When Sophie Hahn, my District 5 Councilmember, sent an email announcing two community meetings regarding “IKE Advertising Kiosks" I was filled with curiosity. One was to be held via Zoom on July 7 about North Shattuck Avenue; the other was an in-person meeting to be held on July 8 about Solano at the Solano Oriental Rug Gallery. I attended the July 7 Zoom meeting and to my surprise, the meeting was hosted by a City of Berkeley staff member, Kieron Slaughter, from the Office of Economic Development. Ms. Burton from IKE was present to explain the project and Barbara Hillman, representing the former Berkeley Convention Bureau (now called Visit Berkeley) was in attendance to support the kiosks. More than 80 people were on the call, and right off the bat, people asked if this was a city-sponsored meeting that met city notice requirements, and why another meeting was being held in a private space. No answer was given, and this turned out to be the model for addressing the public’s questions for the rest of the meeting. 

With growing alarm, the meeting’s attendees learned that 31 of these kiosks were approved some 3 years ago. Yet no one seemed to have ever heard about them before this! And now, we were being told that 1 or more 8 foot high, dark grey, roundish kiosks inset with screens of colorfully lighted advertising turned on day and night, every day (let’s call them by their real name—street-level billboards) might be installed on the already-crowded narrow sidewalks of North Shattuck and Solano Avenues. But make no mistake, we weren’t being asked if we wanted them, we were being asked about where they should be placed! Assurances were given that the kiosks wouldn’t be put in residential areas because of sound or light disturbance to nearby homes, but apparently disturbances to the many residential units built above the ground-floor commercial uses didn’t matter. 

Nine of these billboards have already been installed – 5 Downtown, 3 on Telegraph Avenue and 1 in South Berkeley’s Lorin District. We were told that Berkeley was leading the way by offering residents and visitors an “Interactive Kiosk Experience.” Simply by touching the kiosk screen. you would be able to find weather and transit information, lists of available jobs, and announcements of events and meetings with maps and directions about everything. Never mind that all this information is already available for free, without an “Interactive Kiosk Experience” to anyone who has a modern cell phone. 

Right away privacy and surveillance concerns were raised, and it was admitted that YES, the kiosk records and tracks any cell phone or similar device that comes within about 6 feet. 

This behavior is analogous to the way cell towers note and track devices that come into their service area. Since the information provided by the kiosk is already available on your cell phone, it follows logically that the real purpose of the kiosks is to record reaction to advertisement themes and methods. Why else would tech-savvy media corporations be selling such devices? I was later to confirm that this logical assumption was correct, but at this meeting, these concerns were brushed aside by the hosts by claiming that such data is anonymous and won’t be stored. Yet I wonder about the other information on your cell phone that can be picked up while your presence is being recorded and who will enforce the rules about how it is kept and used. 

The advertising is supposed to help small businesses, and Berkeley-based businesses will be given a discount when they buy advertising to be shown on the kiosks. Yet small businesses may not be helped so much, simply because they can’t afford the cost of advertising when they can already get advertising for free on any number of Internet-based platforms. 

Revenue derived from businesses buying the 24/7 lighted advertising will be split between Visiting Berkeley and the City of Berkeley. When all 31 kiosks are installed the amount of revenue to be paid to the city is estimated to be around $830,000 annually.  

The meeting I attended lasted about 1 hour. During that time some 41 messages were posted in the Chat Room and a very small number of brief verbal comments were allowed at the end of the meeting. I heard only one word of praise or support for the concept, and that came from Barbara Hillman. People wanted to talk and get answers to their questions, but the hosts had to leave to hold another meeting in the Elmwood District and people were left wondering what’s next. 

Since the kiosks are being installed by IKE Smart City, LLC, I checked the web and found they apparently have a connection with Orange Barrel Media, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, and West Hollywood. Under the heading “Markets,” the OB Media website lists 24 cities: New York, Boston, Miami, Houston, etc. Included in that list is Berkeley, with photos and a brief description that says simply that 9 kiosks are “live.” 

I also found that on February 27, 2018, an agreement was signed by Barbara Hillman and Pete Scantland, CEO, Orange Barrel Media, Columbus, Ohio. The agreement gives IKE Smart City, LLC, the exclusive right to construct, install, operate, maintain, upgrade and remove at least 30 IKE Smart City Kiosks in Berkeley. All costs, including insurance, are to be borne by IKE, with revenues to be split between the Convention Bureau and the city. The agreement lists types of advertising that would be limited and applications that would be installed on the kiosks. In the coming months, the agreement was amended several times (fortunately eliminating an original intention to include video games) as the City began the approval process. The agreement covers a minimum of 15 years and contains the assurances that we heard on July 7^th. 

With great difficulty, due to the poor design of the city’s new web site, the first date regarding Council action that I could find was September 25, 2018 when the Council held a public hearing on the installation of the kiosks. Two ordinances are necessary to approve the “advertising” kiosks, which by now go by the much gentler title of “wayfinding” kiosks. 1) Ordinance No 7,626 -NS. approval of the franchise agreement, and 2) Ordinance, No. 7,627-NS to exempt the wayfinding kiosks from existing Sign and Encroachment regulations. The franchise agreement was approved on September 25, 2018 and October 30, 2018, with Maio, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Worthington, Droste, Arreguin approving and Davila abstaining. On October 30, 2018, the second ordinance, No. 7,627-NS (Sign and Encroachment) had to be revised after supplemental material was submitted by staff. On that same date, Councilmember Hahn also submitted supplemental material and a motion to eliminate “the “people counting function” supported by Councilmembers Davila, Harrison and Hahn failed. On November 13, 2018, Ordinance No. 7,627-NS amending the Sign and Encroachment regulations containing the “people counting function” was approved by Maio, Bartlett, Harrison, Worthington. Droste and Arreguin; voting No was Councilmember Hahn; abstaining was Davila and Wengraf absent. Subsequent Council actions have been taken since then about locations, but not around the issue of approval. 

Some 37 letters have been sent to the Council none in support of the kiosks. These letters express deep concerns about privacy, label their approval as the “Manhattanizing “of Berkeley, state the belief the kiosks will soon become targets for posting of all sorts of signs and spray painted messages, provide useless information, and writers indicate better ways to provide information to the public. 

In view of the questions that have been raised and not answered, the Council should reconsider their approval of these street-level billboards. They can start by asking that the Council direct the City Manager, and request the Auditor, to each independently review the record and prepare a report which provides a clear understanding of what happened and also provides a conclusion regarding:  

1. Whether notice requirements under the Brown Act and the city’s own rules and procedures were legally met in actions concerning approval of the franchise agreement and providing for their encroachment on our sidewalks. If they were not, does this invalidate the actions that they have taken?
2. Serious questions which have arisen as to the energy used by 31 kiosks constantly operating on a 24/7 basis. It’s been stated that the installation and operation of the kiosks were exempt from the Environmental Review process. City officials should rovide the documentation as to when and how that decision was made, including the identification of the section of the Environmental Impact Law, case law and a legal opinion that was used to arrive at the exempt decision. If not exempt, how will compliance be achieved? And also provide an explanation of how this increased energy use reflects the city’s response to Climate Change goals and policies.

   ---

    

Dear Mr. Coppola,

Reading about Megalopolis moves me to write you, out of deep anxiety for the future of our movie theaters and the ability to see movies communally on a big screen.

Berkeley apparently will lose the great ten-screen Shattuck Cinemas after the city showed no interest in saving the other Landmark-leased California Theatre earlier this year when the heirs of the owner rejected Landmark’s lease renewal offer. As you may know, the Shattuck Cinemas’ ten screens allowed for screenings of independent films and foreign films along with big budget films. From 2015 to 2020, a group of us who love film succeeded in delaying the previous developer who proposed to demolish them. The new developer proposes 8 instead of 18 stories but he too plans the demolition of the theater, as he told me himself. He dismissed movie theaters as now obsolete. But the city could require him to preserve the theater.

The capacity of Netflix et al to make movies accessible privately during COVID was a comfort. But I’d hate to see this convenience be allowed to displace the shared experience of seeing films on the big screen. Without movie theaters and their large screens and sound systems, I worry that we will lose great films. They need the financial support that comes from large-scale presentation, and viewers need the scale provided by big screens in movie theaters to enjoy the richness of a film made as a work of art.  

Great films such as Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner, Atanarjuat, Claire Denis’ mysterious The Intruder, Jane Campion’s The Power of the Dog, and such significant foreign films as Honeyland, cannot be appreciated on a small screen and in a private home. Film as an art form requires the big screen. Viewing movies in a communal setting creates the exhilaration of sharing a momentous event and the satisfaction of the senses that art produces.  

As I wrote to Kevin Holloway, President of Landmark, I was deeply grateful for Landmark’s reopening of the Shattuck Cinemas in Berkeley last year as the pandemic began to recede. It was a huge relief to be able to see some of the new films (I’d been keeping a list) under rigorously safe conditions, thanks to the Cinemas’ scheduling multiple screenings daily, including uncrowded afternoon showings.  

Between the 1960s and 2010 or so, Berkeley was one of the best places in the world to see a wide range of films, popular blockbusters as well as foreign films, indie films, the low-budget quirky films I’ve always treasured. But we’ve steadily lost screens in recent years, mainly due to developers’ proposals for market-rate housing. The speculative development projects do not serve Berkeley’s urgent need for median- and low-income housing and are erasing our once-rich cultural diversity.  

The renewed threat to the Shattuck Cinemas results from the sale of that property to a Chicago developer, fronted by Bill Schrader of the Austin Group. The property is part of the landmarked block that contains the 1910 Shattuck Hotel. The ten-screen theater represents the successful repurposing of a former department store; it includes hand-painted murals in the Egyptian- and Moroccan-themed theaters. With different-sized screening rooms, it has brought us a wide range of films. Before the pandemic, 275,000 to 300,000 movie viewers a year were coming to the Shattuck Cinemas in downtown Berkeley.  

I spoke with John MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s, another film lover, about the possibility of the sort of forum Harper’s occasionally organizes, to discuss the future of movie theaters. Ultimately, the best solution might be that they re-emerge from the pandemic as non-profit businesses. I write you to ask if you are aware of any organized effort to defend our movie theaters across the country against the home-screen ventures and demolition by developers, so we can continue to see films on their big screens with other film lovers?

San Francisco Chronicle reporter Joe Garofoli recently published an article with the disturbing headline: "Survey Finds Half of Americans Expect a Civil War." According to Garofoli, "A study asked Americans if they could support political violence. Half said they think a civil war is coming."

I passed the article on to David Swanson, executive director of World BEYOND War. He replied by noting there is "no such thing as a 'civil' war" and offered three other examples of contradictory phrases. To wit: "Army Intelligence says bring your Diet Coke and some Lethal Aid."

I responded by musing whether there might be a word for such self-contradictory phrases. Idionyms? Stuponyms? Contradictoryms?

Swanson's reply reminded me that a term for such internally contradictory phrases already exists: "oxy Morons." 

Fashion Plates 

Seen on the streets. 

Grey Volvo: IMANTON (Hi, Anton!) 

Red Nissan Frontier: 8B80800 (Eleven Circles?) 

Silver Torrent: AIR H2O (Only the essentials) 

Black Jeep: MALNTNT (Caution advised: Cops might be drawn to a vehicle being driven by someone with the nickname "Mal Intent") 

Filmmaker and Art Car Honcho Harold Blank's Prius can be seen around town festooned with hand-painted images of storks, robins, crows, owls, and parrots. Not surprising that the car's plate reads: FORBRDS. 

Rally 'Round People's Park 

The going-on-53-year struggle to preserve the legacy and landscape of People’s Park is reaching a peak. The team of volunteers working to protect the Park through legal challenges has won a court order that prohibits UC Berkeley from fencing off the park and constructing high-rise apartment buildings on the site. 

According to the Park's defenders, on July 29, a "very formidable team of lawyers" will call for invalidating UCB's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Housing Project #2. A legal win on July 29 would block UCB's construction plans and require a new EIR. This could convince UCB to abandon its plans for the Park and pursue building student housing on alternative sites. 

"We’ve held off UC’s insatiable land grabbing," the Park's defenders state. "Preserving People’s Park is now much more than a distant possibility—if we can pay our lawyers!" 

The activists defending People's Park currently owe their legal team $79,000! "Our history, our park, our open green space are invaluable," they note. With all that in mind, here is a link for making donations. And, some rare good news: "All donations are tax-deductible and would be returned if our case is won." 

People's Park Sparks a Quirky Documentary 

On July 21, Senor Gigio posted a new documentary about People's Park on his YouTube channel. Here's the trailer for "Random Acts of Nonconformity." 

And here is a link to Gigio's complete hour-long video happening. 

Not Up-in-Arms, Today's Democrats Are Up For Arms 

In response to the recent rancor over Pentagon spending, Massachusetts Peace Action (MAPA) offered some useful stats in a war-budget meme: 

Congress approved a $839 billion Pentagon FY 2023 budget on a 329-101 vote. That marked a $67 billion increase over 2022—and included $37 billion more than President Joe Biden asked for. That increase alone is greater than the entire budget to address climate change ($44.9 billion). 

180 Democrats voted for bloat—blatantly ignoring the party's platform promise to cut military spending. Instead of being up-in-arms over arms spending, only 39 Dems had the courage to vote against pandering to the Pentagon. More than four times that number of Dems (180) voted for the handout. On the other side of the aisle, 145 Republicans voted for the hike while 54 GOPers voted against. 

"There's something seriously wrong with both major political parties," MAPA noted. "We live in a rich country with crumbling infrastructure, no universal healthcare, lackluster education, climate catastrophe, and food insecurity. This is why." 

Pentagon Gets Billions While Veterans Depend on Charity? 

The Wounded Warrior Project proclaims its motto is: "We never leave a wounded warrior behind. Ever." WWP clams to have spent $1 billion to help 1 million of "our nation's most severely wounded veterans." But it just occurred to me that WWP and its motto would only need to exist if the Pentagon and the Armed Forces have failed in their duty to secure the return America's wounded soldiers. You'd think, if the Pentagon were doing its job, there would be no need for a civilian charity to oversee a fund-raising operation to safeguard the country's battle-scared vets. Why is it the Pentagon (with a pending record-sized $839 billion budget) can't afford to care for its own sick, wounded, and missing? 

When Provocation Becomes a National Vocation 

The script for ABC News anchor Whit Johnson's report that the Pentagon was considering sending US-made fighter jets to Ukraine was worrisome in its ambivalence. Johnson told viewers the escalation "would be seen as a further provocation by Russia." Russian leader Putin has warned that sending US jets could be seen as an attempt to create a "no-fly zone" in Ukraine. Such an escalation, Russia has warned, could be answered by a direct attack on US targets—attacks that could potentially escalate to include nuclear weapons. 

The critical message should have been that Russia had warned Washington against this escalation. Instead of facing the terrifying possibility that the US was risking a nuclear war with Russia, many listeners just heard the phrase "a further provocation by Russia." 

Whether by clumsiness or design, these words could have enforced the idea that the only provocateur in this confrontation was a guy named Putin in a place named Moscow. 

More Provocations 

The questions of "provocation" revolving around the Russia-Ukraine conflict have divided the anti-war community. Critics who blame NATO and the US for provoking Putin—by encroaching on Russia's borders, inviting former Soviet states to join NATO, staging destabilizing military exercises and installing nuclear weapons in Belgium, German, Italy, The Netherlands, and Turkey—have been criticized for being "pro-Russian." The fact is, even though Putin was intentionally provoked, his "special military operation" still constitutes an act of aggression under international law. 

American linguist, philosopher, and social critic Noam Chomsky notes that, while it is "de rigueur" to condemn Putin’s criminal aggression as an “unprovoked invasion of Ukraine,” there appears to be a double-standard at work—one that ignores US history. While a Google search for "unprovoked invasion of Ukraine" finds “about 2,430,000 results” tagged to Russia's Ukraine intrusion, a similar search for Washington's “unprovoked invasion of Iraq” yields only “about 11,700 results.” 

We Don't Like IKE 

IKE Smart City electronic billboards (now being installed on sidewalks across town) look like oversized, eight-foot-tall Smartphones. According to volunteer neighborhood Kiosk Kops, nine of 26 planned kiosks have been installed so far—including three on Telegraph and five on Shattuck. I recently checked out the one in Berkeley's Lorin District—on the Northwest corner of Alcatraz and Adeline. 

The door-sized screen was slow to respond to finger pokes. I had to resort to palm slaps and, eventually, knuckle-punches. Checking the entertainment options (which included Berkeley Rep, Freight and Salvage, and BAMPFA) I was given only short, boilerplate descriptions. There was no information on who would be performing, when they would be performing, or how much tickets would cost. 

Most of the destinations were downtown locations requiring a 1-2 mile walk from this South Berkeley kiosk. (Not much appeared to be happening in the Lorin neighborhood.) The kiosk presented a map that showed how to walk to each destination. But, if you get lost, you're out of luck: IKE's kiosks don't give you a print-out of a map you can carry. 

Of course, if you have a smartphone, you really don't need a printed map. Nor do you need a kiosk. The only thing IKE provides on its screens that you can't get on your personal phone is the paid ads from big-budget corporate advertisers like Amazon, Twitter and H&M. That's the main reason the kiosks exist: to impose unwanted, distracting digital ads on passing pedestrians. 

But there's a second, more worrisome issue: privacy. These kiosks are designed to track and record personal information from passing cell phones, information that can be "monetized by IKE." (An IKE representative has admitted the kiosks include Wi-fi systems that "ping" on passing electronic devices but insists: "We don't store data. We don't sell data.") 

IKE's plans to include TV surveillance cameras, to capture videos of each and every passing cellphone owner, were scotched by Councilmember Sophie Hahn who objected to the hidden camera option. Under the franchise agreement with IKE, the cameras will remain but they will be "turned off." Hahn is also opposing the installation of these sidewalk-blocking kiosks in Berkeley's Solano and North Shattuck shopping corridors. 

Sign the Petition To Save Chavez Park 

A consultant hired by the city to create a Berkeley Marina Area Specific Plan (BMASP) has come up with a pro-development horror-show that would wreak havoc on the Berkeley Marina. 

The proposed Disneyfication of Berkeley's prized waterfront nature areas calls for the destruction of the park's vast Native Plants Area, dictates the removal and paving of the much-loved Adventure Playground, and the construction of a massive "events pavilion"—a huge clamshell outdoor concert venue for swarming rockband crowds to replace the large open spaces that currently invite long walks and inspiring views from Chavez Park. 

The city's Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission was inundated with letters, calls, and emails from park-lovers scandalized by the prospect that the open roaming spaces linking the hills and gullies of Chavez Park could be demolished in an act of desecration masquerading as an "improvement." 

Fortunately, the PRW Commission responded with a unanimous NO and the recommendation now heads to the City Council, the Mayor, and the City Manager. 

Meanwhile, a group of park lovers has created a petition to preserve these natural spaces, explaining: "We still need to put the pressure on to save Cesar Chavez Park as open space with native plantings that contribute to a healthy ecosystem which is enjoyed by birds and wildlife and hundreds of people." 

ACTION: Please sign the petition here, and encourage others to sign on. 

For more information about the proposals, read “Let’s Stop the Plan that Would Destroy Our Park.” And for a collection of letters and reports in opposition to the BMASP plans, click here.  

A Chilean Protest Song that Became a Feminist Anthem 

Thank you, Mr. Stone, for voicing the plain truth that mentally ill people are not to be blamed for the prevalent and worsening gun violence in the U.S.! However, I have more to add to this, and it is of grave concern.

We've seen some of how Trump operates and gains an increasing toehold on power. One of these methods is to vilify a person or a category of people. During his campaign against Hillary Clinton, the mantra was "Lock her up, lock her up!" And Trump very likely paid individuals to attempt to defame the Clintons.

Historians probably know a lot about Adolf Hitler's rise to power. A major strategy of Hitler was to vilify the Jews. And now we are seeing Trump, perhaps in similar fashion, vilifying mentally ill people. I don't know; I wasn’t alive in the 1930's and 40's.

Yet it doesn't seem very farfetched for Trump to make a watered-down attempt at another Holocaust. Of course, we aren't going to see anything like what happened under Hitler--there are too many people determined it won't happen again, at least not with Jews as victims.

Yet, the mentally ill are some of the most helpless people in society, because of difficulty organizing, because of being medicated, and because of having a harder time fighting back.  

The groundwork for Trump's plan to persecute mentally ill people has already been created, I fear. Please see my essay in the Street Spirit Newspaper of last month. Here is the link: https://thestreetspirit.org/2022/06/10/the-real-world-impact-of-trumps-crackdown-on-government-benefits/  

The scenario that I went through about two years ago is perfect for the abduction and imprisonment of mentally ill people. The disability interviews I went to took place on Sundays in a remote location. This prevents boarding a bus to get out of there, and it eliminates eyewitnesses. And some of the people with whom I was dealing over the phone and through messaging, had an eerie resemblance to villainous military officers like the ones you might remember from "Raiders of the Lost Ark."  

The examinations of disabled people conducted by the U.S. Government, were administered through contracting with private companies. This created an information barrier between the Social Security Administration, which is an accessible agency, versus the companies doing the exams, which were harder to identify and deal with and which did not seem accountable.  

It seems to me that the above-described examination scenario could be a dress rehearsal for a campaign of imprisoning or otherwise eliminating mentally ill people from society.  

And I want to compliment Mr. Stone on a well-researched piece as well as keeping abreast of pertinent news that concerns the mentally ill people.  

Even if mentally ill people are not kidnapped and are merely cut from government benefits, and if at the same time many gun toting members of the public have been taught to hate us, the same basic goal is partway accomplished. You could see people asserting their Second Amendment Rights, who, when they spot someone who appears mentally ill, abruptly become trigger happy and later make up and excuse.  

We're not going to see a repeat of what happened under Hitler. This is because the American people won't allow it. However, we're looking at a major tug of war between Trump and his followers, versus friends of mentally ill people such as NAMI, (National Alliance on Mental Illness) which is an organization of increasing political and social power. (And rightfully so.)  

Insofar as we mentally ill people standing up on our own behalf, that may happen to an extent, but we are going to need all of the help we can get. It is a lot harder for us to stand up for ourselves without being helped by family and by the community. And Donald Trump should be ashamed of himself for his choice of designated victims.

I only take the print edition of the Chronicle one day a week though I really miss having the full paper in hand every day. Reading the e-edition of my various subscriptions is not the same and it’s too easy to miss them altogether. Some say the Chronicle isn’t worth reading at all, but today on the front page is Mono Lake drying up from the drought and on the back the temperature map of the entire continental U.S. is in deep orange (90 – 100 degrees and above) with a tiny sliver on the west in yellow (60 degrees) where we live. This week more than 100 million in the US were under an excessive heat warning and Europe is burning up.

Maybe the investors of units sitting vacant about town with many if not all priced out of reach for those of us with income under the area median (AMI) are holding out for migration back to the Bay Area. A two-bedroom 1079 square foot unit at the Blake is available for $5410/month or maybe a 461 square foot studio at $3397/month is more in your price range. Neither are in my affordability range.

At a neighborhood gathering in District 8 last week, the conversation moved to apartments pulled from the market and turned into AirBnBs. Just a few blocks from me is an apartment building that has been vacant for decades. And I am surrounded by for rent/lease signs in the downtown and cranes of more buildings under construction. Meanwhile the homeless can be seen throughout the flats with their carts of belongings and tents.

Vacant units throughout Berkeley are the subject of the vacancy tax authored by Councilmember Kate Harrison. It is item 6 at the 3 pm (new time) City Council Special meeting next Tuesday, July 26, on ballot initiatives for the November 8 election. Whether council members will do what is right for the community or bow to the real estate industry which they look to for supporting their elections and for feathering the political action committee (PAC) money to bolster “candidate friendly” campaigns is the big question.  

The Empty Homes Tax (vacancy tax) was before council on June 14th with the usual suspects voting against moving it forward for the November election. Councilmembers Kesarwani, Wengraf, Droste and Taplin voted yes on a motion to move the Empty Homes Tax to the Council Land Use Committee where it would certainly languish until the deadline to approve a vacancy tax as a November ballot initiative passed. The second motion on June 14th referred the Empty Homes Tax to the City Attorney and City Manager for review to bring it back for the special meeting on ballot initiatives. That motion did pass, with yes votes by Taplin, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Robinson and Mayor Arreguin. Arreguin said he was only voting to bring it back and that his vote was not indicating support.  

As someone who put in countless hours in Arreguin’s campaign for mayor in 2016 and to everyone who is as disappointed as I am with his performance as mayor, I am sorry, so very very sorry, for all those miles walked and doors knocked.  

It’s hard to know if council will come through to put the vacant residential units tax on the November Ballot for the voters to decide. I certainly hope so. I do know for certain that holding units off the market should be a badge of shame and that what is being built, all this “market rate” housing, is out of reach for so many of us. The vacancy tax is a win all the way around for our community, giving a push to bring units back for occupancy or at the very least making investors pay for withholding housing. You can read the measure at https://berkeleyca.gov/city-council-special-meeting-eagenda-july-26-2022 and please make your voice heard.  

Vacant buildings, vacant units, and monthly rental prices that push people out of housing are not unique to Berkeley. The manipulation of housing is nationwide and international. It is the subject of the film PUSH, the 2019 documentary on Housing Crisis in Modern Cities and multi-national investing in housing. You can start with the 16-minute clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4-VORQZ1-Q and when you find time watch the full film.  

And, it isn’t just the big multi-unit buildings that are attractive to real estate investors like Blackstone. They are gobbling up single family homes and smaller unit buildings too.  

On to last week’s City meetings.  

The Council Land Use Committee on Tuesday voted to refer Robinson’s Ordinance “Keep Innovation in Berkeley” to the Planning Commission and the City Manager. This ordinance expands the zoning districts where research and development would be allowed. It includes Telegraph and the Downtown. Research and development is currently prohibited in these districts. Referrals to the Planning Commission languish for months and years before action, though this may move a little faster since it is City staff who determine the Planning Commission agenda. In other commissions, the chair and commissioners determine the agenda.  

The Council Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Committee (FITES) voted to send Taplin’s “Regulation of Autonomous Vehicles” (driverless cars) to the City Attorney to assess the City Council’s “opportunity” to regulate operation, sale and testing in Berkeley.  

The last meeting of the week was the Design Review Committee (DRC) at 7 pm Thursday evening; the last hour of the eighth January 6 hearing (thank goodness for hearing recordings). There was only one project up for review, 2440 Shattuck.  

In my initial non-agenda comment, I spoke to the current heatwave, heat island effect and how we really need to think about designing buildings differently, planning cities differently, topping buildings with solar or green roofs (plants covering rooftops) and providing space between buildings for greenery, habitat and ecosystems. Cities with buildings backed up next to each other absorb and retain heat, making cities up to 10 to 20 degrees hotter than more rural areas.  

There isn’t time to say everything when commenting on non-agenda items, but I was certainly thinking of Thom Hartmann’s July 6 edition of the Hartmann Report reminding us that the last time our planet saw CO2 at 420 parts per million, sea levels were 60 feet higher and trees were growing in Antarctica. In the same edition, Hartmann also gives an excellent description of how to understand what is happening to the Polar Jet Stream, something I watch religiously in the weather maps. https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-climate-emergency-we-worried  

This climate crisis we are living in now is with a temperature rise of just 1.16°C and CO2 at 420 ppm. And, we just keep flying, adding more carbon to the atmosphere and living like nothing has changed.  

When the redesign of 2440 Shattuck came back with walls of deep dark brown brick, I commented that the dark brown would absorb more heat. Charles Kahn, Berkeley architect on the DRC, said he is yet to be convinced that color has any impact on heat absorption and the heat island effect, but said he is open to proof.  

If you see me out of the street with a clipboard and thermometers know that I am gathering data to duplicate the experiments by Benjamin Franklin from the 1700s and the exercises I found online written for school children to understand color and absorption and reflection of sunlight and the resulting difference in temperature of dark and light surfaces.  

Bird safe glass was another request. Bill Shrader, project developer, insisted he couldn’t find any source for bird safe glass. I don’t know where he was looking, but Mountain View, Oakland and San Francisco all have bird safe glass ordinances and San Francisco’s ordinance was passed in 2011.  

I am still trying to set up a time with neighbor Josiah who is an architect for high-rises in Oakland. In a street side conversation, Josiah said bird safe glass was no big deal and was in disbelief that Berkeley didn’t have a bird safe ordinance in place.  

Janet Tam, architect on the DRC, said she has had projects with bird safe glass.  

Looking at the planet heating up it is beginning to feel like we are stepping into Kim Stanley Robinson’s book The Ministry For the Future with some scientists suggesting the controversial geoengineering to dim sunlight in an unbearably hot world. In Robinson’s science fiction book it worked, but that is science fiction. In Elizabet Kolbert’s 2021 book Under A White Sky she leads us through all the manmade catastrophes of trying to manipulate nature before ending the book with possibilities of what could go wrong with geoengineering. 

There is a correction from last week. The corrected link to Busting Myths Around Creating Defensible Space with the subdivision from southern California that burned to the ground and left the Eucalyptus surrounding it intact is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4JpOdS9ffI 

There is a piece of happy news on which to close. 

Governor Newsom signed $36 million in the budget for the East Bay Regional Park District for acquisition and cleanup of Point Molate. The members of Citizens for East Shore Parks (CESP) have been working on this for years. Those who were involved from the beginning might say decades. https://www.richmondcommunitynews.com/ The work to turn Point Molate into a park isn’t over, but this is really a thrill. 

I am a member of CESP and cannot take even a sliver of credit for this accomplishment. All the credit goes to the members who were there long before I joined and continue in their amazing work to expand and preserve our parks. Sally Tobin and Pam Stello have been organizing an incredible series on Mondays from 6 – 7 pm Speaking Up for Point Molate YouTube Channel:https://tinyurl.com/bdfrywys. 

A massive heat wave has scorched much of Europe, with the U.K. shattering its record for highest temperature ever recorded. Oblivious and unconcerned about the future but determined to retain his coveted Congressional seat, Senator Manchin has shown a complete willingness to sell his soul to the highest bidder, the fossil fuel and coal industry to upend his party’s efforts to introduce legislation to combat climate change. 

Judas Manchin is supported by radical members of the Republican Party who are hell-bent on scoring political points denying the existential threat of climate change condemning their families and future generations of humanity to a dark and uncertain future. 

President Biden’s actions are also confusing. Abandoning his prior condemnation of Mohamed bin Salman as a pariah, he rushed to Riyadh to meet MBS with a warm fist-bump begging him to pump more oil, then rushed home to declare climate change caused by our addiction to fossil fuels as an existential threat to our survival! 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued a “dire warning on the consequences of inaction.” Even with an immediate concerted global effort to phase out fossil fuels, there is still only a slim chance that we can preserve our civilization as we know it. 

Author and environmental activist, Guardian reporter George Monbiot, added his powerful voice calling for vigorous action to reduce carbon emissions. His latest column headlined “This heatwave has eviscerated the idea that small changes can tackle extreme weather.” Monbiot criticizes what he calls “micro-consumerist” bleep — an approach that presents “micro-solutions” to the “macro-problem” of climate change. The only thing that delivers quickly and effectively is system change,” only new technology can eliminate the West’s reliance on animal agriculture, which is one of the leading causes of the climate crisis often overshadowed by a focus on fossil fuels. 

Monbiot, winner of the Orwell Prize for Journalism, reminds us of the world-wide devastation caused by a rise of 1.2 degrees. What would happen with an elevated temperature of 2 or 3 degrees? He has a scathing critique for the small baby steps taken thus far. More conflicts are likely to occur as climate refugees try to escape Violent weather, floods, wildfires, extreme temperatures, rising sea levels and pandemics.

President Biden should have heeded candidate Biden who vowed to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” for the state-sponsored killing of The Washington Post columnist, Jamāl Khashoggi in Istanbul in 2018. 

So, once a pariah now a buddy! 

Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia, to meet Mohammed Bin Salman MBS, was best encapsulated by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who wrote on social media “Biden’s visit underscores the United States’ dependency on oil from Middle Eastern nations. If we ever needed a visual reminder of the continuing grip oil-rich autocrats have on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, we got it today. One fist bump is worth a thousand words.”  

Biden’s claim that he held MBS responsible for Khashoggi’s murder was later contradicted by a top Saudi official.  

“Democracy for an Arab World (DAWN)’s, executive director, Sarah Leah Whitson, was outraged over Biden’s friendly fist bump stating “Biden’s legacy is a a man who broke his promises” on holding Saudi Arabia accountable for mass murder and sends a troubling message to other wealthy oil-producing countries. “ 

The publisher of The Washington Post, Fred Ryan, equally critical of Biden visit, saying, “the fist-bump between President Biden and Mohammed bin Salman was worse than a handshake — it was shameful. It projected a level of intimacy and comfort that delivers to MBS the unwarranted redemption he has been desperately seeking.”

The Hopkins project is District 5 Councilmember Sophie Hahn’s baby, albeit a late and cranky adoptee. She initiated their special relationship in January 2018 with a budget referral that allocated $200,000 to add “placemaking” considerations for the part of Hopkins that lies in her district (Sutter to Sacramento) to the city’s plan to repave the entire street in the summer of 2023.

Due to Covid disruptions, the public process only got underway in October 2020. After working mostly behind the scenes for two and a half years, on May 2, 2022, Hahn presided over an online public meeting about major changes to the staff’s conceptual plan from the Alameda intersection up to Sutter. A few hours before the council convened on May 10, she sent her council e-mail list an impassioned appeal to support those changes and other amendments that were folded into the omnibus proposal that she and Mayor Arreguín submitted on the day of the meeting. Shortly after midnight, the council approved that proposal with a few amendments (see below) on an 8-1 vote, with Susan Wengraf casting the sole No. 

There’s another reason besides this history to focus on Hahn’s involvement in the Hopkins project. Many people, including myself, think that when Nancy Skinner is termed out of the State Senate in 2024, Arreguín will run for her seat, and Hahn will run for Berkeley mayor. Hopkins is only one among numerous items on which Hahn has taken a position as a councilmember and, before that, as a member of the Zoning Adjustments Board. But a close look at her work on this complex, protracted, and contentious project offers insights into her political character and style of governance. 

To understand Hahn’s moves, it’s essential to remember that city staff do not directly report to the mayor and council. Under Berkeley’s city manager form of government, staff answer to the city manager, who in turn answers to the electeds, at least in theory. At the same time, the mayor and council depend on staff to develop and implement the policies they pass. The potential for discord is obvious. 

Until a few weeks before the May 10 meeting, Hahn publicly applauded staff for having devised a “well-balanced” plan that addressed the concerns of the varied stakeholders. Behind the scenes, she had become convinced that Deputy Director of Public Works for Transportation Farid Javandel and his colleagues were not going to carry out the recommendation in her referral to emphasize “green infrastructure and aesthetics.” Nor, it appeared, were they going to replace the flawed bicycle facility that had been installed at the intersection of Hopkins and The Alameda shortly before she was elected to the council in November 2016. 

To achieve her referral’s aims and to correct the screwup at the intersection, Hahn enlisted a prominent member of the bike lobby. At the May 2 online meeting, she had Transportation Commission Chair Karen Parolek present ideas for extending the two-way, protected cycle track on the south side of Hopkins from The Alameda up to Sutter, and for re-designing the bicycle infrastructure at the intersection of Hopkins and the Alameda. Hahn knew that Javandel and his colleagues, who effectively represent the bike lobby in City Hall, were unlikely to challenge Parolek’s ideas. Those ideas were incorporated into the supplemental proposal that the council approved a week later. 

Rapprochement with the bike lobby was something new for Hahn. In October 2019, she abstained on Rigel Robinson’s proposal to dedicate 50 percent of all paving funds to bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The measure passed 8-1-1, with Wengraf voting No. 

And when the council deliberated on the city’s draft Bicycle Plan in May 2017, Hahn first noted that staff had inadequately consulted AC Transit and the Alameda County Transportation Commission about the plan, and that Ace Hardware and other small businesses hadn’t been consulted at all. Nor had they consulted anyone about the installation at Hopkins and The Alameda. Accordingly, Hahn proposed that all elements in the Bicycle Plan be subject to revision on a project-by-project basis, and that all stakeholder constituencies, which she specified, be consulted. 

Speaking at public comment, Karen Parolek objected, arguing that such requirements would doom the Bicycle Plan. Parolek suggested an add-on to Hahn’s amendment, whereby the low-stress bicycle network envisioned in the plan would take priority over other considerations. 

Hahn’s amendment was pared back to giving stakeholder constituencies the opportunity for “input” as each project is implemented, and to consider the special needs and hazards associated with commercial and manufacturing uses. The language about project-by-project revision was cut. Parolek’s amendment was incorporated into the Bicycle Plan. Five years later, Parolek helped Hahn do an end run around staff. 

But Hahn didn’t oppose all the staff work on the Hopkins project. The supplemental proposal she co-authored with Arreguín incorporated the rest of staff’s conceptual design for the street. She’s also publicly defended the staff-run public engagement process. 

When we spoke, over Fourth of July weekend, I asked Hahn how she could reconcile that defense with her 2017 appeal for inclusive, in-depth consultation on each bicycle project. Her response was equivocal. 

She cited a spreadsheet that staff had created to document their responses to the numerous comments on evolving Hopkins plan. I observed that they’d never made that spreadsheet public; that they should have done so ; and that even if they had made it public, inventorying responses on a spreadsheet was not a substitute for meaningful public participation, which involves ongoing give-and-take—not just a pat reply. 

Hahn then expressed her own frustrations with the public process, blaming Covid; the mismatch between the size of city staff and the volume of comments, which, she said, numbered in the thousands; and staff’s failure to publicly correct rumors about the elimination of all parking, the disregard of pedestrian safety, and other erroneous views that were circulating in the community. Several times she stated that responding to public comments, was staff’s job, not hers. 

That said, she also described her efforts to supplement the staff response, such as organizing meetings with people living up to a half-block off four segments of Hopkins. To provide what she called “a protected opportunity for the people most affected to discuss the plan without people from beyond the neighborhood,” the gatherings were not advertised on email. Hahn personally knocked on doors and dropped the flyers. She said the meetings were well-attended. What she didn’t say is what the attendees told her at those meetings, and if what they said was reflected in the final plan, and how so. It was the first I’d heard of these meetings, whose existence was never publicized beyond the local flyers and, whose proceedings are not to my knowledge documented in the city’s public records. 

Hahn also voiced her dissatisfaction with the Zoom format, noting that it didn’t offer enough time and opportunity for consultation. So why, I asked, did you announce at the start of the May 2 online meeting that “we’ve disabled Chat, because it’s distracting”? Distracting to whom? Distracting to the people running the meeting, she said, comparing the messages in Chat to people having side conversations at live meetings. 

I demurred, arguing that when it comes to public participation, Chat is one of the few good things about Zoom. And it’s different from talking at a live meeting: Chat is silent. Just ignore it. 

Hahn disagreed, stating that, unlike at meetings that can be called by “anybody,” the May 2 meeting had been called by people with “some plan”—the implication being that such their intentions might be subverted by the open discussion facilitated by Chat. 

But perhaps our most revealing exchange about public engagement, or the lack thereof, in the Hopkins planning process came after Hahn remarked that the city didn’t receive real “critiques,” just “ideas.” 

I asked: What about Donna DeDiemar’s deeply researched critique of the major rationales that staff and the bike lobby bandy about to justify putting bike lanes on Hopkins and the construction of a citywide low-stress bicycling network: 70 percent of Berkeley residents would ride bikes but don’t because they feel unsafe doing so; and, more importantly, Hopkins is a high-injury street? 

To my surprise, Hahn expressed deep skepticism about traffic engineering studies in general. When I asked why she hasn’t challenged such studies, she downplayed their importance in her own decisionmaking. 

To my knowledge, Hahn has never cited the 70 percent figure, which, both DeDiemar and I contend, is based on a bogus survey. But the background section of her 2018 budget referral begins by citing two fatalities on Hopkins that resulted from car accidents, stating that “[t]hese tragedies are just two of the most recent and deadly incidents in this busy area.” 

Her curiosity spurred by those very citations, DeDiemar delved into state of California data and found that one of the two 2017 accidents was the fault of the cyclist. Moreover, the period covered by the city staff’s study, 2016-2019, was an anomaly in Hopkins history. 

Perhaps Hahn didn’t remember that her 2018 referral cited the high-injury charge. When we spoke, I didn't bring it up. I did say that her failure to challenge these pseudo-scientific claims or to insist that staff respond to respond to researched objections, is cynical. 

But true believers don’t need science to justify their positions. Just so, Hahn told me that if the Bicycle Plan study had found that only 20 percent of Berkeleyans don’t cycle because they feel unsafe, fighting for such a network “is worth it. I still support increasing the ability of people to bike safely in Berkeley, period.” 

As I wrote in Part Four, coming from a democratically elected official, such dogmatism is unconscionable. Unfortunately, the council’s deliberations on the Hopkins plan made it clear that except for Wengraf, the mayor and council share Hahn’s doctrinaire attitude toward bicycling. 

The electeds’ zeal shouldn’t stop Berkeleyans from demanding a reasoned city policy. The 2017 Bicycle Plan is being updated, with a draft scheduled for public review this fall. That review should offer an opportunity to scrutinize the data behind the plan’s major rationales. If that data and the accompanying rationales prove to be questionable, the council needs to order new inquiries. 

Until such investigations are completed and publicly vetted, both the Bicycle Plan update and the installation of cycle tracks on Hopkins should be put on hold, even as the much-needed repaving of the street and new pedestrian safety measures go forward in the summer of 2023. If it turns out that Hopkins is not a high-injury street after all, the major rationale for installing bike lanes on it will have been invalidated. 

The bike lobby will howl about not installing cycle tracks at the same time as the street is re-paved. But the debacle at the intersection of Hopkins and The Alameda should be reminder enough of the cost of replacing a poorly designed facility. It’s possible, after all, that new studies will conclude that bike lanes don’t belong on Hopkins—which would save the city a great deal of money. In any case, there’s a lot more at stake here than money: the future of a unique hub of commerce and community life. And real safety. 

To see a more fully documented, much longer version of this article, click here. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Correction, Part Two: 

“Bus lanes and business,” stated that the staff plan removed the bus stop at the northeast corner of Hopkins and Monterey. Indeed, the bus stop icon does not appear in that location. In response to my inquiry, Deputy Director of Public Works for Transportation Farid Javandel said that the icon had been inadvertently omitted, and that the bus stop will be retained. Note, however, that the lane in which the bus now stops, the parking space “lane," will be eliminated to make way for the bike lanes. In the reconfigured street, the bus will stop in the westbound auto lane.

Worth Noting:

Monday – Zero Waste Commission meets at 7 pm. The staff and legislative updates are at the beginning of the meeting.

Tuesday - July 26 is the last of City Council meetings before summer recess/vacation from July 27 through September 12, 2022. The ballot initiatives for a bond measure, street repair tax and rental vacancy tax are on the 3 pm special meeting agenda. NOTE the original announcement for the special meeting on ballot initiatives was 4 pm. It is changed to 3 pm. The Rent Stabilization and eviction ballot initiative, surveillance report, police equipment policies and city website are on the 6 pm meeting agenda.

Wednesday – Environment and Climate Commission at 5 pm takes up the Residential Electrification Program. Civic Arts at 6 pm reviews public art projects and grants. The Police Accountability Board at 7 pm has a full agenda. The Transportation and Infrastructure Commission at 7 pm is reviewing the complete streets grant application.

Thursday – the Mental Health Commission at 7 pm will hear progression on the SCU (Special Care Unit to respond to mental health calls with mental health workers and professional) and program presentation for improving the standard of living for persons with serious mental illness. The BART Board takes up conformance with AB 2923 (BART housing and parking requirements) at 4 pm.

The July 31 Hazardous Waste drop-off event sign-up is full.

August 2 is Neighborhood Night Out for further details and to register your event go to city website https://berkeleyca.gov/community-recreation/news/national-night-out-2022

Check https://berkeleyca.gov/ for late meetings postings and city events. 

Monday, July 25, 2022 

Zero Waste Commission at 7 pm  

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/s/82587046286 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 Meeting ID: 825 8704 6286 

AGENDA: Roll call – Mayor Arreguin, Councilmembers Robinson and Droste have not made appointments. (Droste leaves city council in December), Staff updates: Zero Waste Management Plan, Transfer Station Rates, Transfer Station Replacement, FITES Craft Bag Ordinance, Single-Use Foodware Ordinance Implementation, SB 1383 Implementation, Discussion/Action: 1. State legislative update, 2. Recommendation that council requires staff to bring rate modification proposals and analyses to the Zero Waste Commission for evaluation by the Commission prior to bringing them to Council. 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/boards-commissions/zero-waste-commission 

Tuesday, July 26, 2022 

Community for Cultural Civic Center at 3 (?) pm (the council meeting was changed from 4 pm to 3 pm so this meeting time may be changed) 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89491193768 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 Meeting ID: 894 9119 3768 

AGENDA: Bond measure to be considered by council at 4 pm special council meeting on July 26 

https://berkeleycccc.org/ 

AGENDA FOR JULY 26, 2022 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING at 3 PM 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89491193768 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (toll free) Meeting ID: 894 9119 3768 

Agenda Consent: 1. Memorandum of Agreement with IBEW Local 1245 new salary levels, 2. Side Letter of Agreement for pre-age 65 Retiree Health Insurance of SEIU Local 1021 Maintenance and Clerical Chapters 7/1/2022 - 6/30/2022 City shall contribute additional $200 toward single and 2-party insurance rate, ACTION: 3. Resolution establishing fiscal policy to allocate $8 million per year from the general fund for street maintenance, 4. General Obligation Bond of $300,000,000 for Nov 8 election for Affordable Housing, Climate Change Resiliency, Wildlife Protection and other Public Infrastructure improvements, 5. Special tax measure on Nov 8 ballot to fund street repairs, sidewalks improvements and traffic safety improvements and Vision 2050 program plan – measure weighs 2 options; $0.30 per square foot per building or $0.26315 per residential building and $0.42065 per square foot per commercial building, 6. Vacancy Tax - taxes Vacant Residential Units Nov 8 ballot initiative, the vacancy tax is to either pay a tax or rent the units 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas 

AGENDA FOR JULY 26, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING at 6 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89491193768 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (toll free) Meeting ID: 894 9119 3768 

AGENDA: use link and HTML to see agenda and document details, or go to end of this post for full agenda with key items highlighted in bold and underlined. 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas 

Wednesday, July 27, 2022 

Environment and Climate Commission at 5 pm  

Videoconference: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81707197465 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 817 0719 7465 

AGENDA: 7. Tracking Climate Action and Resilience Implementation Progress Indicators, 8. $1.5 Million Healthy Residential Electrification Just Transition Pilot Program, 9. Work Plan. 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/boards-commissions/environment-and-climate-commission 

Civic Arts Commission at 6 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86147520326 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 Meeting ID: 861 4752 0326 

AGENDA Presentations, Discussion & Action Items: 6. a) FY 2023 Individual Artists Projects, b) FY 2023 Festivals Grant funding, c) Homelessness Social Practice Project Plan, d) Aquatic Park Public Art Project, e) Mildred Howard sculpture Design Development, f) Presentation plinth for Queen Shamiram, g) Marina Circle Public Art Update, h) BART Plaza Home Sculpture, i) Demographics of awarded Civic Arts Grants. 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/boards-commissions/civic-arts-commission 

Police Accountability Board at 7 pm  

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82237902987 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 822 3790 2987 

AGENDA: 3, Public comment on agenda and non-agenda items6. Director’s report, Police Chief’s reports, 8. Subcommittee reports, 9. Finalize draft of proposed permanent Regulations for Handling Investigations and Complaints, 10. a. BPD Annual Equipment Use Report, b. c. update on the status of pending complaint investigations, d. Consider opening a policy on the discharge of inebriated individuals, 11. Remarks by outgoing interim Director of Police Accountability. 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/boards-commissions/police-accountability-board 

Transportation and Infrastructure Commission at 7 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85332533768 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 Meeting ID: 853 3253 3768 

AGENDA Discussion/Action Item: 1. Review Complete Streets checklist for a One Bay Area Grant round three (OBAG3) grant application. 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/boards-commissions/transportation-and-infrastructure-commission 

Thursday, July 28, 2022 

Mental Health Commission at 7 pm 

Videoconference: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83719253558 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 Meeting ID: 837 1925 3558 

AGENDA: 3. Bridge to SCU, 4. Division Manager’s Report, 5. Public Program: Achieving an Adequate Standard of Living for People with Serious Mental Illness +/or Substance Use Issues and Disorders, especially for people experiencing homelessness and/or challenges meeting basic needs. 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/boards-commissions/mental-health-commission 

BART Board of Directors at 4 pm  

Videoconference: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81239983285 

AGENDA: 22-287 1 A. AB 2923 conformance findings for TOD (Transit Oriented Development) pages 222 – 249 in the Full Board packet 

https://bart.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=989125&GUID=BCD33656-55FA-4EC2-966F-BF7FD49338FD&Options=info|&Search= 

Community Health Commission usually meets the 4th Thursday – no meeting announced 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/boards-commissions/community 

Friday, July 29, 2022 – no meetings found 

Saturday, July 30, 2022 

Adopt -a- Spot Volunteer Potluck Picnic organized by Public Works Department at Strawberry Creek Park at 12:30 – 3:30 pm 

Sunday, July 31, 2022  

Hazardous Waste drop-off event is closed 

++++++++++++++++++++ 

AGENDA FOR JULY 26, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING at 6 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89491193768 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (toll free) Meeting ID: 894 9119 3768 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas 

CONSENT: 

1. 2nd Reading Zoning Ordinance Amendments
2. Resolution continues local COVID-19 Emergency
3. Continue Meeting via video and teleconference
4. Minutes
5. $109,440 Downtown YMCA membership for city employee
6. Contract $750,000 with Lehr for Emergency Response Vehicle Supplies/Equipment and Installation Services, term 8/1/2022 – 9/30/2022 with option to extend for 5 additional years
7. Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) 2022-2023 Annual Update,
8. Amend Contract add $93,600 total $109,200 with Sonya Dublin Consulting to provide evaluation services and extend from 6/30/2022 to 6/30/2025
9. Shelter Plus Care Program Renewal Grants
10. Contract Amendments Mental Health Services Act Community Services, Supports Prevention and Early Intervention total $1,571,966
11. Revision of Tool Lending Specialist Classification
12. Amend Contract add $312,000 total $552,432 with Robert Half International/Protiviti for professional services in support of the cyber-resilience projects through 6/30/2023
13. Amend Contract add $154,927 total $2,549,482.53 with Superion, LLC for AS400 Software Maintenance and Support 7/1/2006 to 6/30/2023
14. Purchase Order $350,000 with Protiviti Government Services for GS-35F-0280X
15. Amend Contract add $140,000 total $2,294,769 with ESI Group for the IBM Hardware and Software Lease6/2/2003 to 6/30/2023
16. Donation from Caltrans New Sign at entrance to Berkeley Waterfront
17. Contract $900,000 with AE3 Partners, Inc for architectural services for the African American Holistic Resource Center (AAHRC) 8/1/2022 – 7/31/2025
18. Extension of Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Innovation Properties Group for 199 Seawall Drive (His Lordships in Berkeley Marina),
19. Approval of funds for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations at Tuolomne Camp,
20. Accept Grant $112,337 from CHP Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program to Reduce Impaired Driving in the City of Berkeley7/1/2022 to 6/30/2022
21. Amend Contract add $100,000 total $175,000 with DC Electric Group, Inc. for On-Call Electrical Services and extend thru 6/30/2025
22. Amend Contract add $75,000 total $255,000 with Berry Brothers Towing for on-call towing services and extend thru 1130/2025
23. Amend Contract add $400,000 total $700,000 with Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. for on-call environmental consulting services extend thru 11/30/2025
24. Amend Contract add $100,000 total $287,401 with CycloMedia Technology, Inc. for Geographic Information System Infrastructure asset data acquisition and ongoing data access and extend thru 12/30/2025
25. Grant Application to California Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 11 for Protected Left-Turn Signals at multiple signalized intersections for up to $6,000,000
26. Disaster and Fire Safety Commission - Approval for one additional meeting for Disaster and Fire Safety Commission meeting
27. Arreguin – Authorize 3 Additional Homeless Services Panel of Experts meetings in 2022,
28. Robinson, co-sponsor Hahn – Resolution support Living Wage Act of 2022 to increase CA state-wide minimum wage to $18 on a gradual timeline.

29. BPD Chief Jennifer Louis - Accept Surveillance Technology Report, Surveillance Acquisition Report and Surveillance Use Policy for Automatic License Plate Readers,
30. BPD Chief Jennifer Louis – Police Equipment & Community Safety Ordinance Impact Statements, Associated Equipment Policies and Annual Equipment Use Report
31. 4 x 4 Committee November 8, 2022 Ballot Initiative Amending the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance
32. Hahn, co-sponsors Taplin Bartlett, Harrison - Restoring and Improving Access to City of Berkeley Website and Archival Materials,

33. CM – Sanctuary City Contracting Compliance Report for FY 2021
34. LPO NOD 2733 Buena Vista Way 7/26/2022
35. LPO NOD 2200-block Piedmont 7/26/2022
36. LPO NOD 8 Greenwood 7/26/2022
37. LPO NOD 2113 Kittredge 7/26/2022
38. 2022 Commission on Aging Work Plan
39. City Auditor FY 2023 Audit Plan (Employee Retention, Rent Stabilization Board, Homelessness, follow-up on prior reports)

LAND USE CALENDAR: 

Public Hearing to be scheduled 

1201 – 1205 San Pablo at ZAB Date 9/29/2022 

2018 Blake 10/6/2022 

Remanded to ZAB or LPC 

1205 Peralta – Conversion of an existing garage 

Notice of Decision (NOD) and Use Permits with the End of the Appeal Period 

Bad news on tracking approved projects in the appeal period. Samantha Updegrave, Zoning Officer, Principal Planner wrote the listing of projects in the appeal period can only be found by looking up each project individually through permits online by address or permit number https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Online-Building-Permits-Guide.pdf 

The website with easy to find listing of projects in the appeal period was left on the “cutting room floor” another casualty of the conversion to the new City of Berkeley website.  

Here is the old website link, Please ask for it to be restored item 28 on the June 14 Council agenda. 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/planning_and_development/land_use_division/current_zoning_applications_in_appeal_period.aspx 

WORKSESSIONS: 

September 20 Residential Objective Standards for Middle Housing at 4 pm 

Unscheduled Workshops/Presentations 

Cannabis Health Considerations 

Civic Arts Grantmaking Process & Capital Grant Program 

Kelly Hammargren’s on what happened the preceding week can be found in the Berkeley Daily Planet www.berkeleydailyplanet.com under Activist’s Diary. This meeting list is also posted at https://www.sustainableberkeleycoalition.com/whats-ahead.html on the Sustainable Berkeley Coalition website. 

If you would like to receive the Activist’s Calendar as soon as it is completed send an email to kellyhammargren@gmail.com. If you wish to stop receiving the weekly summary of city meetings please forward the weekly summary you received to kellyhammargren@gmail.com. 

If you are looking for past agenda items for city council, city council committees, boards and commission and find records online unwieldy, you can use the https://www.sustainableberkeleycoalition.com/whats-ahead.html on the Sustainable Berkeley Coalition website to scan old agenda. The links no longer work, but it may be the only place to start looking.