there as a come unity where we can share and care and look out for each other instead of militarizing through surveillance and AI, you know, weaponry now, or, you know, killing as a sport, we are one human family. And I thank each of you for coming and doing all the work that you do and doing the best that you can and encouraging all of us to do the same. So thank you again. Thank you. Thank you, Maria. Other public comments online? Okay. That's it. All right. Thank you all so much for your public comments. I will see if there's a motion to adjourn. I will entertain. I move to adjourn. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Can we take the roll, please? Councilmember Kesarwani? Yes. Tregub? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Lunaparra? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Ishii? Yes. Okay. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much. Have a good evening. Recording stopped.