Berkeley city councilmembers Tuesday night passed the first-in-the nation ordinance that provides oversight and transparency for the use of military equipment by the city's police officers.

The ordinance was written by Councilmember Kate Harrison and passed its first reading. A second reading will occur within 30 days after which the ordinance will become law.  

If it becomes law, the Berkeley Police Department will have to get approval from the City Council and the Police Accountability Board to buy and the Police Department will have to report on its use of the equipment. 

"The Public has a right to know why, how, and where militarized equipment is being deployed," Harrison said in a statement. 

Harris' office said the mere deployment of the equipment can be harmful to the public. 

She called the deployment of say long batons by several officers "intimidating" and said people can be traumatized by the deployment of military-style weapons. 

John Lindsay-Poland of the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization consisting of people from a variety of faiths committed to social justice and peace, said police use of military-style equipment provokes fear in some community members.  

The weapons send a message that law enforcement are warriors, Lindsay-Poland said. 

The ordinance requires police to have a policy and to report on the use of such equipment, but it does not create a policy for police-use of the equipment, he said.  

But policies crafted by police will have to be approved by the City Council. The Police Department will have to file reports annually on the uses of the equipment.  

"This is an important step that reflects years of public advocacy by community groups working to end police violence, lack of transparency and the militarization of our neighborhoods," he said in a statement. 

Nathan Mizell, who sits on Berkeley's Police Review Commission, said he has personal experience with deployments of military-style equipment by police.  

"As a Black man, it 'feels' different," he said in a statement. 

The ordinance would apply to all military-style equipment, whether police get it from the Pentagon or another source.  

Other cities have restricted certain types of equipment such as rubber bullets and others have banned surplus Pentagon equipment.  

Berkeley's ordinance goes a little further because it covers a range of equipment.  

In response to a request for a comment on the ordinance, Berkeley police said they have "a long history of listening to" the community and they "intend to continue that tradition with the Council's recent legislation." 

Oakland is considering a similar ordinance. It will soon go before the City Council's Public Safety Committee.  

The state Assembly just approved a bill that does what Berkeley's does, but for the whole state. That bill, Assembly Bill 481, was introduced by Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco.

Editor’s Note: Zelda Bronstein, formerly Berkeley Planning Commission chair and Daily Planet Public Eye columnist, has an ongoing series of articles on San Francisco’s 48 Hills news site which spotlights the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a limited liability for-profit corporation which is funded by Facebook stock owned by founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan.

The corporation (known as CZI) mimics non-profit foundations by making grants to groups which advance its political/policy agenda. The latest piece in the series reveals CZI’s $750,000 investment in creating a KQED radio news desk which has showcased CZI’s view of remedies for what’s called the California housing crisis under the unwittingly ironic title of “Sold Out”.

The KQED programs and podcasts rely on a theory championed by, among others, San Francisco state Senator Scott Wiener, Berkeley Senator Nancy Skinner and their YIMBY allies, well-funded activists who contend that increasing urban density all over California, regardless of how much it costs tenants and home-buyers, will eventually cause some housing to become magically affordable for low income people. In Berkeley, Councilmember Lori Droste is the most prominent supporter of these ideas.

This is what’s called supply-side economics by its fans and “trickle-down” by its critics. And non-CZI academic research shows that trickle-down doesn’t.

But CZI money has gone to a variety of think-tank-like centers which have been cited by the Sold Out series. Wienerite advocates in the Califoria legislature have been fronting a variety of bills aimed at shifting control of land use away from regional and local governments to state agencies, and they rely on these CZI-funded organizations to back up their plans and even to draft laws.

Here’s how Bronstein’s exposé starts:

In 2019, I reported in 48 Hills that the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative was using mega-grants to shape California housing law and policy. CZI gave Enterprise Community Partners $500,000 to draft and then lobby for Assemblymember David Chiu’s AB 1487, the law that authorized the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to become a one-stop regional planning agency overseeing transportation and housing and to levy taxes on the nine-county Bay Area; CZI formally endorsed that bill.

CZI also gave the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley nearly a million dollars: $440,000 for unspecified uses and $500,000 to start a Housing Lab—essentially, a development incubator under the aegis of the celebrated public university.

I didn’t realize that Chan Zuckerberg was also using its largesse to try to shape California housing news.

KQED’s housing series was funded with Facebook money.

For starters: In 2019, CZI gave KQED $750,000 to help launch what the NPR station called a “dedicated housing news desk to cover the Bay Area’s housing and affordability crisis.” A November 2019 announcement from KQED said that the desk would open the following month. 

The CZI-funded housing news desk caught my attention in October 2020, when its SOLD OUT series turned to zoning, with a podcast entitled “Zoning Out” and an online print piece headlined “The Racist History of Single-Family Home Zoning” and credited to Erin Baldassari and Molly Solomon. My interest was further piqued by SOLD OUT’s subsequent treatments of zoning, all rehashes of the October show, though the segment broadcast by NPR’s Weekend Edition in March relocated the basic story to Sacramento: 

February 16: “California Cities Rethink the Single-family Neighborhood,” 1662-word print piece by Baldassari 

February 24: “You Had Questions, We’ve Got Answers” (also headlined as “The Big Updates You Need to Know About California’s Housing Crisis”); a conversation between Baldassari and Solomon 

March 13, 2021: “Facing Housing Crunch, California Cities Rethink Single-Family Neighborhoods,” transcript of four-minute segment narrated by Baldassari and heard on NPR’s Weekend Edition Saturday 

March 13, 2021: “Facing Housing Crunch, California Cities Rethink Single-Family Neighborhoods,” Baldassari’s online print version (not a transcript) of the NPR segment 

March 15, 2021: “’A First Big Step’: Bay Area Cities are Rethinking Single-Family Zoning”; a conversation between Baldassari and KQED Editor Alan Montecillo interspersed with short clips from prior SOLD OUT programs 

KQED says SOLD OUT provides “in-depth reporting on the housing crisis.” Maybe so, but its coverage of zoning is credulous, misleading, and confused. 

The KQED reporters cover a lot of ground, so this is a long piece. 

You can read the rest of the story on the 48 Hills site. 

Agenda and Rules Committee at 2:30 pm, 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88698899478 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (toll free) Meeting ID: 886 9889 9478 

AGENDA: 2. Agenda Planning for 5/11/2021 Regular City Council meeting CONSENT: 13. Amend 1956 Maintenance Agreement with Caltrans – transfer two portions of City’s right of way on Gilman to Caltrans, 14. Audit Report: Data Analysis of City of Berkeley’s Police Response, 15. Arreguin – Support AB 550 Speed Safety cameras and request Berkeley be included as one of the pilot cities, 16. Arreguin - AB 43 Safe Streets gives cities flexibility in reducing speed limits, 19. Taplin – Resolution in support of Green New Deal for Cities 2021, 20. Taplin – Budget Referral Traffic Calming at Ashby & California, Sacramento & Channing, Cedar & 9th, 6^th & Channing, Sacramento & Russell, Channing & San Pablo, 21. Harrison – Support Roadmap Home 2030 Plan (Home 2030 funders include Chan Zuckerberg Initiative), 22. Hahn, Harrison, Arreguin – Support AB 1289 Smart Climate Agriculture and AB 558 CA School Plant-based Food and Beverage Program, 23. Wengraf – Oppose (unless amended) SB-9, 24. Wengraf, Kesarwani – Support SB-15 rezone idle retail sites to allow for affordable housing, ACTION: 28.Arreguin - Amending COVID-19 Emergency Response Ordinance Relating to Commercial Leases, 29. Arreguin – Resolution committing to the C40 race to Zero www.citiesracetozero.org (page 386 in packet) Berkeley to be carbon neutral/net zero by 2045 – global warming was 0.8°C in 2018 and ≈1.2°C in 2020 major action needed worldwide to stay at or below global warming of 1.5°C, 30. Kesarwani – Referral to CM to streamline ADU Permit Review and Approval, Recommends development of universal checklist with construction requirements, up-to-date state and local regulations, relevant fees, inspections, other requirements, to consider development of free ADU designs to download, 31. Harrison, Arreguin – Establish Pilot Climate Equity Action Fund to Assist Low-Income Residents (AMI at or below 50% AMI) with Transition to Zero-Carbon Transportation and Buildings, Referred Items: 8. Impact COVID-19 on Legislative Bodies, 9. Systems Realignment Proposal, Council Referrals to Agenda & Rules Committee: 3. Objective Standards Recommendations for Density, Design and Shadows. 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/Policy_Committee__Agenda___Rules.aspx 

Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board Budget and Personnel Committee at 8:30 am 

Videoconference: https://zoom.us/j/97760792894?pwd~WHJtY0NNYzNCTDNNaFFpZWtKc0FBUT09 

Teleconference: 1-408-638-0968 Meeting ID: 977 6079 2894 Passcode: 607052 

AGENDA: 4. Update, Discussion, Possible Action on Measure MM. 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/rent/ 

Children, Youth and Recreation Commission at 7 – 9 pm 

Videoconference: https://zoom.us/j/97142373804 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 971 4237 3804 

AGENDA: 8. Vision 2020: Report on Pandemic Programming, 9. FY22 Budget, 10. COVID related Program changes. 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Children_Youth_and_Recreation_Commission/ 

Civic Arts Commission Policy subcommittee, 5 pm 

Videoconfereace: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86523856998 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 Meeting ID: 865 2385 6998 

AGENDA: 4. a) Affordable Housing for Artists, b) Draft Public Art Ordinance, c) Budget referral requests grant funds. 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/CivicArtsCommissionHomepage/ 

Zero Waste Commission, 7 pmi 

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

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

AGENDA: Discussion and Action Items: 1. Deconstruction Presentation, 3. Mixed Non-bottle #1-7 Plastics, 4. Textile Recycling, 5. Covid-Related Was Mitigation Subcommittee. 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/Commissions/Commissions__Zero_Waste_Commission_Homepage.aspx

The week started with a Berkeley Town Hall on COVID-19 with Mayor Arreguin. I waited until late in the week when the recording would be posted and I could watch it on YouTube at 1.5 speed. By that time the U.S. had in 16 days added another million new cases of COVID-19 crossing 32,000,000 according to Johns Hopkins. I still prefer www.worldometers.info for my daily tracking with its easy to read spread sheet. The state by state incidence goes up and down, with hot spots appearing, being flattened and then popping up in a different location, all the while keeping the addition of another million on average of every 16 days since mid-February.

Dee Williams-Ridley, Berkeley City Manager, reported that the planning process for returning city staff to working on site will take about four months and that telecommuting (working remotely) for some will continue. While Williams-Ridley gave no speculation as to what degree telecommuting will continue in a post pandemic world, it is the big hovering question for all of us.

WETA (Water Emergency Transportation Authority) is planning around a robust commuting future that will spill over to support ferries and the proposed Berkeley Pier. The Ashby and North Berkeley BART housing projects are centered on a commuting population that will infuse new revenue and fill the trains. The $40,000,000 from Berkeley’s Measure O bonds will only provide enough funds to have 35% affordable housing at each station. That leaves 65% of these units to be filled by tenants with ample incomes for market rate apartments. 

At a non-city meeting I attended over a week ago, someone observed that people need to work remotely to decrease the impact on the environment. 

In the week that we remember for the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin on all charges, the Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, 

“We are seeing, indeed, that we live in a triple crisis: a climate crisis, a biodiversity crisis and a pollution crisis. And if we don’t act immediately, we are, as I said, on the verge of the abyss. There is no time to lose.” 

What caught my attention as I listened to the Democracy Now Tuesday news report was that global warming was now at 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels. 

When the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) released their 2018 interim report, IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, global warming was at 0.8°C above pre-industrial levels. Monday’s stark warning came with a 0.4°C temperature rise in 2 years. At this rate we’ll be lucky if we aren’t at 1.5°C of temperature rise by 2025 let alone staying at or below 1.5°C for the future. 

This grim news was at the center of my sketchy two-page response to the LRDP (UC Berkeley Long Range Development Plan) DEIR (Draft Environmental Impact Report) that was due Wednesday at 5 pm. My critique was the absence of innovation. UC Berkeley’s LRDP and DEIR are a vision of a future that is the same as the past , but with adding even more students, staff, faculty and buildings. 

I remember an old Bill Moyers show from 2013 where the impact of these small temperature rises was explained in an easy to understand language by scientist Anthony Leiserowitz. He said think about when you get sick, with a fever of 1° above normal you might feel a little off, but you can keep going, at 2° you are feeling sick with hot flashes and chills so you want to stay home in bed, at 3° you are really sick, at 4° and 5° your brain is slipping into a coma, you are close to death. Where is the planet on this scale? 1.2°C = 2.16°F, 1.5°C = 2.7°F, 2°C = 3.6°F. 

The City of Berkeley’s 75-page response to the LRDP DEIRk, signed by new Planning Director Jordon Klein (formerly in Economic Development), looked like preparation for a CEQA lawsuit with all the references to legal cases and attention to impacts on traffic, city services of the Berkeley Police and Fire Departments, wildfire risk, housing and the addition of 12,070 students, faculty and staff. 

At the core is that none of this moves past business as usual into a future that addresses the triple crisis of climate, biodiversity and pollution. 

The one momentous action in Berkeley came from Councilmember Kate Harrison on July 23, 2019, when with her team they lined up so many experts to speak in favor of banning natural gas in new buildings that the council voted unanimously to become the first city in the U.S. to ban natural gas in new construction. That is the last of Berkeley as a climate leader. 

I am digging my way through the draft of Berkeley’s Existing Building Electrification Strategy. Since I eliminated all natural gas from my 103 year old house in 2019, I know a little something about what it takes. So far, I haven’t found anything that tells me that the strategy is grounded in reality, but then I am only on page 66 of 167. 

As to the flailing city council, in a 7 to 2 vote (Harrison and Taplin abstained) Berkeley imposed temporary rules that only legislation related to COVID-19 will move forward. All other new significant legislation will be recorded, but placed on an “unscheduled” list. The rule expires on July 27, 2021 unless it is shortened or extended by council vote. This was the first time I can recall that Taplin was not voting in lock step with Arreguin. 

In the same vote, the council majority ended their practice of allowing the public to comment through an email sent to the city clerk to be read aloud at the end of the public comment period of a council meeting. Not to worry, Mayor Arreguin declared that he can multitask: read emails and listen to public comment speakers at the same timeL. 

The rest of the week for the COB was the BAU (business as usual) mode. The budget and finance policy committee listened to the parade of departments giving their budget pitches. Committee Chair and former Councilmember Gordon Wozniak had the most cogent response to the police presentation, pointing out 1) $65,000,000 from the general fund goes to policing while only $2,000,000 goes to streets. 

Streets are a public safety issue. People get killed and injured on poorly maintained city streets. The Berkeley Police Department (BPD) is basically given a free ride. If BPD wants to maintain the very large amount of overtime they now collect ($6,751,000), then they should go to the voters. 2) There has to be a policy of budget discipline. Budget overruns need to be encumbrances that are paid back over three years. 

The week of city meetings closed with ZAB (Zoning Adjustment Board). On the consent agenda were three new single family homes on three large vacant lots in fire zone 2 in the hills waiting formal approval. You may recall single family homes are the exclusionary racist structures that city council just voted to expunge from Berkeley, except, of course, where... 

In closing , I finished the audiobook A Promised Land by Barack Obama. My walk partner and I continue our daily walks as we have for some eight years engaging in cordial conversation while keeping our eyes peeled to avoid sidewalk hazards in the Berkeley flats. It was my walk partner Miriam who introduced me to the delight of our wonderful local libraries. She stopped listening to A Promised Land for the exact reason I loved it. Her opinion: “we lived through it.” 

For me as an Obama critic living through those eight years, I loved hearing President Obama’s reflections. It’s a long 27 chapters. Yes, I do think differently about the presidency, at least parts of it. And, Michelle did succeed in her vow never to be photographed in a swimsuit. 

The year was near the end of the decade, maybe 1969. If I told you I remembered the 60s, you'd know I wasn't really there. Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley, need I add California?

Protesting demonstrations and marches were common enough that we knew what to do and what to expect. We were part of a large crowd crowding into Sproul Plaza, a sprawling area in front of the University Administration Building bearing the name of the first system-wide President (1952-1958) of the University of California system, Robert Gordon Sproul. We were protesting, what? that day? It could have been against the Vietnam war. It could have been against racial injustice endured by the Black Panthers. It could have been against the general prohibition of political advocacy, e.g., free speech, on campus. I think we were protesting the University Administration's fencing off of newly-created Peoples' Park, four blocks from Sproul Plaza.

The previous weekend, scores of us had been digging on this vacant lot, planting trees, laying down broken pieces of cement sidewalk to become walking paths, erecting a bulletin board to enable our community to communicate with each other, putting up tents, building benches, tables, and a fire pit. A creative vegetable garden was begun, with psychedelic posters designating the plants in each row.  

Most of this city block had been home to affordable, run-down but cheap, housing for maybe three or four hundred people. Some were students others were ex-students, or future-students, or simply students of life. But the University decided to clear this block, except for the commercial properties on the Telegraph Avenue side, to rid the neighborhood of, well, protesters, vagrants, and worst of all, hippies. University spokespeople said they needed to clear this slum to make way for student housing. We protesters knew the University hadn't allocated money in their budget for affordable student housing, and that this site, in the long-range general plan, was number 50 in the list of potential housing sites, a list of 50 sites. 

So, we were mad. We were angry. We were alienated, justified, and self-righteous. There were many good reasons: the war, poverty, racism, and general anti-authoritarianism. But we expressed it creatively, beautifully, naturally, by turning the empty block into a park, a park for all the people, the first (and not the last) People's Park!  

On Thursday, May 15, a few weeks after that glorious, greening weekend, the University administrators hired contractors to erect a fence all around the park. At 4:30 AM, California Highway Patrol officers, commandeered by then-Governor Ronald Regan, ejected all the hippies who had been camping there, cooking there, singing and drumming and smoking well into late night's dawn there, and … also peeing and shitting there in the bushes.  

By Noon, we all knew what to do. We knew the routine. Big crowd meets in Sproul Plaza. Speeches through portable megaphones. Then we march down Telegraph, filling the street from storefront to storefront, chanting something like "Take back the park" and "The people united will never be defeated." 

The University knew the routine all too well also. And they were prepared, as they often were, by arranging for Berkeley and Oakland police to amass along the side streets, ready to flood into Telegraph, confront the mob, disperse it and push it back. They had the weapons, billy-club sticks and tear gas. We had power, the Power of the People!  

The University had something else that day as well, Alameda County Sheriff deputies, Blue Meanies. These men, were not used to, nor in any way sympathetic to, students, protesters, or hippies. In their eyes, we were communists, degenerates and perverts. They were big meaty, sweaty rednecks from somewhere out in Castro Valley where pigs and pig farmers bore a striking resemblance, and they were armed.  

I was an aspiring photographer, participating in the protests yet also keeping an eye open for that Henri Cartier-Bresson moment when everything - person, expression, lighting, shadow - came together and told a story. You had to act fast. If you stopped to look, that moment would be gone before you could raise your camera and squeeze in a photo. You had to see it with your intuition, you had to recognize it just before… So, that day, rather than try to see what was happening from inside the crowd where it's always difficult to get a clean shot, I climbed up the back stair of the building on Telegraph and Haste, the one adjacent to the now-fenced-in People's Park.  

On the roof, I saw two guys I knew from the little art cinema next door, another guy with a camera, and maybe two or three reporter types. From our rooftop vantage, we could see the street, see the where the crowd would be advancing down from Sproul. And from the other direction, down the street, we could see the Blue Meanies as they began filling into the street and slowly began advancing, shields up, toward the protesters. It looked like the confrontation might take place right in the intersection below, and I had a pretty good view.  

The only thing was that you had to be careful moving around on the roof. It was uneven and had lots of things like vents and skylights that you don't want to step on.  

I'm moving around gingerly, to get a good viewpoint to catch the action. I lean over toward the street to catch the army of police marching. I crawl over to the other side of the roof to catch the students approaching, now maybe half a block away. The cinema guys are just standing there, on the top, looking down, lighting a cigarette.  

Suddenly, I see a glint of light from the direction of People's Park. A cloud parted and the sun had begun to illuminate the fencing is just the way that would tell the story about the Park and why we were all protesting about it that day. I scrambled off the roof and down the stairway to get a good angle shot before the light changed and the Henri moment would be gone. A few seconds later, two shots rang out. 

As the Alameda Sheriffs marched into the intersection, facing the approaching crowd, one of them turned around and looked up. I don't know what he saw. Was it the flame from the cigarette lighter? Was it the reflection off that other photographer's camera? I dunno. The pig turned around, raised his shotgun, and fired, twice.  

One of the cinema guys (James Rector) was killed. The camera guy (Alan Blanchard) got blinded. I was on the back stairway and missed it all.  

Was I dumbfuckingly lucky? Or did something want me to live another day?

The Justice Department concluded today, based upon a thorough investigation, that there is reasonable cause to believe that Alameda County is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in its provision of mental health services, and that conditions and practices at the county’s Santa Rita Jail violate the U.S. Constitution and the ADA.

The department’s investigation found that the county fails to provide services to qualified individuals with mental health disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Instead, it unnecessarily institutionalizes them at John George Psychiatric Hospital and other facilities. In Olmstead v. L.C., the U.S. Supreme Court held that Title II of the ADA requires public entities to provide community-based services to persons with disabilities when appropriate services can reasonably be provided to individuals who want them. However, on any given day in Alameda County, hundreds of people are institutionalized for lengthy stays at one of several large, locked psychiatric facilities in the county or are hospitalized at John George Psychiatric Hospital, while others are at serious risk of admission to these psychiatric institutions because of the lack of community-based services.W ithout connection to adequate community-based services, people return to John George Psychiatric Hospital in crisis again and again.  

“The ADA protects individuals with mental health disabilities from unnecessary institutionalization, and the Constitution guarantees all prisoners necessary medical care, including mental health care,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Pamela S. Karlan of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Our investigation uncovered evidence of violations that, taken together, result in a system where people with mental health disabilities in Alameda County find themselves unnecessarily cycling in and out of psychiatric institutions and jails because they lack access to proven services that would allow them to recover and participate in community life.” 

The department also concluded that there is reasonable cause to believe that conditions at the jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, as well as the ADA. Specifically, the department concluded that there is reasonable cause to believe that the jail fails to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care to prisoners with serious mental health needs, including those at risk of suicide; that the jail violates the constitutional rights of prisoners with serious mental illness through its prolonged use of restrictive housing; and that the jail violates the ADA by denying prisoners with mental health disabilities access to services, programs, and activities because of their disabilities. 

As a result of these failures, prisoners with serious mental health needs have experienced worsening mental health conditions, are sent repeatedly to John George Psychiatric Hospital for acute care, have experienced prolonged stays in restrictive housing, and, at times, have seriously injured themselves or died. 

The Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section initiated the investigation under the ADA and under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), which authorizes the department to address a pattern or practice of deprivation of constitutional rights of individuals confined to state or local government-run correctional facilities. 

Additional information about the Civil Rights Division is available on its website at www.justice.gov/crt. Individuals with relevant information are encouraged to contact the department via phone at (844) 491-4946 or by email at Katelyn.Smith2@usdoj.gov. 

Members of the public may report possible civil rights violations at https://civilrights.justice.gov/.

City Council Budget & Finance Committee at 10 am

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82433984748

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 Meeting ID: 824 3398 4748

AGENDA: Department Budget Presentations 2. Health, Housing & Community services, 3. Public Works, 4. Parks, Recreation & Waterfront, Police Department, UNSCHEDULED ITEMS for future meetings: 6. Predevelopment allocation ARCH, 7. Proposal to allocate revenues generated by Transient Occupancy Tax (hotel tax) generated in waterfront to the Marina fund.

PolicyCommittee@cityofberkeley.info,

Mental Health Commission at 7 pm

Videoconference: https://zoom.us/j/96361748103

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 Meeting ID: 963 6174 8103

AGENDA: 3. Presentation by Research Development Associates (RDA) on Results Based Accountability and evaluation for the Division of Mental Health, 4. Update Specialized Care Unit, Update Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, 6.d. PRIDE Program Update – LGBTQIA+ Transition Age Youth.

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/Commissions/Commissions__Mental_Health_Commission_Homepage.aspx

Zoning Adjustment Board at 7 pm

Videoconference: https://zoom.us/j/97790280207

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 977 9028 0207

AGENDA: 2. 1333 Sixth Street – new – 1-story existing industrial building change use of less than 25% of 17,220 from material recovery enterprise to auto repair and service, located in newly established new tenant space (MU-LI – mixed use light industrial district zoning)

3. 55 (0) Latham Lane – new – Construct 2,905 sq ft 2-story single family dwelling, ave height 22’ 10” on 9,755 sq ft vacant lot, Zoning: R-1(H) Hillside overlay - fire zone 2

65 (0) Latham Lane – new – Construct 3,344 sq ft 2-story single family dwelling, ave height 26’ 3” on 8,347 sq ft vacant lot, Zoning: R-1(H) Hillside overlay - fire zone 2

75 (0) Latham Lane – new – Construct 3,140 sq ft 2-story single family dwelling, ave height 22’ 3” on 7,913 sq ft vacant lot, Zoning: R-1(H) Hillside overlay - fire zone 2

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/zoningadjustmentsboard/

As the country grapples with yet another mass killing, Republicans continue to bury the heads in the sand ignoring the weeping of Americans pleading with lawmakers to legislate sensible gun laws supported by over 80% of the population.

Four of eight victims gunned down at the FedEx facility warehouse were Sikhs easily distinguished by their turbans and beards although one was a woman.. A majority of the workers at the warehouse are Sikh. It is likely the killer, Brandon Hole, was targeting Sikhs as police found evidence that he was frequently browsing white supremacist websites. Simran Jeet Singh, scholar, activist and senior fellow for the Sikh Coalition is demanding a full investigation into the possibility of bias and racism in this attack.

It is astounding that Indianapolis police reported that the white terrorist, Brandon Hole, and former FedEx employee, who killed himself, legally purchased the two semiautomatic rifles used in last week’s attack just a few months after police seized a shotgun from him, after his mother raised concerns about his mental state. But prosecutors inexplicably admitted they did not try to use Indiana’s “red flag” law, which could have prevented Hole from obtaining the two guns. Tragically, the Indianapolis mass shooting took place as more than 15 states across the country, including Indiana, are marking April as Sikh Awareness and Appreciation Month to reflect the enormous contributions by Sikh communities across the country.  

No longer can we blame the NRA whose organization has been riddled with corruption. Sadly, the Senate Republicans are using the same NRA talking points to increase gun sales at complete odds with the wishes of the majority of Americans who are demanding sensible guns laws. A simple tweak in an existing law could dramatically reduce gun violence. 

Proposed new federal law: The seller of the gun must be held liable if his gun was used in the commission of a crime. This should stop ALL private sales of guns. President Biden must issue a presidential decree introducing new federal gun legislation that triumphs ALL State laws. 

Additional new proposed law: Gun manufacturers must be held liable if their products result in injuries or death. All guns without safety locks must be recalled, much like unsafe automobiles. 

There is little doubt that lawyers would be only too happy to file wrongful death suits targeting gun manufactures. Currently, gun manufacturers are immunized by an absurd law with an equally absurd title, “Protection of Lawful Commerce”. This also insulates ammunition makers and dealers from liability. AR 15 military style weapons MUST be banned immediately by presidential decree. 

Finally, I urge religious groups of ALL stripes, especially Christians, to join Sikhs in enacting these new proposed laws. PROFITS MUST NEVER TRIUMPH THE SANCTIFY OF HUMAN LIFE.

City Council Regular Meeting at 6 pm

The Special City Meeting at 5:30 pm to appoint Farimah Faiz Brown as City Attorney uses the same videoconference and teleconference links as the 6 pm meeting.

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84640742374

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 Meeting ID: 846 4074 2374  

AGENDA: Recess item: 2. Contract add $250,000 total $2,495,726 for Police Substation at 841 Folger/3000 7^th St, CONSENT: 4. T1 Loan $1,500,000 to complete Phase1 projects, 6. Contact add $25,000 total $74,000 and extend thru FY2024 with Freitas Landscaping at Dona Spring Animal Shelter, 7. Contract add $110,000 total $231,600 and extend 6/30/2026 with Koefran Industries for Animal Disposal Services, 8. Add $4800 with Orsolya Kuti, DVM to provide free spay and neuter surgeries to pets of low/no income and homeless persons and authorize receipt of $40,000 in donations, 9. Add $9,936 total $219,936 for public art commission at San Pablo Park, 10. Approve (unspecified) bid solicitations $1,581,000, 11. Predevelopment affordable housing funding 2024 Ashby $1,198,960 and 1708 Harmon $1,056,400, 13. Receive grants for Shelter Plus Care Program Renewal HUD $4,124,485 6/1/2021-1/1/2022, COACH Project $2,411,026 1/1/20222-12/31/2022, and Co. of Alameda for tenant-based rental assistance $881,046 3/1/2021-2/28/2022, 14. Contract add $160,562 total $6,066,230 with Mar Con Builders for Live Oak Community Center Seismic Upgrade, 15. Contract add $125,000 total $2,094,056 with Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc for San Pablo Park Playground and Tennis Court Renovation, 16. Contract $542,032 plus 20% contingency $108,406 total $650,438 with ERA Construction for King School Play Area at 1700 Hopkins, 17. Contract $5,369,727 plus 15% contingency $805,459 total $6,175,186 with O.C. Jones & Sons for Berkeley Marina Roadway, 18. Grant application accept any amount up to $8,000,000 CA Proposition 68 Statewide Parks Program for selected Santa Fe Right-of-Way parcels, 19. From Homeless Commission Refer to City Manager including Homeless Persons in hate crime reporting, 20. From Housing Advisory Commission Refer to City Manager release a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) of Measure O Bond funds allowing tenant incomes up to 120% of AMI reserve $15,432,000 for 2001 Ashby, 21. Authorize CM to amend contract with Badawi & Assoc to perform audits of City’s financial statements for FY 2021, 2022 and include T1 adding $372,660, 22. Refer to budget process from Taplin, Arreguin remediation for plan for Lawn Bowling Green at 2270 Acton and 1324 Allston (North Bowling Green at 1324 Allston contains elevated pesticides and metals and is protected from development under Measure L), 23. Taplin Support AB1401 eliminate parking requirements for housing and commercial buildings near transit, 24. Taplin Support SB 519 decriminalize controlled substances, 25. Taplin, Bartlett, Harrison Urge AC Transit to Restore 80-Ashby/6^th Street bus line, 26. Bartlett Support AB 816 State and Local Agencies: Homelessness Plan, 27. Bartlett, Taplin, Harrison oppose FAA proposal to shift WNDSR Commercial Airliner Flight Corridor Directly over residential neighborhoods in Berkeley, Richmond, El Cerrito and Albany, 28. Harrison, Robinson Support SB 271 Sheriff Democracy and Diversity Act to allow for more diverse and democratic sheriff elections, 29. Harrison support AB 1199 creates a database of rental properties serving low-income tenants and levies a tax on holders of multiple rental properties, ( in packet pages 119 -174 from Hahn and Harrison not in agenda revitalization of Solano Ave), 30. Budget Referral FY2022-FY2023: $300,000 Solano Ave Revitalization Plan, 31. Hahn Personal Liability Protection for small businesses impacted by COVID-19, 32. Robinson support AB 455 Bay Bridge designate transit-only traffic lanes, ACTION: 33. New temporary rules for Council committees during COVID-19 emergency, 34. Davila Request CA State Legislature to introduce actions to value human life and condemn racial injustice and police brutality – Health Council Committee recommends refer to Public Safety Committee and f/u on pending bills on police reform, 35. Kesarwani, Taplin refer to Planning commission to establish zoning overlay at Pacific Steel Casting Property to redesignate zoning as Manufacturing (M) to Mixed Use-Light Industrial (MULI), 37. Harrison refer to CM prioritize shift to electric bicycles and other forms of zero-emissions mobility, INFORMATION REPORTS: 38-41 Workplans from Civic Arts Commission, Community Health Commission Disaster and Fire Safety Commission and Measure O Oversight Committee.  

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/City_Council__Agenda_Index.aspx

The People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group has released an Open Letter today that was sent to UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin, State Legislators, the Board of Regents and Governor Newsom.

The hundred and two signatories on the letter include Berkeley residents, UCB professors, two former Berkeley mayors, three former Berkeley city councilmembers, many former Berkeley commissioners, Cal alumni and students, attorneys, architects, historians and many others who are concerned about the threatened destruction of People’s Park.

The open letter calls upon the University of California to work with the Berkeley community to protect and enhance People’s Park, rather than destroy it and build a 17-story housing structure. UC argues the destruction of the park is necessary to respond to its housing shortage, yet the university has identified several other possible sites for student residences.

While recognizing the need for truly affordable housing, the letter condemns the threat to the historic and cultural legacy of the People’s Park and the environmental damage that would result from the loss of the irreplaceable open space. The letter envisions what would be a properly maintained park and “a safe, well-used public space frequented by all.”

The Board of Regents will consider People’s Park project and another poorly conceived UCB construction project in a meeting this summer. Berkeley, Bay Area and California residents are encouraged to investigate the overreach of UC and contact their legislators. More information can be found at peoplesparkhxdist.org. 

And that is why the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group and the undersigned call upon the University of California to work with the Berkeley community to protect and enhance People’s Park. Just as the nation preserves the great battlefields of the Civil War of the 1860s, so should it preserve places like People’s Park that commemorate the great social and cultural conflicts of the 1960s. 

Instead, the university proposes to destroy the park in order to build a 17-story student housing structure. UC argues the destruction of the park is necessary to respond to its housing shortage, yet the university has identified several other possible sites for student residences. Of all the jurisdictions dealing with the Bay Area’s regional housing crisis, only UC Berkeley proposes to destroy a public park of national historic importance. UC’s development plan would also destroy the view from the park and overshadow the surrounding other distinguished local, state and national landmarks, e.g., Maybeck’s Christian Science First Church. 

In destroying the park, the university is eliminating the only public open space in Berkeley’s most densely populated neighborhood. Over the past several years, UC has over-enrolled the number of students, violating its own plans and increasing the number of budget-padding out-of-state enrollees. This greatly increases the population density of the area. Doesn’t the university have a responsibility to maintain and enhance the one piece of restorative nature still open to the public in this over-crowded neighborhood? 

The university argues the park is a place of great crime and violence, a claim vehemently denied by park users and their supporters. The university’s unacceptable “solution” is to displace the poor, the unhoused and other park users by paving over the park. UC has clearly allowed the park to deteriorate; however, maintaining it as well as other city parks could ensure that People’s Park could be a safe, well-used public space frequented by all. 

Shouldn’t a great university, with a brilliant faculty and immensely talented students, use its resources to work with neighbors and park supporters to create an inclusive public open space welcome to all? Shouldn’t the university’s architecture faculty help design truly affordable low-income housing projects in other Berkeley locations? Such efforts would be consistent with UC’s mission of public education and service and consistent wit 

Please join with us not just to preserve People’s Park, but to make it a place that respects and commemorates its history and celebrates and serves its diverse surrounding community. 

For more background, go to www.peoplesparkhxdist.org. If you want to add your name to this statement, send name and affiliation to peoplesparkhxdist@gmail.com. 

Signed: 

Lynn Adler, Berkeley resident since 1973 

Gael Alcock, musician, Berkeley resident 

Phil Allen, former Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commissioner 

Jurgen Aust, AICP, Expert in Land Use, Transportation, City Planning; 

Berkeley Resident 

David Axelrod, attorney 

Russell Bates, 47-year Berkeley resident, Berkeley Copwatch member, 

People’s Park Committee member 

Tom Bates, former Berkeley Mayor, State Assemblyman and Alameda 

County Supervisor 

Reverend Allan Bell, Director, The Silence Project, London 

Robb Benson, Food Not Bombs 

Howard Besser, retired UC Professor and 50 year Berkeley resident 

Paul Kealoha Blake, activist 

John Roosevelt Boettiger, Ph.D, psychologist and professor of human 

development emeritus, Hampshire College 

Summer Brenner, writer, Berkeley resident 

Zelda Bronstein, Journalist and former Chair, Berkeley Planning 

Commission 

James Brook, poet and translator, Berkeley resident 

Mina Davis Caulfield, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., UC Berkeley; resident of Berkeley 

61 year; Assoc. Prof., Anthropology and Women Studies, emerita, 

San Francisco State University 

James Chanin, civil rights attorney 

Sas Colby, artist, activist, resident of South Berkeley 

Terri Compost, ecologist 

Tom Dalzell, author, union lawyer 

Cheryl Davila, former Berkeley City Councilmember 

Shirley Dean, former Berkeley mayor, former Berkeley City Councilmember 

Michael Delacour, People’s Park co-founder 

Carol Denney, writer, musician 

Linda Diamond, Food Not Bombs volunteer 

Lesley Emmington, former President, Berkeley Architectural HeritageAssociation, former Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commissioner 

Annie Esposito, retired Community News Director at KZYX 

Laura Fantone. UC Berkeley Research Staff, Berkeley resident 

Isis Feral, environmentalist, labor and disability justice activist 

Helen Finkelstein, UCB alumna & Berkeley resident 

Arthur Fonseca, Picuris Pueblo Senior Services Provider. 

Anne-Lise François, Associate Professor, English and Comparative 

Literature, UC Berkeley 

Clifford Fred, former Berkeley Planning Commissioner 

Paula Friedman, author and editor 

Gloria Frym, writer, professor, California College of the Arts 

Leah Garchik, journalist 

Ann Garrison, Contributing Editor Black Agenda Report, KPFA/Pacifica reporter 

Charles Gary, Spiritual Activist 

Judith Gips, UC Berkeley graduate, writer, Berkeley resident since 1975, 

K-12 teacher, community organizer 

Rafael Jesús González, Poet Laureate, City of Berkeley 

Emil de Guzman 

Hali Hammer, musician, activist, teacher 

Kristin Hanson, Berkeley resident and professor of English at UC Berkeley 

Chandra Hauptman, Berkeley resident, former KPFA Local Station Board & Pacifica National Board member 

Art Hazelwood, Lecturer, San Francisco Art Institute 

Robbin Henderson, UC Berkeley alumna, B.A., 1963; former Executive Director, Berkeley Art Center; Berkeley Civic Arts Commissioner 

L. Higa, legal analyst, UC Berkeley alumna, former Boalt Hall law school 

& UC Berkeley Southeast Asian Studies Dept. employee 

Aidan Hill, former Vice-Chair, City of Berkeley Homeless Commission 

Greg Jan, historical researcher, political activist 

Theo Jones, concerned citizen 

Sheila Jordan, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools Emerita, 

Youth and Justice Advocate 

Persis M. Karim, Ph.D., Neda Nobari Distinguished Chair, Center for Iranian Diaspora Studies, San Francisco State University 

Jonathan King, editor, writer 

Ken Knabb, Berkeley resident since 1965, writer and translator 

Jack Kurzweil, Professor (Emeritus) of Electrical Engineering, San Jose State University 

Moni T. Law, J.D., Chair of Berkeley Community Safety Coalition, Cal Alum, 1982 

Ying Lee, former Berkeley City Councilmember, former aide to Congressman Ron Dellums, former BUSD teacher 

Michelle LePaule, Berkeley resident 

Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor Tikkun magazine and Ph.D. in Philosophy, UC Berkeley, 1972 

Joe Liesner, activist 

Thomas Luce, People's Park Committee 

Seth Lunine, Lecturer, UCB Geography 

Amelia S. Marshall, UC Berkeley alumna, 1980; retired staff research 

associate/development engineer; local history author 

Gary McDole, Berkeley resident 

Tom Miller, President, Green Cities Fund 

Ed Monroe, artist 

Doug Minkler, printmaker 

Meave O’Connor, Wireless Radiation Education and Defense 

Becky O'Malley, journalist and editor, former City of Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commissioner 

Eliza O’Malley, Opera Singer, Artistic Director Berkeley Chamber Opera 

Osha Neumann, lawyer 

Cynthia Papermaster, UC Berkeley alumna, 55-year resident of Berkeley,former Berkeley PTA Council President 

Marcia Poole, Berkeley resident, artist 

Jim Powell, poet, MacArthur Fellow, Berkeley native 

Martin Nicolaus, Berkeley Law alumnus, Berkeley parks advocate 

Janette M. Reid, Berkeley resident since 1967, Cal alumna & staff retiree 

Diane Resek, Professor Emerita of Mathematics, San Francisco State University 

Justin Richardson, Landscape Architect, UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design alumnus 

Eugene E Ruyle, Cal Alumnus, 1963, Anthropology; Emeritus Professor of Anthropology Cal State Long Beach (Puvungna) 

Jos Sances, artist, activist 

Marty Schiffenbauer, Berkeley resident 54 years 

Bob Schildgen, writer 

Patrick Sheahan, architect 

Dan Siegel, civil rights attorney, ASUC president (1969-70) 

Gar Smith, FSM vet, author, environmental activist; former Ecology 

Center board member; editor emeritus, Earth Island Journal 

Harvey Smith, public historian, educator 

Margot Smith, retired social scientist, activist 

Elizabeth Starr, environmental advocate 

Zach Stewart, landscape architect for Berkeley Shorebird Park and Willard Park 

Paule Cruz Takash, Ph.D., Anthropology, UC Berkeley, 1990 

Lisa Teague, People's Park Committee and Berkeley Outreach Coalition 

Daniella Thompson, writer, historian 

Maxina Ventura, mother, activist, musician 

Richard Walker, former department chair UCB Geography, professor Emeritus 

Steve Wasserman, publisher, Heyday 

Michael Weber, UC Berkeley student, 1969 

Pat Welch, graphic designer 

Jane Welford, activist, gardener, grandmother 

Jane White, Berkeley resident 

Tobey M. Wiebe, Ph.D. candidate, School of Education, UC Berkeley, 1978 

Charles Wollenberg, California historian, writer 

Lope Yap, Jr., filmmaker

Not long ago the Berkeley City Council held a special meeting at the behest of Association of Bay Area Governments President (oh, and also Berkeley Mayor) Jesse Arreguin. He called the meeting to reify the dubious proposition that the City of Berkeley could make amends to the descendants of enslaved Africans by giving investors the right to put ten dwelling units on one city lot where previously only one had been allowed.

Did you find that hard to follow? If you happened to tune in via Zoom, you might have wondered what all the excitement among the one-minute public commenters was about.

You’re not the only one to be confused, especially if you figured out while listening on Zoom that the preponderance of the fans calling to support the original proposal (sponsored by Arreguin and Lori Droste) seemed to be young (well, 30-something) White males.  

Though you couldn’t see the speakers (and no, I don’t know why Berkeley chooses to hide the faces of its online Public Commenters) it was not hard to imagine that they were garbed in spandex bike shorts. Zoom lets viewers see the list of participants, but the COB meeting protocol doesn’t support that feature, even though people are allowed to sign in under pseudonyms, which most of the supporters of the proposal chose to do.  

Opponents, identifying themselves as Berkeley residents, almost all used their real names, first and last. And they were men and women of all ages, genders and ethnicities, judging by their voices.  

What was decided at the meeting? Well, that’s really hard to say. Arreguin made it abundantly clear that he had the votes in his pocket for whatever he wanted, and versions of the proposal that he sponsored floated in the ether right up until the 6 pm starting time. The whole thing came across as a shell game, and the pea under the walnut shells was that sponsors wanted to make sure that Berkeley continues to be branded as the city that defeated racism by eliminating single family zoning, a concept introduced conceptually at an earlier meeting. (That’s “branded” in the Coca-Cola sense, not the cattle one, though both might apply here.)  

In the end, Arreguin’s latest version passed. Whatever it was.  

Councilmembers Hahn, Bartlett and Harrison (absent for a family Passover gathering) offered a competing resolution that mandated studying the problems before settling on a solution. What an old-fashioned idea! Mysteriously, their resolution also passed.  

One more time: What exactly is the problem we’re solving? Well, among other things, ABAG has told the City of Berkeley that it must come up with 9,000 new housing units by 2023. Actually, it’s a lot more complicated than that, but if you really need to know, take a look at this. Do you think this will mean enough affordable housing will be produced? As Mr. Bush used to say, that's voodoo economics.  

In order to prove its bona fides, cities are asked to add a “housing element” to their general plans, in Berkeley’s case to promise that 9,000 additional residences will appear on schedule—or at least their enabling paperwork. The penalty? If we don’t achieve this mandate, our power over local land use will be taken by the state of California.  

Yes, you’re right, that’s magical thinking, so let’s skip over the details at the moment. The fact that the two competing resolutions both passed tells the tale—neither one makes any actual difference in the real world.  

Arreguin and cohorts are wont to call the requested number of added dwellings “state law”, but it’s not nearly that simple. The number is called by the cognoscenti our RHNA (‘reena”) number. From the above-referenced web site:  

“The Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology and Final RHNA Subregional Shares were approved by the ABAG Executive Board on January 21, 2021, meeting a major milestone in the multi-year RHNA process.”  

So, a “major milestone” is not a law. Many people believe that the draft RHNA numbers are, to use a term of art, nutty. Many cities and towns have begun to work their way through an insanely tortuous appeal process to challenge their RHNA number. But not Berkeley. Why, you might wonder. Perhaps it would embarrass our very own ABAG president?  

And, full circle, why again is Berkeley now up-zoning madly? To make amends for the racist misdeeds of the 1920s?  

Just exactly what does that do for African Americans a century later? Or, for that matter, for all the White Boys who have drunk the YIMBY Kool-ade?  

Listening to the young men at that meeting made me sad at first. They really would like to live in Berkeley I think, and they truly believe that ending single family zoning will make that possible. It’s a complicated topic, but the simple answer is that capitalism is not their friend.  

There are buckets of international capital sloshing around the U.S.A. right now. Investors are scooping up all kinds of little homes in cities and suburbs with all-cash offers—even, for example, in Akron, Ohio. Upzoning increases the value of the land under the houses.  

A simple Berkeley calculation: Buy a house from an elderly widow lady in SW Berkeley for a million, and tear it down. Build, let’s say, four townhouses on it.  

How much do you think each will sell for? At least that same million each, right? Do the math. Not a windfall for these YIMBYs, most of whom are sons of privilege and developer wannabes who don’t realize that the odds are stacked against them.  

And it’s highly unlikely that Black families will be able to afford to buy them either. Also, and this is seldom acknowledged, people of color want the same old American dream house that whites have wanted until now. In California’s inland empire more than half of the homeowners are Latinx, and they’re not pushing to have their single family homes upzoned.  

I started writing this on the 18^th, Patriot’s Day in Massachusetts, commemorating the famous ride of Paul Revere  

If my horse were not in the shop I might ride around shouting “the moneybags are coming”. Or perhaps ““beware the one percent”.  

But I won’t be shouting “The British Are Coming”, because the financialization of housing, the real problem, is affecting Britain the same way these days. The immense escalation of real estate prices, in Berkeley and all over the world, is a disaster, but don’t think doing away with single family zones will fix it.  

As the Wizard of Oz once said, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” He’s not here to find you a place to live.  

The meeting I watched was billed as the authorization of an 18-month process. In Berkeley, we're off to see the wizard. 

Decision Comes on Heels of City of Berkeley’s Rejection of Cal’s Long Term Development Plans for Campus

“Intensifying use in a very high fire zone is folly given the destruction we’ve seen over the past few years,” said Thomas. “Adding thousands of spectators would increase the risk of wildfire and create evacuation issues that would endanger thousands of lives.” 

The Panoramic Hill Association’s victory follows several others by neighborhood groups against UC for failing to properly evaluate the impacts of its growth and development in the City of Berkeley. 

Just this past week, the City of Berkeley issued a scathing 75-page response to UC Berkeley’s 2021 Long Range Development Plan and accompanying draft environment impact report saying they are so flawed and inadequate that both must be revised. 

“Chancellor Christ’s aggressive overreach by approving projects that have not had sufficient environmental review does not well serve the people of California. We look forward to working with UCB to ensure that any development in Strawberry Canyon complies with state environmental law as well as new wildfire guidelines set by the state,” Thomas added. 

Panoramic Hill Association represents the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed softball complex that is designated a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by the State of California

[Editor's Note: The Berkeley City Council voted on April 20 to change these rules despite this April 19 letter from the union which represents city employees]

I am writing on behalf of SEIU 1021 to express our concerns about proposed changes to City Council Rules of Procedure which would have a negative impact on democracy in Berkeley. Specifically we are concerned that the proposed rules would make it significantly harder for members of the public to participate in the public comment process during the meeting by discontinuing the practice of reading emailed comments at the time of the meeting. The City Manager says "the community hasadapted well to the new technology" but it is not true. Affluent, well-resourced, tech-connected parts of the community have adapted well. But those with fewer resources, without broadband access in their homes, those who work swing shifts or other irregUlar schedules, will be negatively impacted by this change. I can not imagine that you intend a change that will disproportionately impact these segments of our community.

And we are equally concerned about a change which prohibits the consideration of new legislation except as narrowly related to Covid. To prohibit new legislation related to homelessness when we are still in a pandemic and homelessness is skyrocketing is counter-productive. To prohibit new legislation related to climate change when we can track back the root causes of this pandemic to climate change is illogical. We are in a crisis of faith in our community and our country related to policing and the disproportionate impacts of policing on black and brown and immigrant community members and to say that you will not entertain any new legislation on the question of how black people are treated by police at this time is unacceptable.

I appreciate Councilmember Hahn's supplemental packet proposing a sunset date and allowing a limited exception for items related to health and public safety. But these do not go far enough. Democracy should not be hindered at all, not even for the four months between now and July. Public health is an important progressive priority, but it is far from the only one. 

I am a proud member of a union that declares that Black Lives Matter, that believes in uplifting our whole community, that is grounded in the principles of democracy. And so I stand with SEIU 1021 in furtherance of these principles and urge you to reject these proposals in item #33 and retain the transparency, civic engagement and democracy that are the cornerstone of your work.

Dear [Planet] Editor:

It’s hard to break a bad habit. We’ve subscribed to the Chronicle for years, although recently only getting the Sunday paper home-delivered. Otherwise, on-line, mostly for weather, smattering of local news, obits….

We dropped the paper before—their wrong-headed endorsements, employment of columnists like Chip Johnson, but this time the rupture seems more serious. The paper has yielded hard reporting to others, concentrating on food, sports, and lifestyle diversions. And, of course, if it bleeds, it leads.

The Chronicle will never run the following note, so hopefully it will get some exposure this side of the Bay.

Thanks,

Robert Brokl



Dear [Chronicle] Editor:

Your Berkeley zoning editorial, damning single family housing, was the last straw. More greenwashing—the insidious insinuation that zoning is inherently “racist,” discriminatory, etc. The latest developer propaganda, espoused by paid lobbyists like the YIMBYs, but even more dangerous and potent than the previous argument that zoning was driving up the costs of housing, creating homelessness.  

Conveniently, the YIMBYS argue that building housing, anywhere, even market rate-only projects, will fix the problem of the unhoused. A “trickle down” solution to the problem. Truthfully, government subsidies for truly affordable housing is the answer, but admittedly it’s easier for simplistic statements that zoning is the issue, and gutting it is the remedy. 

The other previous go-to, cliched argument for high-density urban housing, advanced by local developer shills like State Senators Wiener and Skinner, was that urban density was green, saving farmland and the Planet.  

One of the first manifestations of the “zoning is bad" argument, that “fixing” zoning would solve the housing crisis, was dropped into his columns by the generally exemplary New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.  

It might be noted that Krugman can likely float above inconveniences of zoning, with residences in New York City, St. Croix, in the Bahamas, and also a property in upstate New York, whose tenant is the famous artist, Nicole Eisenman. We learn this courtesy of her recent profile in the New Yorker--she jests she thinks of writing a letter to the New York Times to get her dishwasher fixed. 

Whoever the inspired adperson is who invented Zoning = Racism has earned a St. Croix home next to Krugman! 

Hypocrisy is the Chronicle’s middle name. Now it’s build housing everywhere, the denser the better, but painfully the same editorial page argued vociferously to demolish the old Montgomery Wards warehouse building in the Fruitvale, in order to build 2 low-rise elementary schools on contaminated soil and in notorious asthma zone, from truck traffic on nearby 880 freeway, and heavy-duty industry. I remember John Diaz of your editorial page rudely and summarily hung up on me three times, when I called to advocate for the plan by San Francisco developer Emerald Fund to develop the National Register of Historic Places-listed, seismically sound, reinforced concrete buiding for loft housing, walking distance from the Fruitvale BART station. (Talk about green!) The developers even promised subsidized housing for underpaid workforce residents like teachers and fire firefighters. And sharing the site with a smaller school. 

These same Emerald Fund developers currently are the lead developers to turn the old CCA campus in Rockridge into a large housing development, with some retail and retention of some of the historic structures. Good enough for the City of Oakland now, just not then, or there. 

Another example of the Chronicle’s hypocrisy, and short memory, (but who’s paying attention?) is its treatment of Sen. Dianne Feinsten. You endorsed her for election a mere 3 years ago, in 2018, even while admitting she had a viable opponent in Kevin de Leon and was then in her mid-80s. Even the late Mel Wax, Feinstein’s press secretary as Mayor, said to me that “she wasn’t really a Democrat.” 

Now you acknowledge (3/18/21) that, at 87, she “has entered the denouement of a storied political career whether she likes it or not,” implicitly siding with calls for her to stop down. 

Enough said.  

Goodbye, 

Robert Brokl

George W. Bush, the “decider” as he loved to call himself, and his side-kick, Dick Cheney, made a monumental blunder invading Afghanistan in 2001. Both were “green” to the horrors of war, Cheney received 5 deferments and escaped the Vietnam draft and George W was MIA in the National Guard, protected by Papa Bush. 

The War in Afghanistan has killed or wounded tens of thousands of Afghan civilians excluding the large numbers of victims killed in errant drone strikes launched during the Obama administration. Over 2,300 U.S. service members and hundreds of NATO soldiers have perished costing the U.S. trillions of dollars. Taliban said it would boycott the talks because Biden is going back on a deal made by President Trump to have all U.S. troops out by May 1. Doesn’t America ever keep its promises or does the US regard treaties worthless pieces of paper? 

The Biden admiration is dealing with a weak hand. The Taliban have dealt America another humiliating defeat. Postponing the withdrawal date will only put more soldiers and Afghans lives at risk. Afghan American scholar Zaher Wahab says “The United States and its allies should never have attacked and occupied Afghanistan. “It was wrong. It and totally illegal and immoral. Much like former Soviet invading force, the US violated the sanctity of a sovereign country.” Wahab’s view is shared by Matthew Hoh, senior fellow with the Center for International Policy, who in 2009 resigned from the State Department in protest of the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. 

“The invasion and occupation and the bloodshed have destroyed the country, its economy, its institutions, its infrastructure, its education, its way of life, relationships among the different ethnic groups. This occupation has been nothing short of a catastrophe”. 

The cruel irony is Osama bin Laden was no friend of the moderate Taliban and they were willing to hand him over their unwanted guest to the Americans without a shot being fired. 

British prime minister, Tony Blair willingly joined forces hoping to bring back memories of the “glorious British empire.” Following a backlash back home, the nimble Blair retreated to became a high priced consultant. More tragic misadventures followed in Iraq and Libya. No American politicians has paid the price for the appalling loss of human life. America and its allies continue to use the same strategy fighting wars expecting different outcomes – the definition of insanity! Even as the Biden administration has committed to ending the “forever war” in Afghanistan he has promised to increase the Pentagon budget! More insanity! 

Jagjit Singh

Some years ago, Harry Brill told me that local politics weren’t very interesting , since the topic was just real estate. A lot has changed in the years in between then and now.

Real estate and land use are big issues. Those of us who care about open space, biodiversity, climate and urban habitat are horrified by state legislation to strip cities of local control over such factors. Add in the resolutions and ordinances coming from Berkeley’s own mayor and City Council these days. There are obvious disconnects when you’re discussing density, covering land with concrete, climate change and environmental impacts. Another real estate piece of the picture is the complete denial that deregulation of zoning brings on an investor feeding frenzy. If this isn’t enough add UC Berkeley’s plans.

The city meeting of the week with the highest video attendance was Tuesday’s special City Council meeting on the UC Berkeley Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) draft environmental impact report (DEIR). https://lrdp.berkeley.edu/environmental-review The deadline to respond to UC is this Wednesday, April 21 at 5 pm. One surprise: Why did the council wait until a week before the deadline for a presentation by staff and council comment and questions, when the LRDP 45 day review period started March 8?

 

It was obvious the Sophie Hahn had read the 1000 page document as she started through her list of comments. This was one time I really wanted to hear what she had to say, but the mayor cut her off to go to public comment. 

While many in the Zoom audience (there were over 70 logged in) spoke against the projects to build on People’s Park and to demolish rent controlled apartments on Walnut Street, everyone was reminded that public comments need to be sent directly to UC Berkeley by the authors. The email is planning@berkeley.edu with “Draft EIR Comments:2021 LRDP and Housing Projects #1 and #2” in the subject line. 

The list of deficiencies in the DEIR is long: The document has been described as 1000 pages of nothing. 

Here are some key points: Mills College is closing, but reuse of its campus by UCB was not considered in this plan; People’s Park as a historic resource and open space will be lost with 60 mature trees removed; rent controlled units in the building on Walnut will be sacrificed to build more expensive dorms; the impact of increased UCB enrollment is ignored; the DEIR considers only impact to UCB campusl not the adjacent community; demolition of existing structures is a given; there are no plans to return the archeological resources stolen and held by UCB to Native Americans though People’s Park (Strawberry Creek) was a major village site; UCB uses the City of Berkeley fire department services; the impact of building in high risk fire zones was not included; there is no fire evacuation plan; the addition of parking and traffic is unacceptable; there is no labor agreement for construction,. 

Monday afternoon was the Agenda and Rules Committee meeting, with the task of planning the April 27^th regular city council meeting. One item that didn’t receive any attention that should be on everyone’s radar is that reserving $40 million from Measure O bond funds for transit-oriented housing over the Ashby and North Berkeley BART station parking lots achieves only 35% affordable housing at each BART station. The agenda item says that a new community process and new bond measure would be needed to get above 35%. 

The most poorly attended meeting of the week was the Personnel Board on Monday evening. None of the job descriptions being reviewed were available to the public as the packet was sent only to board members and not posted. My comment was direct to the impropriety of not posting the job descriptions for the public. While I did receive a copy from Dana d’Angelo, Assistant Management Analyst, on the following day, it was too late to provide comment. The packet still is not posted for the public to read. 

Much to my surprise and disappointment not one person from the Police Review Commission (PRC) joined the meeting to comment on the Director of Police Accountability position. Of course, they hadn’t received a copy of the Director of Police Accountability job description, let alone notification it was up for review. The presence of someone from the PRC would have been helpful. From my reading there is a disconnect between the Director of Police Accountability and the Police Accountability Board. I wonder if anyone present had ever paid any attention to the PRC or the ballot initiative other than a dry reading. There were few questions and comments, altogether very unsatisfying. 

Probably many of us didn’t spend much time looking at our job descriptions until that work performance evaluation rolled along, but well done job descriptions do set the direction of work. They are also how we decide whether we want the job in the first place. LaTanya Bellow from the Human Resources Department told the board there were over 150 jobs with only one person in them. She was bringing to the board two generic job descriptions. These would replace all those inconvenient one person job descriptions. There was no review of what was being eliminated. The board suggested that a couple of responsibilities might be reordered and otherwise gave their rubber stamp of approval. 

As someone who wrote programs for state licensure, many job descriptions and held responsibility for hire and fire of employees, I think well done job descriptions are important. A better standard than the inconvenient number would consider whether the job was unique with special skill or knowledge requirements, was the description written without bias for or against any group, and does it still fit a job that may have evolved. It is no wonder why many of us are unhappy with performance of some of our city employees. Is generic the best we can expect? 

The last meeting for comment is the Open Government Commission on Thursday evening. For that meeting, “open” is not a term I would use. Former Mayor Shirley Dean had filed a Brown Act complaint on March 5, 2021 (see Activist’s Diaries March 6, March 20, March 28 and Packet-OGC/FCPC https://www.cityofberkeley.info/opengovermentcommission/ starting on page 24). 

Commissioner Janis Ching noted that the minutes of that meeting did not include the Commission’s discussion of calling a special meeting to review the complaints. The complaints arrived 13 days, not the required 14 days, before the Open Government Commission’s scheduled March 18^th meeting. Therefore, the complaints would not be reviewed prior to the special meeting called by the mayor to consider council action on the issues which were the subject of the complaints, land use zoning, including Resolution to End Exclusionary Zoning, and Quadplex Zoning. 

The special Open Government meeting was not called. The chair, Brad Smith, made that decision. The commission members were not notified of the decision, nor were they notified under what conditions the members of the commission could call a special meeting. I commented that all of this looked suspect when Chair Brad Smith was the appointee of Councilmember Lori Droste, who is the author of the proposals which were the subject of Mayor Dean’s Brown Act complaints. Smith was not present for the April 15 commission meeting. A majority of the commissioners voted to dismiss the complaints rather than perform side by side comparisons of the documents as requested by Commissioner Ching. 

I finished Twilight of the Elites by Chris Hayes. It was published in 2011. I wish the optimistic “twilight” in the title was true. One book that stands out from last year with the formation of the Republican America First Caucus is It Was All a Lie by Stuart Stevens. In summary, Stevens wrote the Republican party stands for nothing but white supremacy. 

In the scene on the TV, we see a man lying on the ground, unmoving, his hands behind his head. His head is raised a bit so he can see what is coming toward him. We see four large men walking in a line toward this guy on the street. The four approach him slowly, carefully, as if with a predatory intent, expecting him to defend himself. We don’t know why they are preparing an attack, but we watch them step carefully toward him, as if samurai about to enter mortal combat. The samurai step, forward and to the left with the left foot, forward and to the left with the right foot in front of the left, then the left foot again, always keeping balance and facing frontwards. It is like an adult street gang in the movies. We can almost hear the Edward G. Robinson growl; “Okay, punk, you t’ink you wise or somethin’. We’ll show you a thing or two.”  

We watch them approach their prey. He lies there, also watching them. But wait a minute; something is wrong. This guy has shown no preparation to defend himself. Maybe he’s playing possum so that this street gang will leave him alone. But it is too late for that. He knows what they are going to do. We see it in his face.  

As the four surround him, yelling things at him that interfere with each other and become unintelligible, two of them reach down, grabbing his arms and pulling him up from the ground. They pull him up roughly to a kind of sitting position, twist him around, and throw him back down. They are kicking him, and one of them punches him four or five times. He doesn’t go down as easily as he came up.  

But wait a minute. Something else is wrong. This isn’t a gang of street punks. They’re in uniform. They’re cops. Predatory cops?? What is going on here?  

We are watching the evening news. There had been an earlier scene in the video in which we saw this same guy, on the same spot on the street, on his knees. A shot rings out. We don’t see who shoots, nor what the shot hits. But the guy falls toward his right, and lies down. When we see him lying on the street as this street gang walks up to him, there doesn’t seem to be any blood.  

Most of this is factual. This is what we see in these video clips, though its resemblance to a street gang operation is a judgment. It is important to point that out. There are other "facts" that will have to be added in order to explain why four cops are acting like a street gang. But those "facts" will belong to "knowledge," not to observation. For instance, we might conclude, having seen the entire event, that the shot was just a threat, a warning, or a prelude to moving in and beating up this man – something to make it look like "real" police work.  

The town is Hayward, CA. The day is April 7, 2021. The media is CBS TV Evening News. Those facts seem less important than the fact that one cop kicks the guy after pulling him up to sitting position, and another punches him in order to get him to lie down again. The guy can’t defend himself with two other cops holding his arms. Neither bravery nor justice is in evidence. It is an exercise in “violence for the sake of violence.” ###### 

After showing these video clips, the news program shifts to an ex-cop who the reporter knows, and to whom she showed the video. We might assume that this reporter does this because she considers him an "expert." Why else bring him into the story? In his response to the video, he says, “Even those punches, which I didn’t think were excessively brutal, even that could have been avoided had these officers known really good submission techniques and arrest control techniques. But again, hearts are pounding, people are nervous and scared, you know, in a situation like that, someone could die.”  

Huh??  

A man is lying down, and this alleged "expert" says the cops need “good submission techniques”? To do what? Make him dead instead of just lying down? They have guns, and this guy, their prey, does not. Who does this "expert" think is going to do the dying??  

They pull him up from the ground in order to punch him and throw him back down, and that isn’t excessive? The brutality seems to be okay with this "expert." Why? Maybe because he was a San Jose cop too long. After several incidents like this, one would get used to the idea of manhandling a person in order to then beat them up them for resisting. But he also wants to judge it as not excessive. “Use of Force” is excessive if it is totally unnecessary. It doesn’t even have to be "brutal" to be excessive. Just kneeling on a person’s neck is excessive because it can kill (“Someone could die.”).  

Question: how come this ex-cop expert is unable to think beyond violence? He advises that the cops should have used “really good arrest control technique.” Apparently, neither he nor this gang of four have ever been taught to use the English language. I mean, speaking to people in a human voice, without yelling. Here is some guy rendering himself compliant by lying down and showing his hands. And these cops can’t figure out how to say, in English, “get up, you are under arrest. We are going to handcuff you.” Is it true that a cop can only talk to a civilian by yelling commands, so that even language becomes violence for the sake of violence?  

Maybe talking to him is too complicated an idea for these cops. It would mean thinking of him as a person, and not as a thing. We assume that these cops are interested in arresting this man. But that means they must grant him person-status. You can’t arrest a thing. So our assumption is obviously mistaken. They are not interested in arresting him. They are only interested in his submission. That is not even street gang language. It is plantation owner language. “Prepare to be tortured for your false pretensions to being human.” Is there any aspect of this that is not excessive?  

But our "expert" then mentions "hearts" and "nervousness." Hearts are pounding, he says. People are nervous. As the four walk toward this man lying on the ground, one of them, obviously in command, rearranges them around the guy, before reaching down to pull him up in order to throw him back down. They couldn’t be doing that to handcuff him. They could tell him to stand up to do that. But then, they couldn’t strong-arm him – power for its own sake.  

These cops aren’t scared. At four to one, they are looking for satisfaction. They surround him so that they can get a few punches in. For most men who like violence, punches give them a feeling of elation. The fear, the heart beats, the nervousness, that’s all fiction. We saw that fiction in their walk, something they might have learned in a “fight school,” or by watching Samurai movies.  

But this ex-cop "expert" makes one valid statement. “Someone could die.” That is a fact. And he smiles when he says it. The police kill around 1100 people every year. That averages out to around 3 a day – a government killing its own people.  

But it gets worse. A captain in the HPD makes a few statements under the heading of a “Use of Force Incident.” “We do not draw conclusions,” he says, “about whether the officers acted consistent with department policies and the law until all the facts are known and the investigation is complete.”  

With what law is beating up a man who is compliant and lying down consistent? What law is enforced by substituting violence for speech? One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to know the answer. There are none. What is to investigate? But this ranking Hayward cop wants “all the facts” to be known. What does he not "know" after watching the same video we have seen. Maybe it is that this guy is a "bad" guy? That’s not a fact; it’s a judgment. Or maybe this guy has been disobedient earlier on, and that the cops wanted revenge for that? Their desire for revenge is not a fact, but a criminal intention. Maybe this “gang of four” thinks unnecessary force is necessary to teach this guy a lesson? That is not a fact; it is a decision made by these cops to act like a gang. Or perhaps this "spokescop" wants the opportunity to invent a few more fictional facts of his own so that he can excuse the violence, imposed for the sake of violence, on this guy. If our "expert" can fictionalize, why can’t an HPD captain?  

But then, why don’t we require (as necessary) that these cops go and do their playwriting in Hollywood, and not in the streets of our cities? Failing that, someone should arrest this gang of four cops before they kill someone. They are dangerous people. We can see that, even though that is not a fact but a judgment.  

This same captain who wants to start with the facts has seen the same punches thrown that we have. What he hasn’t seen is "why." But that would be "knowledge." It might be retaliation, or anger, or to make the other submit. But those are not facts. They are motives.  

A big problem emerges once motives get raised to the level of fact. Racial profiling, for instance, is a form of raising a cop’s suspicion and bigotry to the level of evidence. Similarly, the excuse used most often by cops who shoot someone in the back and kill them is: “I felt threatened.” To use that as evidence of self-defense (the term "evidence" implying factuality) is to make a mockery of an entire judicial system by honoring shooting someone in the back. It is to turn judiciality into a form of dictatorship, implemented with guns on the street.  

But even these cops, as they manhandle this guy on the street, do their own fictionalizing in the moment. We hear them demand that he let them get his hands so they can cuff him. (!!!) They had his hands. They pulled him up off the ground by his hands. But they want it on record that he is resisting. That is necessary for their excessive force to be seen as necessary. But seen by whom? By what audience? For us, the entire thing is a performance. It wasn’t law enforcement. It certainly wasn’t peace keeping, or ensuring that the people of Hayward were safe and secure.  

What required fictionalizing was their reason for pulling him up physically from the ground. They had to do that so that, when he squirmed under their force, they could consider it resistance and beat him. They couldn’t do that if they just told him to get up because he was under arrest. They couldn’t punch him for resisting if they hadn’t manhandled him first.  

Even Chauvin is using that defense in his murder trial, viz. that Floyd was resisting him. That itself is fiction. Floyd was already in custody, and handcuffed when Chauvin arrived on the scene. You can read that in the news articles written at the time (May, 2020). Chauvin killing Floyd on camera was also a performance. In other words, we have a government that has adopted “snuff films” as its role model, not for policing, but for social control.  

The most amazing thing that happened during the killing of George Floyd was that there was a guy on the sidewalk who saw what Chauvin was doing to Floyd and called 911. Can you imagine that? He did that to report a murder in progress. He called the cops to come and arrest this cop who was in the act of murdering someone.  

For the police, there is no longer a clear boundary between the tragic and the criminal. Or, as Maldoror would say, what you are doing is so horrendous, so evil, so dehumanized, that it could only be intentional.

So far, Joe Biden's presidency has been a success. Recent polling showed his approval rating at 59 percent. Biden has done an excellent job handling the pandemic. He's managed to pass a significant recovery plan. And his administrative efforts have largely been successful.

The most recent Pew Research Poll (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/04/15/covid-19-policies-the-u-s-economy-and-the-vaccine-rollout/) found President Biden with 59 percent approval (39 percent disapproval) -- this rating is deeply split along Party lines, as only 18 percent of Republicans approve of Biden's performance in office. Interestingly, more voters support Biden in terms of issues than in terms of his personality. For example, about 37 percent of Republicans agree with him on some or "virtually all" issues. Given this finding, it's most important to evaluate Biden in terms of progress on specific issues. 

Coronavirus Pandemic: In general, Americans feel Biden has done a good job dealing with the pandemic. 72 percent of respondents believe the Administration had done an excellent or good job "managing the manufacture and distribution of Covid-19 vaccines." It's Biden's most significant accomplishment: "While an overwhelming share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (88%) say the administration has done an excellent or good job in managing the vaccine rollout, so too does a much smaller majority (55%) of Republicans and Republican leaners" 

Under the Biden Administration, the US is vaccinating citizens at one of the fastest rates in the world. More than 210 million doses have been administered; half of all US adults have received at least one vaccine dose. All US adults (aged 16 and up) are now eligible to receive the vaccine. 

Stimulus PlanL The $1.9 trillion American Cares Act was passed in March. It has been very well received. "More than twice as many Americans approve (67%) than disapprove (32%) of the $1.9 trillion aid bill." "Roughly a third of Republicans (35%) favor the aid package, which received no support from congressional Republicans." 

Domestic Policy: The Pew Research Poll asked participants to rate 15 domestic problems. Health care was the major concern: "The affordability of health care is high on the public’s list of the biggest problems in the country today, with 56% of adults describing this as 'a very big problem' and an additional 30% rating it 'a moderately big problem.'" 

Democrats and Republicans don't agree on the severity of domestic issues facing the country. "Gun violence, the affordability of health care, the coronavirus outbreak and racism are each seen as very big problems facing the country today by two-thirds or more Democrats and Democratic leaners....By contrast, far fewer Republicans say these are major problems in the country. Four-in-ten say health care affordability is a very big problem, and only about two-in-ten rate the coronavirus and gun violence as very big problems." 

International Policy: The Pew Poll did not ask respondents about Biden's performance on international issues -- historically, Americans have cared less about International policy than they do domestic issues. Nonetheless, in his first 3 months in office, Joe Biden has clearly differentiated his Administration's policies from those of Donald Trump. Biden had the United States rejoin the "Paris Climate Accords." Biden has begun talks to rejoin the nuclear disarmament treaty with Iran -- the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action." Biden has sanctioned Russia - and Russian citizens and companies -- for interference in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and cyberattacks. (Biden has had a long conversation with China's President Xi Jinping, but has not changed sanctions imposed by Trump.) Biden has embraced our NATO allies and made strides towards eliminating Trump's isolationist policies. 

Personnel:the Senate has approved 21 of 23 Biden cabinet nominees. Neera Tanden, the nominee for Director of the Office of Management and Budget, had her nomination withdrawn; she had made too many enemies vis Tweet. Eric Lander, a renown scientist, is Biden's Science Advisor; he's been nominated to head a new cabinet position, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; this is still being considered by the Senate. 

Biden's cabinet is the most diverse in U.S. History. 

Ron Klain, Biden's Chief of Staff, has been lauded for running an unusually effective transition and managing a productive first quarter. Jen Psaki, White House Press Secretary, has been widely praised for her informative and (sometimes) humorous daily press conferences. 

Unity: Joe Biden ran on a promise to unify the nation. A recent Harris-Hill Poll (https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/538905-poll-majority-say-biden-has-prioritized-unity-so-far) found that a majority of respondents (57 percent) felt that Biden has been working to do this: "they think Joe Biden has made uniting the country a priority in his actions so far as president." 

During the past three months, Biden has faced adamant Republican congressional opposition. Republican members of Congress have seldom supported any move that he has made. On major issues it's unusual to find any Republican votes to go along with those of Democrats. 

While Democratic-leaning pundits describe the Biden Administration as focused, empathetic, and effective, Republican-leading pundits describe Democratic actions in extremely negative terms. Conservative voices suggest that Biden is senile, a hollow facade, being manipulated by radical socialists including Kamala Harris and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They decry the legislative initiatives -- such as the proposed Biden Infrastructure plan -- as socialist over reach. 

Summary: the Biden Administration has had a productive three months, with no help from Republicans. The bad news is that Congressional Republicans are unlikely to change. The good news is that, on specific issues, Biden has the support of about two-thirds of the electorate.