As the committee for Affordable and Resilient Berkeley(Yes on Measure L) approaches $300,000 or more in campaign donations from various dubious sources, it’s still struggling to outgun grassroots No on L organizers in the polls. Stealth, midnight installations of “Yes on L, Yes on M” signage on city property(illegal) is reluctantly taken down after immediate reporting to the local election rules committee-only to appear like the Caddyshack gopher days later. Still, as the election day advances, the onslaught of media calling for Yes on L on the streets and in our mailboxes is truly a colossal waste of resources and money. 

Talking Their Book 

Armed with virtuous one-liners to shame you into hitting the “yes” button on your Smartmatic on November 8th, the Yes on L folks have A LOT to lose and A LOT to gain locally. A “no” vote could also send a bond revulsion event across the country, which terrifies business that are soaking in the hot tub of leveraged money. When your moral argument coincidently benefits your wallet, the boys on Wall Street call it,”Talking Your Book.” Ironically several non-profits just seem to find some spare chip laying to throw into the ante: 

[see, Wikipedia, Moral Hazard] 

DONOR ROGUE’S GALLERY(Major Donations): 

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazardhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

In 1984 Berkeley declared People's Park a Landmark. That you have not yet acknowledged the placing of the Park on the Register of National Landmarks says plenty about what Berkeley has become and in whose interest it is governed. Of course the University is a major player on the political scene. That's inevitable and irreversible as the University is part of the State apparatus. But simply acknowledging the Landmark honor does not require that the City do more than let the development battle play out in the Courts. You do have a responsibility to the City's history more than to the real estate developers. Just as you have a responsibility to the hundreds and hundreds of homeless you keep displacing (such as now in the Gilman district) without providing adequate housing alternatives.

I am writing on behalf of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (BAHA) to express our serious concerns regarding the City of Berkeley’s 2023-2031 Revised Housing Element Update and Draft Environmental Report (Revised Housing Element Update and RHEU). Our comments address the defects in the promulgation of this ill-advised scheme, as well as the substance of its, now revised, content.  

Since 1974, our organization has advocated for the preservation of the wonderful legacy of architecture, history and aesthetics that enrich the City of Berkeley. Our diverse membership of over 1200 citizens includes renters, homeowners, Berkeley activists, architects, historians, professors, students, old and new residents, business owners and retirees. What we have in common is concern for the past and future of Berkeley and a desire to see that, as things change, these changes fit within the pioneering, creative, and often socially revolutionary architecture that typifies our wonderful City. They also want to see that new development respects the existing architecturally significant structures, streetscapes and landscapes that make Berkeley unique. 

BAHA believes that this Revised Housing Element Update will be used by outside developers to destroy much of what makes Berkeley special, including its inclusive family neighborhoods where renters and homeowners have co-existed since 1876. The many articles in the San Francisco Business Times and other pro-private development publications about how Berkeley is rolling out the red carpet for real estate developers who plan to construct high-rise, mixed-use commercial developments undermine the City’s stated purpose of creating housing equity in its latest RHEU. Put simply, we don’t believe any of the high-minded promises floated in the RHEU, which we regard as cynical attempts to mask what is otherwise a massive landgrab by private developers to extend their reach into the traditional residential neighborhoods in Berkeley. This residential area landgrab has the very real possibility of uprooting the last vestiges of our diverse city and destroying its wonderful existing structures and outdoor spaces.  

The choice of city planners to exceed the state required housing element by over 7000 units-- almost double what state law mandates-- is unjustified and highly irresponsible. Not only can Berkeley’s existing infrastructure not accommodate the proposed level of housing growth, but this proposed level of development will also necessarily exacerbate the very real threats to life and property endemic in the City at present. As explained below, there is no guarantee in the RHEU– notwithstanding the high-minded rhetoric – that much if any of the new proposed housing will be realistically available to lower income residents, the working poor, or needy families. The RHEU anticipates that 74% of new planned “in the pipeline” units will be for moderate or above moderate income residents. (RHEU C-2.) As for units dedicated to low income residents, the time limits built into the scant number of housing density bonus units mean even the few that may be created can revert to market rate after the relevant low-rent period has expired. 

Although it is lengthy, the RHEU contains very little information about the most important part of the proposed plan, namely where this new housing will be built. Table 5.4 asserts that planners found sites for 11,935 units, including 7,310 units on “opportunity sites.” Figure 5.2, “Residential Site Inventory,” designates numerous “opportunity sites,” with no explanation as to the basis by which these parcels were identified and little information on the structures that exist on and adjacent to these locations. The RHEU states only that planners use “objective criteria” and “local knowledge,” to select the opportunity sites (RHEU 100). The description of what planners did – offered at page C-14 -- is likewise uninformative: they looked at an “interactive online web mapping platform” and annotated the maps, "annotating existing use and providing additional 

justification for consideration.” RHEU C-14. Exactly what constitutes “additional justification” was not disclosed. Because Figure 5.2 fails to identify city landmarks, parks, schools, and open spaces, it is virtually impossible to tell the impact of these “opportunity sites” within the given neighborhoods, much less assess the basis upon which they were selected. For example, without an overlay of AC Transit routes, it is impossible to tell which of the sites -- -pipeline and opportunity—are near public transportation. Figure 5.1 is similarly flawed. Rather than provide street addresses for the “opportunity sites,” the RHEU provide APNs, which makes identifying existing structures and adjacent structures very difficult for a dedicated reader and impossible for the average member of the public. The absence of information about this key aspect of the RHEU is both striking and highly suspicious. 

As for landmarked properties, parks, and open spaces, all are effectively ignored. Notwithstanding the fact that several landmarked and landmark eligible properties are earmarked for demolition under the RHEU plan, the cumulative impact of these demolitions is not examined. Likewise, the individual and cumulative impacts on parks, creeks, and open spaces near the new dense planned developments are ignored. 

RHEU & DEIR Fail to Consider Alternate Sites for Construction in High Fire Danger Zones  

By proposing significant housing growth in areas already challenged by climate change (see Figure 5.2) – including areas of increased fire danger – without performing the required analysis of alternative building sites, city planners have failed to satisfy basic legal requirements thereby undermining their overriding consideration findings. Among other things, the RHEU contemplate new, expansive high-density development in already densely populated hillside areas where narrow winding streets are the norm. These plans, which are in Very High Fire Severity Zones, necessarily increase the fire danger to residents of these areas both directly (by inhibiting already strained evacuation routes and straining existing utilities that are in many cases decades past their useful life) and indirectly (by necessitating the cutting of old growth trees and increasing pollution due to construction and tail pipe emissions).  

At present, in the event of a large earthquake on the Hayward fault or large fire in the Berkeley hills, Berkeley’s current fire services will be unable to save either life or property in the Very High Fire Severity zoned areas and the Hillside Overlay more generally. City officials have acknowledged this potential catastrophic scenario in their communications with CERT groups, filings in connection with UC’s LRDP, and community meetings over the past few years. Increasing development in these zones will only exacerbate the disaster waiting to happen. The RHEU’s failure to consider alternate building sites in light of the present situation renders the overriding consideration findings null and void. The DEIR is similarly flawed and, therefore, must be redone to address these issues and evaluate alternate sites. 

Failure to Consider Aging Infrastructure and Impact of Development on Same 

The law requires that the city consider the analysis of governmental constraints on the improvement and development of housing. Nowhere in the RHEU does the City address the adequacy of the City’s aging existing infrastructure – including emergency services, emergency service access routes, sewer lines, waterlines -- and private utility infrastructure to support its existing population much less the proposed population growth and development density contemplated in the RHEU. The fact that some areas of the city still used the original hollowed out Redwood trees for underground sewage should cause the public to question whether city infrastructure really can accommodate the thousands more units than called for by state law. 

City officials have admitted in connection with Measure L that existing infrastructure –including roads and sewers – are failing and or soon will fail completely absent an infusion of cash via the proposed bond measure. Neither the RHEU nor the DEIR adequately address the impacts of the proposed housing elements on the city infrastructure over the next 10 years. Without doubt problems with the existing infrastructure constitutes a housing constraint. By failing to address this very real constraint, the RHEU and DEIR are demonstrably in adequate. 

RHEU and DEIR Fail to Consider Impacts on Landmarked and Historic Structures and Areas 

Much of Berkeley’s existing housing stock is in aging buildings, some of which are landmarked, historic and/or rent controlled. The RHEU acknowledges this fact. Significantly city planners favor demolishing older structures where the floor area ratio on the lot is small. As long as a building was over 40 years old and its parcel “is underutilized based on existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR),” planners felt free to designate a property an “opportunity site,” namely one that could be demolished in favor of more dense housing. Their justification for disfavoring older houses and designating them as “opportunity sites” was that, “Buildings older than 30 years typically require significant systems upgrades and often do not meet ADA requirements.” Under this logic, many of the city’s landmarked houses could be under the proverbial chopping block. Moreover, creating denser housing on lots where older houses have taken up little lot space (stated as FAR) likely will mean removing mature trees and gardens.  

Nowhere does the RHEU provide the required and promised analysis of this existing housing stock at the street or neighborhood level. Instead, the RHEU promises that at some point the future – with no dates provided – a survey of existing structures will be undertaken. We are told that this “survey” will have some connection to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), but no specifics are provided.  

Despite these empty promises of a future survey, the RHEU makes many ill-informed assumptions about Berkeley’s existing housing and ignores the impacts of the proposed new construction on the existing housing where Berkeley citizens are living and working every day. By way of example, the RHEU ignore the importance of single-family homes in the San Pablo Park area to the economic empowerment of generations of Berkeley’s African American residents and the more recent trend of gentrification and densification (tearing down to build up) of that area that is decimating that once thriving community. 

Likewise, the RHEU maps potential development sites without indicating on the maps the proximity to existing and potential city landmarks. Because the city’s wonderful, landmarked buildings are not even mentioned in the RHEU or reflected on the maps to showing potential development sites, city planners have fundamentally misled the public about the true impacts of their development schemes.  

The RHEU also makes unsupported assumptions about wealth, class, and race within the Berkeley neighborhoods where development is proposed. These assumptions are misleading and mask the very real impacts that the proposed development will have in the existing fabric of this City. Before asserting that any proposed development will make Berkeley “more equitable,” city planners must analyze (a) the current racial and economic makeup of the Berkeley neighborhoods where development is proposed (ideally over a 40-year period) and (b) the safeguards or guarantees that the proposed developments will make that neighborhood “more equitable.” Generalities must be avoided; instead, planners must provide actual statistics including race, age, disability, and gender, to support their assertions that the creation of largely market rate housing will make a given neighborhood more diverse and, where they claim it, more economically accessible. 

Junk-in/Junk Out: the Failed RHEU Planning Process 

Because the process by which the RHEU was created was outcome-directed, slapdash, and deeply misleading, we regard the RHEU as fundamentally flawed. We also view the comment process with deep cynicism and believe it to be fundamentally illegitimate given how weighted towards further large-scale development the dialogue has been to date.  

The RHEU and DEIR should have addressed how the city can fulfill the state’s mandated housing element separate and apart from the much larger, more ambitious program proposed. Because these documents do not set out the option of fulfilling the minimum state requirement, Berkeley residents have no means of comparing the proposed large-scale development with that actually required under the new state housing mandates. For example, residents may have preferred a housing plan that satisfies the state mandate but that allows additional units to be built in future if certain parameters have been met. By failing to set out a plan for meeting the minimum housing construction within the state mandate, the RHEU and DEIR fail to provide important benchmarking.  

The RHEU promotes large-scale residential development on the basis that it will generate needed low-income housing, yet upon careful examination, little low-income housing is guaranteed. Instead, planners have made aspirational projections as to who will be able to afford the projected units without fully disclosing the lack of guarantees that the units will indeed be available to lower income residents. Nor is there any meaningful analysis of the impact of the proposed development on existing lower cost housing. As noted above, the RHEU lacks actual demographic statistics for each impacted neighborhood. It also fails to provide an analysis of the demographics of the newly created units. Absent this baseline data, its statements about impacts on existing and future housing stock are flawed and without proper foundation. 

BAHA remains disheartened that the needs of existing Berkeley residents, who favor human-scale structures that blend with existing buildings and can house families and multi-generational cohorts, have largely been ignored in favor of dense high-priced developer specials for (largely) single commuters or students many of whom reside in Berkeley for only part of the year. Berkeley’s recent housing building boom has largely been high-cost student housing. While the new $2000- $10,000/month apartments may fulfill some UC students’ needs, this is hardly the kind of housing that the average Berkeley citizen can afford. Furthermore, most of these new apartments do not feature layouts and floor plans that can easily be occupied by a multi-generational family. Instead, they are designed to be occupied by a specific type of person – a single student living alone or with other students. By developing units and marketing units to students (who necessarily will occupy their units only when enrolled as a student), the large out-of-state private dorm developers are effectively doing an end-run around Berkeley’s rent control. This practical reality is a far cry from the housing equity for existing and new long-term residents that Berkeley city planners are touting in the RHEU. 

BAHA recommends that city planners go back to the drawing board. At a minimum they must: 

• Provide a meaningful analysis of alternate sites for constructing housing slated to be built in RH-1 and other fire zones;
• Evaluate the constraints on housing overall including the existing, failing city infrastructure;
• Evaluate the impact of the proposed development on city infrastructure;
• Evaluate the impact of building the proposed additional housing in areas where emergency evacuation is difficult and/or the existing fire risk is high;
• Provide a thorough analysis of existing housing stock on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis rather than relying on generalities;
• Provide support, on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, for their assertions that planned housing will make housing in each neighborhood more “equitable”;
• Explain what “objective criteria” were used to identify the opportunity sites;
• Identify the opportunity sites by address and describe the cultural and environmental impacts of developing at these addresses;
• Provide information about the proximity to landmarks, potential landmarks, and historic areas and the impacts on those landmarks of the proposed developments;
• Be transparent as to the existence or lack of guarantees that any given proposed development will have low-income housing;
• Provide a plan for meeting the state mandated new housing so that citizens can better understand the costs and benefits of constructing more than the mandated units.

I totally missed the Berkeley Bird Festival last Sunday. Instead I was tethered to the computer pulling together the response to the Housing Element Update (HEU) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to meet the 5 pm Monday, October 17 deadline, only to be hit on Tuesday with a revision arriving with a one week to respond, putting me behind for another week. I have never heard of such a thing, one week to respond to a revision of a DEIR, but as I wrote last week Berkeley was outed by the San Francisco Business Times and looks to be on target to miss the January 31, 2023 Housing Element deadline. So I guess to make up time, we get the minimal seven days to find the changes and respond. https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/general-plan-and-area-plans/housing-element-update 

One interesting chart in the revised HEU DEIR on pages 11-13 is the list of community groups the preparers chose to contact, East Bay for Everyone, Berkeley Design Advocates and Southside Neighborhood Consortium and who they did not contact, Friends of Adeline, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council and Berkeley Tenants Union. The groups not contacted represent the communities most impacted by gentrification and exorbitant market rate rents. The excuse is these three organizations did not respond, which adds another layer of unanswered questions of how did this happen. 

At the Monday Community for a Cultural Civic Center (CCCC) meeting, John Caner expressed his doubt that enough money will come out of the Measure L Bonds to do the seismic work at the Maudelle Shirek and Veterans Buildings. That feeling was seconded by others. Since the Measure L Bonds are, as put to me by Vincent Casalaina, “money looking for projects not projects looking for money” no one knows. Or better said, the voting public doesn’t know what the Mayor and his tightest cronies have in their sights. I might have thought “tightest cronies” was too strong, but given the amount of money pouring into the yes on L campaign, somebody(ies) is looking to have their hands in the pot. 

Deb Durant gave an update on the Berkeley Turtle Island Monument Project. Through grants, awards and support the funds to implement the project is over $1,000,000, however, those funds look to be evaporating after the City turned over the project to PGAdesign Landscape Architects based in Oakland. https://pgadesign.com/ The Turtle Island Monument group is being pushed aside, and this includes the indigenous community for whom the monument is supposed to be dedicated, with the message to the indigenous community to start from scratch. A mess unless you are the architects eating up the project funds. 

The Agenda Committee met on Wednesday. I am so accustomed to a Monday meeting that I automatically listed it there, but as of late, the Agenda Committee has been moved to other days. Nothing earth shattering happened. Hybrid meetings will likely resume with the November 15 council meeting, but stay tuned. With Governor Newsom announcing the pandemic emergency to end February 28, 2023, everyone needs to get ready to return to in-person meetings. Tihat also looks to mean the end to the convenience of zoom for committee and commission meetings. 

California AB 361, signed October 10, 2021, authorized exceptions to local government open meeting requirements during the pandemic, giving us the zoom boom. California AB 2449 signed September 13, 2022 defines the rules for teleconferencing when the pandemic emergency ends. https://www.hansonbridgett.com/Publications/articles/220916-4000-ab-2449 The City still promises to have hybrid meetings for City Council so the public can still videoconference and teleconference meetings that can last until 12:42 am, but it looks like council members will be required to be onsite for the meeting with few exceptions and a limit on how often an exception can be used. 

Bringing the bird-safe ordinance back to the Planning Commission is the story of a long haul to make change in building standards in Berkeley and it is not over. Jamie Cooney continues to persist and zoomed in Wednesday evening to tell her personal story. In 2018 when Jamie Cooney was a hazardous materials intern, she found two dead birds from glass collisions in front of her office in downtown Berkeley in one week. She began reaching out to a number of bird organizations including Golden Gate Audubon Society which responded by coming to the Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC) to present on bird-safe glass and building features. And that is how the bird-safe ordinance in Berkeley started. 

A lot has happened since the proposed ordinance made it out of the Community Environmental Advisory Commission in the spring of 2019 to weave through to council in November 2019 and then on to the Planning Commission where it languished at the bottom of the to-do list (aka workplan) until there were finally enough calls from the public to revive it. 

On September 19, 2019 Kenneth V. Rosenberg and colleagues published the results of their study of the staggering decline of bird populations in North America, with an estimated loss of nearly 3 billion birds since 1970 or 30% of the bird population. https://www.science.org/content/article/three-billion-north-american-birds-have-vanished-1970-surveys-show#:~:text=His%20team%20determined%20that%2019,house%20sparrows%2C%20are%20losing%20ground. 

Simultaneously, the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) in the last year published a model ordinance for bird-safety for cities to use https://abcbirds.org/glass-collisions/model-ordinance/ 

There are many factors threatening bird survival, loss of habitat, climate change and a warming planet, but at the top of the list of what we can control on a local basis is outdoor cats followed by collisions with glass. And 44% of collisions with glass are one and two story buildings including single family houses. We can fix this. 

While this has been in the works, I’ve watched building after building being approved and going up without bird-safe glass. Though we have had success with several projects lately voluntarily committing to installing bird-safe glass, that does not include David Trachtenberg and Bill Schrader. 

Trachtenberg and Schrader have multiple projects going up in Berkeley. Schrader agreed to install one window of bird-safe glass in one building at the entrance next to a green wall of plants. That is it. And that came with a lot of whining and moaning. 

These two are an excellent example of why recommendations that are voluntary do not work. A strong mandatory ordinance in line with the ABC model is desperately needed. 

In March 2022 when the proposed bird-safe ordinance was first heard by the Planning Commission, commissioners wanted the latest science and asked for more research. Now on October 19, 2022, listening to the commissioners’ discussion it is unclear whether there is a majority with a real interest in using science to establish policy. 

Alfred Twu (who is running for AC Transit District Director-at-Large) wanted to know if there are other cities currently exploring ordinances, “so we don’t end up with 10 different standards” a statement that would make sense until one realizes that some cities that implemented bird-safe standards did them years ago and they need to be updated to the new science. So will Berkeley lead by using the latest science? That is the unanswered question. 

Christina Oatfield and Alfred Twu agreed to be on the adhoc subcommittee to bring back recommendations for the December Planning Commission meeting. 

I am worried about Alfred Twu’s place on the subcommittee. I can’t put out of my mind Alfred Twu’s tweet suggesting removing the woodlands from Tilden Park and filling it with housing. I couldn’t grab the old tweet from Twitter, but Thomas Lord captured it and the Berkeley Daily Planet published it in 2021. https://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2021-05-02/article/49171##49171 

The original proposed ordinance from CEAC included a well written section on Dark Skies (I would still like to see fewer exceptions), but when Erin Diehm asked whether Dark Skies would be included, there was no answer. 

The next evening near the end of the Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting Steve Finacom picked up on my comment and spoke to dark skies relating what happened when PG&E shut off street lights so they could replace power poles. Steve said, “You went out in the street, and you could see the sky. Orion was up there and you could see Orion’s belt. And, we even saw a meteor. I can’t ever remember seeing a meteor in Berkeley. So even a little change, this was just the street lights were out and home lights went on, and the rest of the city was brilliant, but we could see the sky, so the dark sky stuff does really matter.” 

Dark skies are not just better for nature. In fact, just as dark skies are important for ecosystems and habitat, dark skies and complete darkness when we sleep is important for our own health. (advice from Nurse Kelly: turn off the lights). 

The Hopkins Street Corridor is still a hot enough issue to break through the steady stream of campaign requests for donations flooding my email inbox. All these City plans for bicycle lanes and “road diets” which is the term for making streets narrower to slow down traffic seem to be disconnected from the citywide Emergency Access and Evacuation Network map (see picture - Thank you Margot Smith) You can also get a good look from the map link at https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley-Emergency-Access-Evacuation-Routes-06-2011.pdf embedded in the Fire weather and Evacuation webpage https://berkeleyca.gov/safety-health/fire/fire-weather-evacuation 

The reconfiguration of Adeline between Ashby and MLK Jr Way was Thursday night with the Transportation Commission offered two choices, both of which narrow the street (an evacuation route). Adolfo Cabral has started attending the Transportation Commission. We spoke afterwards. I was at the DRC and only caught a sliver of the Transportation Commission meeting. Cabral said he wanted to look at the recording to capture everything and was surprised that the meeting wasn’t recorded. We both worry that the plan for the plaza on Adeline is just not going to work for the flea market. This coming Wednesday, the redesign for Telegraph from Dwight south to Woolsey will be presented on zoom, another evacuation route. 

The election is heating up. I called several friends to find out what happened at their ballot get togethers. It was an interesting mix especially when it came to Measure L. At one ballot gathering someone called people opposed to L liars and another someone looked up San Jose, a city with a population over one million and the physical size of 179.97 square miles, and was quite incensed comparing the salaries of Berkeley City administrators and the size of Measure L, compared to San Jose 17 times larger in land mass and 8 times larger in population and a bond that was passed in San Jose that was considered as huge. It was $650,000,000. 

San Jose is the third largest city in California. Berkeley doesn’t even make the top 50, but this council wants to spend like it is in the top 3 except when it comes to taking care of city employees, not the top paid employees who have been given generous raises, but those on the lower rungs. That is where resistance comes down from city management, with energy put into blocking the passage of the Fair Work Week ordinance. The attempt to pass legislation protecting part time workers started back in 2018. It was first mentioned as a council referral to the Commission on Labor in February 2019 minutes. 

The City Manager finally withdrew her companion report to send the Fair Work Week ordinance back through another round of committee meetings at the October 11, 2022, council meeting. 

Fair Work Week is item 35 on the November 3 Council regular 6 pm meeting agenda. Expect road blocks from the city administration and the conservative wing council members throwing wrenches at it. Fair Work Week includes offering existing part-time workers more hours or fulltime positions before hiring new employees, advance scheduling, minimum pay for scheduled work cancellations and rest between shifts. It is all spelled out under #35 https://berkeleyca.gov/city-council-regular-meeting-eagenda-november-3-2022.  

Anyone who is wobbling in supporting Ukraine or maybe even believes negotiating with Vladimir Putin is possible needs to pick up Masha Gessen’s book The Man Without a Face the Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin published in 2012. Reviews done when the book was published criticize it as biased, speculative and harsh, but so much more has happened in the intervening decade. Gessen’s descriptions of Putin as a ruthless tyrant look to be far more accurate than her book critics as we watch the obliteration of Ukraine play out right now. 

Gessen portrays Putin as a vindictive cold-hearted man who willingly rains destruction for any perceived insult or slight or just to cement his power. Accordingly, we should never underestimate his craven lust for power or greed or revenge. Gessen gives many examples painting the picture of who Putin is from his orchestrated pictures as the virile man with tigers and bears, of FSB (Russian Federal Security Bureau) connections to bombings and botched hostage recues. Add the suspicious deaths of Russian oligarchs, murders of Russian reporters, poisonings with polonium-210 and imprisonment of those who challenge him. 

Gessen closes with a face to face interview with Putin, her assessment of how Obama misjudged the nature of Putin and how Putin uses the demonization of the LGBTQ community. 

When I turn in the ebook today, Libby (the library ebook program) tells me there are three people waiting and out of the five libraries I use, only San Francisco has The Man Without a Face. Our libraries are an incredible service and worth every penny and more than that fee that shows up on our property tax bill. My bill is $309.96 and I happily pay it, thankful that nearly all of the 57 books I’ve read so far this year are from our Bay Area libraries.

At the risk of repeating myself for the thousandth time, the effects of the psychoactive drugs we are mandated to take, the life circumstances we must live with, and the horrors in the mind brought by the symptoms themselves, can create a living nightmare for a person with psychiatric problems. A severe psychiatric condition is often a cause of misery for the body and mind. How do you fight this? 

When life is mostly miserable, we may live for a few moments of pleasure here and there. For example: Getting an occasional sum of money that goes beyond the desert-like poverty that many of us must traverse. For example: Eating a chocolate bar. And a third example, going to a place you find fun with a friend. Yet I've had times in my life that due to medication, life circumstances and the symptoms of mental illness, I couldn't enjoy anything. 

It is no wonder that so many become "dual-diagnosis" because taking an illicit substance becomes a bigger temptation for a desperate person than it is for someone with better life circumstances. Then, we have compounded the mental illness with a problem of addiction to drugs. At that point, we're subject to being hit by double whammy after double whammy. This is because most illicit substances in the long run make everything worse. I must include alcohol. Even while tobacco smoke is becoming decreasingly legal and could be outlawed altogether in the foreseeable future, as it ought to be, alcohol is a bigger and more menacing bad influence on many people's health and safety. 

Cigarette smoke is viewed as an indicator of low socioeconomic development and ignorance, even though alcohol use continues to be accepted. In the case of smoke and any other exceedingly addictive substance, don't try it the first time. 

There is a basic difference with alcohol versus cigarettes. Cigarettes, once you start, as a rule, you are hooked. Alcohol on the other hand, some people can handle, and some can't. I can't do any alcohol because it interacts with medication. When I was trying to drink beer thirty years ago, the headaches were so bad that they prevented me from becoming an alcoholic. Some substances are more addictive than others. 

But for many people, happiness can be had, without resorting to a substance. Even mentally ill people can find some level of being happy; and we deserve it; we've been through enough. 

Happiness within the body can be had when we are fed, clothed, bathed, rested, and in comfortable surroundings. If we are experiencing a lot of physical pain, sometimes this can be diminished with cognitive methods and/or some Tylenol or Ibuprofen. If seeing a doctor for pain, we must follow her or his directions. 

Physical pain and other kinds of physical suffering, including withdrawal from a substance, will make a person uncomfortable, sometimes very. In the absence of that, and when we have what we need physically, the next rung of the ladder is to alleviate mental and emotional pain, so that we will have psychological happiness. And there are multitudinous approaches to this, which in the past have earned millions of dollars for authors of self-help books. So, it is hard to advise you on how to be happy mentally--the subject has already been done so much. 

I wrote a self-help manual, several. My sales have ranged from maybe a couple hundred dollars a year, or maybe less than that. But I haven't been suckered into the vanity presses--I've produced the works without help from anyone, and I did this on a platform that allows it. In most years, book revenues have exceeded the tiny bit of expenses that I incurred. This year is worse for most categories of sales, and I don't understand why. 

However, you can't read a self-help manual and follow its steps or even write one with stars in your eyes if you are fully psychotic. With a psychiatric condition, we must first address symptoms, and make sure we have housing and other essentials, and following that, seeking emotional happiness is fine. 

Some believe that the source of happiness is to be in a good relationship. This activity can bring a lot of happy and pleasurable emotions. Or it can become a source of complications. Relationships bring forth some of the strongest primitive emotions that human beings potentially have. Jealousy is one of them, and in some instances, it has triggered people to violence. STDs, and some are incurable, are yet another potential complication. Making babies changes your life forever. Becoming homeless is a possible outcome, when your housing is contingent on getting along with your significant other. Relationships can bring moments of intense happiness. Yet they can also ruin your life. 

Other forms of happiness include having a lifetime purpose, and actively pursuing it. Such purpose for it to have a chance at a good outcome, should be attainable. And remember to be careful what you ask for... 

If mentally ill, don't rule out the possibility of being happy. Just expect it will be harder to get. 

Congratulation to the Bicyclers, mostly students, who called in to the Berkeley City Council to support the bicycle path down Hopkins Street to the shopping center at MLK Jr. Way. The city council voted to complete the bicycle path, so you had a victory. 

Of course, that means that the small businesses on Hopkins will lose parking spaces and have the street in front of their doorways torn up for a while. But that's ok, if they lose too much business and fail because fewer customers can get there, these properties will be available for sale. The Terner Institute at UCB has listed this area as a Property Opportunity, which means that developers can consider it as prime for building high rise market rate housing. 

So shortly you probably will have a lovely bicycle path to a place you will not care to ride to, a cluster of high rise apartment buildings without public amenities. But that's ok, by that time you students will have graduated and moved on; only us long time residents of Berkeley will suffer the consequences. 

But congratulations, you were victorious. There will be another bike path in Berkeley.

A 5.1-magnitude earthquake centered east of San Jose on Tuesday morning could be felt through much of the Bay Area and caused some transit delays, but no major damage has been reported.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the quake struck at 11:42 a.m. and was centered about 12 miles east of San Jose. The USGS initially said the quake had a magnitude of 5.0 but then upgraded it to 5.1. A 2.9-magnitude aftershock also struck in the same location about five minutes later.

The 5.1 quake is the largest in the Bay Area since a 6.0 earthquake in the Napa area and residents around the region on social media reported feeling the jolt Tuesday morning. It was the largest quake on the northern end of the central segment of the Calaveras Fault since a 5.4-magnitude quake in 2007.

Many people also received advanced notification seconds before the quake happened via the MyShake smartphone app developed at University of California at Berkeley, according to the Governor's Office of Emergency Services.

BART officials held trains so crews could inspect trackways for possible damage, but cleared all service for normal operations by about 12:20 p.m. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority light-rail service was also delayed for inspections following the quake but is back on schedule.

Yes, it’s election time. And yes, many publications enjoy assuming they have a bully pulpit and telling their readers how to vote. The days of the resolutely independent editorial staff are over, if they ever existed. Today’s “news outlets” are even more dependent on real estate and developer money than they ever were, and their copy reflects this.

Certainly today’s San Francisco Hearst-owned print outlet is about like the old Examiner under W.R. Hearst, still leading with bleeding and boosting building everything everywhere—the only difference is that at least the Hearst family supported beautiful buildings, whereas today the local Hearst outlet tries to convince readers to love the Big Ugly Boxes which developers claim are the only buildings which “pencil out”, i.e. produce generous profit margins.

Currently the pages of dailies, not just here but everywhere, are full of speculation about why the downtown boom, initially office towers, is turning into a bust. It’s simple, folks. Just as Bruce Brugman, my first real editor, claimed, it’s the Manhattanization, Stupid. Tell me why anyone would choose to spend their days in what was once called the cool grey city of love, which is now the cold dank canyons of commerce. Berkeley, or at least the old Berkeley of vegi gardens and tree-lined backyards, is much more pleasant. As are, for example, Vallejo and Oakland and expensive Orinda and yes, even Tracy. And the pandemic has taught us that many can work there instead of in The City.

The working folks that I know who do the long commute in from Tracy and Stockton don’t just live there for the lower rent. It’s also the backyard barbecues on the weekends, which, sorry, they can’t enjoy in the stack’um and pack’um apartment houses which have been lining developers’ pockets in the Bay Area.

But this is all a rant you’ve heard from me before. You can hear similar diatribes on 48hills.org with a San Francisco focus. Since most of legislation which enables the bad stuff emanates from Sacramento, we can’t do much about it. It’s authored by Scott Wiener, yes, but also by Nancy Skinner and especially Buffy Wicks. Those two are our fault.

Lately I’ve been getting emails asking if the Planet is making any election endorsements. Or, flatteringly, if I’m the author of any of the excellent essays which have appeared in our ELECTION category. No,Virginia, I am not Isabel Gaston or Justin Lee or Margot Smith or Abe Cinque or Jim McGrath or any of the other esteemed parties who have contributed their opinions here. Some of these I know and like, and others I don’t know, but everyone is welcome to express themselves.

If you'd like to read all of these fine essays, click on the Search the Planet tab above, which will produce a Google-generated form. Type in the word ELECTION ( yes, all caps) and you'll see a list of election-related pieces. Most of them make good points; they don't all agree.

In District 8, where I live, I will be happy to vote against the candidate endorsed by the Yimby incumbent, so I'll be voting for Mari Mendonca, a lifetime local activist. If I lived in District 1 I’d vote against the thoroughly Yimbyfied incumbent there, ranking the other two fine candidates 1 and 2. That’s as far as I’m ready to go today.

I still haven’t made up my mind about most of what’s on the ballot. If and when I do, I might let you know. 

v

Is this the kind of Berkeley that reflects our values? The Yes on L team has raised over $280,000 from special interests to support a $650 million bond that will benefit those interests. In 2016 the successful campaign to support Measure T1, a $100 million infrastructure bond, raised about $35,000. It seems clear that modest amount will be dwarfed by special interest money that supports the current effort.

With that kind of money, you can put literature in every voter’s mailbox, and apparently make it up as you go. The latest claim by the Yes on L is “Measure L will fund 1,500 to 1,700 new, permanently affordable homes for Berkeley seniors and families in need.” But Measure L says nothing about affordable housing for seniors and families—it establishes no priorities for any kind of affordable housing. Nor does the measure promise new housing, or include a plan of any sort. Instead, the Mayor has stated that there is little undeveloped land in Berkeley, so buying existing housing might be the city’s approach. The glossy flyer that landed in my mailbox does not explain how this measure would result in 1,500 to 1,700 new units; without any plan showing where units might be and how much they might cost, that would be difficult. So far, the city has done well to develop over 500 units with money remaining in unsold Measure O bonds. City staff claims to be on target to develop 535 units for $111 million ($207,000 per unit). How $200 million would generate more than 3 times as many units ($118,000 per unit), in a time of rising construction and land costs, is a mystery to me. Is it reasonable to accept claims that 1,700 new units could be built, with no plan, land scarce and the costs of construction rising? With no plan, it is not clear how units would be managed and maintained, and what that would mean to their affordability.

Berkeley still has $57 million in unissued bonds from Measure O, and projects that are years from construction. That is ample time to prepare the necessary plans for what can be accomplished with a new bond. Where would the units be, how affordable would they be, and how would they be managed and maintained?

I voted for Measure O to authorize $135 million for affordable housing. I believe that we will eventually need to authorize more funding to retain affordable housing in Berkeley as home prices go through the roof. But with millions of Measure O funds unspent, there is no need to authorize a blank check for $200 million for some kinds of housing, somewhere, sometime.

Please, read Measure L. Visit our site, https://berkeleyansforbetterplanning.org/ Ask yourself if the claims of the Yes on L campaign are credible, and why they need more than $250,000 in special interest money to make them. If you think pay-to-play elections are bad for Berkeley, vote no, and then help us draft a more reasonable and accountable measure that does not require special interest money to have an informed conversation with voters.  

Worth Noting:

The Housing Element has been revised and gave us one week to respond. The deadline to respond to the revision is Tuesday, October 25. The Housing Element is the plan to add 19,098 housing units to Berkeley with an estimated 47,443 new residents to fill those units. The first round stated there was no significant impact to Berkeley with adding all these units and new residents except for the additional units to be added to the high fire zones where adding people would generate significant impact and declared impacts were unavoidable and new housing should be added anyway.

Monday at 4 pm Ann Riley presents on daylighting/restoring urban creeks and civic center park (this is my go to meeting of the week). The Housing Element drop in hours are 12 – 2 pm and Zero waste is at 7 pm.

Tuesday the Police Accountability Board meets at 7 pm this is a switch from the usual meeting night. Council is off. Tuesday is the last day to respond to the Housing Element. which now contains revisions and additions

Wednesday the 4 x 4 Committee meets at 3 pm, the Commission on Disability and Telegraph Ave redesign are at 6 pm. The flyer states the Telegraph redesign is from Dwight going south to Woolsey. The Disaster and Fire Safety Commission meets at 7 pm.

Thursday the Mental Health Commission meets at 7 pm.

The next council meeting is November 3. The Agenda (includes Fair Work Week) is available for comment.

Don’t forget to check for meetings posted on short notice at https://berkeleyca.gov/

If you don’t already have your ballot, Monday, October 24, 2022 is the last day for California residents to register to vote for the November 8, 2022 election. You can register online and/or check your registration status at https://registertovote.ca.gov/

Monday, October 24, 2022 

ANN RILEY Urban Creek Restoration and Strawberry Creek in Civic Center Park at 4 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89650380469 

Teleconference: 1-669-444-9171 Meeting ID: 896 5038 0469 

AGENDA: Ann Riley https://islandpress.org/author/ann-l-riley expert in urban creek restoration will present urban on creek restoration, daylighting urban creeks and what this could mean for the Civic Center Park where Strawberry Creek is culverted. 

Community for a Cultural Civic Center https://berkeleycccc.org/ 

HOUSING ELEMENT DROP-IN OFFICE HOURS at 12 – 2 pm 

Register for drop-in office hours and Feedback Form are at https://bit.ly/RevisedHousingElementForm 

AGENDA: Revised Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing element, last day to provide comment on revised draft Tuesday, October 25. Revised draft 605 pages the online feedback form is by chapter. 

https://berkeleyca.gov/community-recreation/events/housing-element-drop-office-hours 

ZERO WASTE COMMISSION at 7 pm 

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

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

AGENDA: 6. Staff updates on Zero Waste Management Strategic Plan, CEQA Process for Transfer Station Replacement, Single-Use Foodware Ordinance, SB 1383 Implementation, Discussion/Action: 1. Change of date and time of Zero Waste Commission meeting, 2. Recommendation that Council requires staff to bring rate modification proposals and analyses to Zero Waste Commission evaluation prior to bringing them to council, 4. ZW Division staffing changes. 

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

Tuesday, October 25, 2022 

DEADLINE to Respond to revised Housing Element https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/general-plan-and-area-plans/housing-element-update 

POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD at 7 pm (this is not an error the meeting is on Tuesday) 

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

Teleconference: 1-699-900-6833 Meeting ID: 822 3790 2987 

AGENDA: 3. Public comment on agenda and non-agenda items, 7. Chief report, 8. Subcommittee Reports a. Regulations, b. Controlled Equipment, c. Police chief process, 9. Finalize Regulations for handling complaints, 10. Public comment regarding 11.a. Discussion on Policy Complaint #31 regarding BMC 2.00 and BPD Policy 1106 – Special Order 2020-0006, 11.b. PAB member stipends, c. PAB policy priorities. 

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

Wednesday, October 26, 2022 

4 x 4 JOINT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING city council/rent board at 3 pm 

Videoconference: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82899637076?pwd=MlZzdFNDTVlBTFBBZ1NNeDRwbmpWdz09 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 828 9963 7076 Passcode: 272220 

AGENDA: 6. Discussion and possible action to consider recommendation regarding amendments to the Demolition Ordinance, 7. Discussion enforcement of Short-Term Rentals. 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/council-committees/4x4-joint-task-force-committee-housing 

COMMISSION on DISABILITY (COD) at 6 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85386530998?pwd=TU5lSitjTmlabGJPMzhFSFdqV3hHZz09 

Teleconference: 1-699-900-9128 Meeting ID: 853 8653 0998 Passcode: 464290 

AGENDA: no action items, Discussion items: 1. Inclusive Disaster Registry, 2. Accessibility of Voicemail System, 3. Public Participation in COD, $. Berkeley Bike Plan, 5. Data, Outreach, & Access to Persons with Disabilities, 6. IKE Smart Kiosks. 

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

DISASTER and FIRE SAFETY COMMISSION at 7 pm 

Videoconference: https://cityofberkeley-info.zoomgov.com/j/1619573531 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 Meeting ID: 161 957 3531 

AGENDA: 4. Commission Minutes Format Including the Staff Report, 5. Adoption of the Berkeley Fire Code Update, 6. Measure FF and Measure GG Budget Follow Up, 7. Workplan, 8. Firefighter and Staff recruitment strategies. 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/boards-commissions/disaster-and-fire-safety-commission 

REDESIGNING TELEGRAPH AVE COMMUNITY MEETING at 6 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88653151157 

Teleconference: Meeting ID:  

AGENDA: Project location Telegraph Ave Dwight to Woolsey 

https://berkeleyca.gov/community-recreation/news/oct-26-learn-and-give-input-plans-redesign-telegraph-avenue 

Thursday, October 27, 2022 

MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION at 7 pm 

Videoconference: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85337202554 

Teleconference: 1-699-900-9128 Meeting ID: 853 3720 2554 

AGENDA: 3. Bridge to SCU and SCU update, 4. Mental Health Resources & Services for Children & Youth, 5. Youth Mental Health Subcommittee report, 6. Commission Secretary Recognition, 8. Retreat Training for January 2023, 9. Stiavetti Case and Incompetency to Stand Trial, 10. Diversion Discussion and possible action. 

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

++++++++++++++++++++ 

November 3, 2022 CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting at 6 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84033716377 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5256 (toll free) Meeting ID: 840 3371 6377 

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

send comments to council@cityofberkeley.info 

AGENDA CONSENT: 

1. 2nd reading Ordinance adding BMC Chapter 13.09 Prohibiting Discriminatory Reports to Law Enforcement
2. 2nd reading Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Amusement Arcades
3. COVID – review and ratify need for continuing emergency
4. Continue to meet via videoconference
5. 2022 Annual Commission Attendance and Meeting Frequency Report
6. Amend contract 32200039 add $72,000 total $117,000 and extend to 12/31/2023 with Townsend Public Affairs for legislative and funding advocacy strategy (lobbying)
7. Amend contract 32100186 add $144,000 total $354,000 with Mildred Howard to increase size of public art commission to 11 ft tall at Adeline and MLK triangular green space
8. Renew Solano BID (business improvement district) for 2023
9. Formal bid solicitations and RFP $75,000
10. Contract $80,000 with Restoration Family Counseling Center for counseling, education, support
11. Amend contract 32200227 add $60,000 total $220,000 with Fire Aside for Mobile Vegetation Inspection Software
12. Amend contract 32200083 add $500,000 total $1,400,000 with Ganey Scientific for project management and consulting for Fire Dept.
13. Purchase Order $1,700,000 with Bauer Compressors Inc. for Self-contained breathing apparatus and related accessories
14. Revenue Contracts FY 2023 Aging services Programs, congregate meals $40,000, home delivered meals $84,000, family caregiver $41,383, Senior center activities $30,000, information and assistance services $100,000
15. Amend contract 32000240 add $410,389 total $1,394,167 with BUSD for Mental Health MHSA-Funded Programs
16. Participation agreement for grant $42,609 with Greater Bay Area Regional Patnership Workforce, Education and Training – CA Mental Health Services Authority
17. Accept donation $175,000 for Berkeley meals on wheels program
18. Contract add $750,000 with Robert Half International/Protiviti for Professional Services, for Fire Dept, Fire Administration, Prevention Wildland Urban Interface, Emergency Medical Services and Training and Information Technology for FY 2023 using GSA purchasing vehicle no. GS-35F-280X
19. Amend contract 32000281 add $165,000 total $892,821 with ConvergeOne for on-site Avaya Administration and Support and extend to 6/30/2024
20. Amend contract 32000223 add $50,000 total $299,500 with Gray Quarter, Inc for Accela Professional Services
21. Adoption of Berkeley Building Codes, including amendments to CA Building Standards Code,
22. Re-enactment f the Berkeley Housing Code
23. Revenue Grant Contract $74,449 State of CA Alcoholic Beverage Control
24. Reappointment of Andrea Prichett and Edward Opton to Mental Health Commissions
25. Kesarwani – Referral to CM to conduct an automatic traffic calming review for the area immediately surrounding the project at 1201-1205 San Pablo Avenue
26. Taplin co-sponsor Harrison, Hahn – Refer to budget process $500,000 for local down payment assistance and closing cost assistance revolving loan fund pilot program providing 3rd lien qualifying applicants in a racial equity and reparative justice framework
27. Taplin, co-sponsor Wengraf – Refer to CM implementation No Right on Red signs to all intersections with traffic lights
28. Bartlett, co-sponsors Arreguin, Hahn – Budget referral $150,000 to support recovery and renovations of La Pena Cultural Center,
29. Bartlett, Arreguin, co-sponsors Harrison, Hahn – Budget referral $50,000 to support completion of affordable housing renovation at 1638 Stuart
30. Harrison – Resolution supporting local implementation of SB 379 for online instant solar permits and apply for grants and automated solar permitting platforms to reduce permit review time for solar and battery storage systems

31. Harriet Tubman Terrace Tenant Support (continued from Oct 11, 2022)
32. Accept annual Surveillance Technology Reports ALPR, GPS trackers, Body Worn Cameras, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and the street level imagery project
33. ZAB Appeal 2018 Blake UP ZP2021-0095 6-story multi-family residential building with 12 units (continued from Oct 11, 2022 council meeting)
34. ZAB Appeal 1643-1647 California UP ZP2021-0001 create new lower basement level, new 2nd story and modify existing duplex layout resulting in 3,763 sq ft duplex,
35. Fair Workweek Ordinance (continued from Oct 11, 2022
36. Energy Commission (energy commission dissolved and merged into Environment and Climate Commission) recommendation staff pilot projects in EV, EV charging infrastructure, building electrification, referral went to budget committee with no action sent back to council

37. FY 2023 Civic Arts Grants Awards
38. Fire Prevention Inspections Audit Status Report
39. Update: HR Response: Audit Directive(s) for Comprehensive Domestic Violence Policy to Support City Employees
40. LPO NOD 2065 Kittredge
41. Audit Status Report: Underfunded Mandate: Resources, Strategic Plan and Communication Needed to Continue Progress towards the Year 2020 Zero Waste Goal
42. Audit Status Report: Unified Vision Zero Waste Activities Will Help Align Service Levels with Billing and Ensure Customer Equity
43. Audit Status Reports: Lease Audit: Conflict Directives Hinder Contract Oversight
44. Audit Status Reports: Fleet Replacement Fund Short Millions & Rocky Road: Berkeley Streets At Risk and Significantly Underfunded
45. Audit Recommendation Status – Data Analysis of City of Berkeley’s Police Response
46. Audit Recommendation Status – 911 Dispatchers: Understaffing Leads to Excessive Overtime and Low Morale

LAND USE CALENDAR: 

Public Hearing to be scheduled 

2018 Blake (construct multi-family residential building) 11/3/2022 

1643-47 California (new basement and 2nd story) 11/3/2022 

Remanded to ZAB or LPC 

1205 Peralta – Conversion of an existing garage 

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

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

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

Here is the old website link, Please ask for it to be restored. 

WORKSESSIONS and SPECIAL MEETINGS: 

African American Holistic Resource Center November 15 at 4 pm 

Unscheduled Presentations 

Civic Arts Grantmaking Process & Capital Grant Program 

Fire Facilities Study Report 

Civic Center Vision Project (March 2023) 

Kelly Hammargren’s take on what happened the preceding week can be found in the Berkeley Daily Planet www.berkeleydailyplanet.com under Activist’s Diary. This meeting list is also posted at https://www.sustainableberkeleycoalition.com/whats-ahead.html on the Sustainable Berkeley Coalition website.If you would like to receive the Activist’s Calendar as soon as it is completed send an email to kellyhammargren@gmail.com. (Your email is not shared). If you wish to stop receiving the weekly summary of city meetings 

Worth Noting:  

The Housing Element has been revised and gave us one week to respond. The deadline to respond to the revision is Tuesday, October 25. The Housing Element is the plan to add 19,098 housing units to Berkeley with an estimated 47,443 new residents to fill those units. The first round stated there was no significant impact to Berkeley with adding all these units and new residents except for the additional units to be added to the high fire zones where adding people would generate significant impact and declared impacts were unavoidable and new housing should be added anyway. 

Monday at 4 pm Ann Riley presents on daylighting/restoring urban creeks and civic center park (this is my go to meeting of the week). The Housing Element drop in hours are 12 – 2 pm and Zero waste is at 7 pm. 

Tuesday the Police Accountability Board meets at 7 pm this is a switch from the usual meeting night. Council is off. Tuesday is the last day to respond to the Housing Element. which now contains revisions and additions 

Wednesday the 4 x 4 Committee meets at 3 pm, the Commission on Disability and Telegraph Ave redesign are at 6 pm. The flyer states the Telegraph redesign is from Dwight going south to Woolsey. The Disaster and Fire Safety Commission meets at 7 pm. 

Thursday the Mental Health Commission meets at 7 pm. 

The next council meeting is November 3. The Agenda (includes Fair Work Week) is available for comment. 

Don’t forget to check for meetings posted on short notice at https://berkeleyca.gov/ 

If you don’t already have your ballot, Monday, October 24, 2022 is the last day for California residents to register to vote for the November 8, 2022 election. You can register online and/or check your registration status at https://registertovote.ca.gov/ 

Monday, October 24, 2022 

ANN RILEY Urban Creek Restoration and Strawberry Creek in Civic Center Park at 4 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89650380469 

Teleconference: 1-669-444-9171 Meeting ID: 896 5038 0469 

AGENDA: Ann Riley https://islandpress.org/author/ann-l-riley expert in urban creek restoration will present urban on creek restoration, daylighting urban creeks and what this could mean for the Civic Center Park where Strawberry Creek is culverted. 

Community for a Cultural Civic Center https://berkeleycccc.org/ 

HOUSING ELEMENT DROP-IN OFFICE HOURS at 12 – 2 pm 

Register for drop-in office hours and Feedback Form are at https://bit.ly/RevisedHousingElementForm 

AGENDA: Revised Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing element, last day to provide comment on revised draft Tuesday, October 25. Revised draft 605 pages the online feedback form is by chapter. 

https://berkeleyca.gov/community-recreation/events/housing-element-drop-office-hours 

ZERO WASTE COMMISSION at 7 pm 

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

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

AGENDA: 6. Staff updates on Zero Waste Management Strategic Plan, CEQA Process for Transfer Station Replacement, Single-Use Foodware Ordinance, SB 1383 Implementation, Discussion/Action: 1. Change of date and time of Zero Waste Commission meeting, 2. Recommendation that Council requires staff to bring rate modification proposals and analyses to Zero Waste Commission evaluation prior to bringing them to council, 4. ZW Division staffing changes. 

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

Tuesday, October 25, 2022 

DEADLINE to Respond to revised Housing Element https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/general-plan-and-area-plans/housing-element-update 

POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD at 7 pm (this is not an error the meeting is on Tuesday) 

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

Teleconference: 1-699-900-6833 Meeting ID: 822 3790 2987 

AGENDA: 3. Public comment on agenda and non-agenda items, 7. Chief report, 8. Subcommittee Reports a. Regulations, b. Controlled Equipment, c. Police chief process, 9. Finalize Regulations for handling complaints, 10. Public comment regarding 11.a. Discussion on Policy Complaint #31 regarding BMC 2.00 and BPD Policy 1106 – Special Order 2020-0006, 11.b. PAB member stipends, c. PAB policy priorities. 

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

Wednesday, October 26, 2022 

4 x 4 JOINT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING city council/rent board at 3 pm 

Videoconference: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82899637076?pwd=MlZzdFNDTVlBTFBBZ1NNeDRwbmpWdz09 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 828 9963 7076 Passcode: 272220 

AGENDA: 6. Discussion and possible action to consider recommendation regarding amendments to the Demolition Ordinance, 7. Discussion enforcement of Short-Term Rentals. 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/council-committees/4x4-joint-task-force-committee-housing 

COMMISSION on DISABILITY (COD) at 6 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85386530998?pwd=TU5lSitjTmlabGJPMzhFSFdqV3hHZz09 

Teleconference: 1-699-900-9128 Meeting ID: 853 8653 0998 Passcode: 464290 

AGENDA: no action items, Discussion items: 1. Inclusive Disaster Registry, 2. Accessibility of Voicemail System, 3. Public Participation in COD, $. Berkeley Bike Plan, 5. Data, Outreach, & Access to Persons with Disabilities, 6. IKE Smart Kiosks. 

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

DISASTER and FIRE SAFETY COMMISSION at 7 pm 

Videoconference: https://cityofberkeley-info.zoomgov.com/j/1619573531 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 Meeting ID: 161 957 3531 

AGENDA: 4. Commission Minutes Format Including the Staff Report, 5. Adoption of the Berkeley Fire Code Update, 6. Measure FF and Measure GG Budget Follow Up, 7. Workplan, 8. Firefighter and Staff recruitment strategies. 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/boards-commissions/disaster-and-fire-safety-commission 

REDESIGNING TELEGRAPH AVE COMMUNITY MEETING at 6 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88653151157 

Teleconference: Meeting ID:  

AGENDA: Project location Telegraph Ave Dwight to Woolsey 

https://berkeleyca.gov/community-recreation/news/oct-26-learn-and-give-input-plans-redesign-telegraph-avenue 

Thursday, October 27, 2022 

MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION at 7 pm 

Videoconference: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85337202554 

Teleconference: 1-699-900-9128 Meeting ID: 853 3720 2554 

AGENDA: 3. Bridge to SCU and SCU update, 4. Mental Health Resources & Services for Children & Youth, 5. Youth Mental Health Subcommittee report, 6. Commission Secretary Recognition, 8. Retreat Training for January 2023, 9. Stiavetti Case and Incompetency to Stand Trial, 10. Diversion Discussion and possible action. 

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

++++++++++++++++++++ 

November 3, 2022 CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting at 6 pm 

Videoconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84033716377 

Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5256 (toll free) Meeting ID: 840 3371 6377 

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

send comments to council@cityofberkeley.info 

AGENDA CONSENT: 

1. 2nd reading Ordinance adding BMC Chapter 13.09 Prohibiting Discriminatory Reports to Law Enforcement
2. 2nd reading Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Amusement Arcades
3. COVID – review and ratify need for continuing emergency
4. Continue to meet via videoconference
5. 2022 Annual Commission Attendance and Meeting Frequency Report
6. Amend contract 32200039 add $72,000 total $117,000 and extend to 12/31/2023 with Townsend Public Affairs for legislative and funding advocacy strategy (lobbying)
7. Amend contract 32100186 add $144,000 total $354,000 with Mildred Howard to increase size of public art commission to 11 ft tall at Adeline and MLK triangular green space
8. Renew Solano BID (business improvement district) for 2023
9. Formal bid solicitations and RFP $75,000
10. Contract $80,000 with Restoration Family Counseling Center for counseling, education, support
11. Amend contract 32200227 add $60,000 total $220,000 with Fire Aside for Mobile Vegetation Inspection Software
12. Amend contract 32200083 add $500,000 total $1,400,000 with Ganey Scientific for project management and consulting for Fire Dept.
13. Purchase Order $1,700,000 with Bauer Compressors Inc. for Self-contained breathing apparatus and related accessories
14. Revenue Contracts FY 2023 Aging services Programs, congregate meals $40,000, home delivered meals $84,000, family caregiver $41,383, Senior center activities $30,000, information and assistance services $100,000
15. Amend contract 32000240 add $410,389 total $1,394,167 with BUSD for Mental Health MHSA-Funded Programs
16. Participation agreement for grant $42,609 with Greater Bay Area Regional Patnership Workforce, Education and Training – CA Mental Health Services Authority
17. Accept donation $175,000 for Berkeley meals on wheels program
18. Contract add $750,000 with Robert Half International/Protiviti for Professional Services, for Fire Dept, Fire Administration, Prevention Wildland Urban Interface, Emergency Medical Services and Training and Information Technology for FY 2023 using GSA purchasing vehicle no. GS-35F-280X
19. Amend contract 32000281 add $165,000 total $892,821 with ConvergeOne for on-site Avaya Administration and Support and extend to 6/30/2024
20. Amend contract 32000223 add $50,000 total $299,500 with Gray Quarter, Inc for Accela Professional Services
21. Adoption of Berkeley Building Codes, including amendments to CA Building Standards Code,
22. Re-enactment f the Berkeley Housing Code
23. Revenue Grant Contract $74,449 State of CA Alcoholic Beverage Control
24. Reappointment of Andrea Prichett and Edward Opton to Mental Health Commissions
25. Kesarwani – Referral to CM to conduct an automatic traffic calming review for the area immediately surrounding the project at 1201-1205 San Pablo Avenue
26. Taplin co-sponsor Harrison, Hahn – Refer to budget process $500,000 for local down payment assistance and closing cost assistance revolving loan fund pilot program providing 3rd lien qualifying applicants in a racial equity and reparative justice framework
27. Taplin, co-sponsor Wengraf – Refer to CM implementation No Right on Red signs to all intersections with traffic lights
28. Bartlett, co-sponsors Arreguin, Hahn – Budget referral $150,000 to support recovery and renovations of La Pena Cultural Center,
29. Bartlett, Arreguin, co-sponsors Harrison, Hahn – Budget referral $50,000 to support completion of affordable housing renovation at 1638 Stuart
30. Harrison – Resolution supporting local implementation of SB 379 for online instant solar permits and apply for grants and automated solar permitting platforms to reduce permit review time for solar and battery storage systems

31. Harriet Tubman Terrace Tenant Support (continued from Oct 11, 2022)
32. Accept annual Surveillance Technology Reports ALPR, GPS trackers, Body Worn Cameras, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and the street level imagery project
33. ZAB Appeal 2018 Blake UP ZP2021-0095 6-story multi-family residential building with 12 units (continued from Oct 11, 2022 council meeting)
34. ZAB Appeal 1643-1647 California UP ZP2021-0001 create new lower basement level, new 2nd story and modify existing duplex layout resulting in 3,763 sq ft duplex,
35. Fair Workweek Ordinance (continued from Oct 11, 2022
36. Energy Commission (energy commission dissolved and merged into Environment and Climate Commission) recommendation staff pilot projects in EV, EV charging infrastructure, building electrification, referral went to budget committee with no action sent back to council

37. FY 2023 Civic Arts Grants Awards
38. Fire Prevention Inspections Audit Status Report
39. Update: HR Response: Audit Directive(s) for Comprehensive Domestic Violence Policy to Support City Employees
40. LPO NOD 2065 Kittredge
41. Audit Status Report: Underfunded Mandate: Resources, Strategic Plan and Communication Needed to Continue Progress towards the Year 2020 Zero Waste Goal
42. Audit Status Report: Unified Vision Zero Waste Activities Will Help Align Service Levels with Billing and Ensure Customer Equity
43. Audit Status Reports: Lease Audit: Conflict Directives Hinder Contract Oversight
44. Audit Status Reports: Fleet Replacement Fund Short Millions & Rocky Road: Berkeley Streets At Risk and Significantly Underfunded
45. Audit Recommendation Status – Data Analysis of City of Berkeley’s Police Response
46. Audit Recommendation Status – 911 Dispatchers: Understaffing Leads to Excessive Overtime and Low Morale

LAND USE CALENDAR: 

Public Hearing to be scheduled 

2018 Blake (construct multi-family residential building) 11/3/2022 

1643-47 California (new basement and 2nd story) 11/3/2022 

Remanded to ZAB or LPC 

1205 Peralta – Conversion of an existing garage 

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

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

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

Here is the old website link, Please ask for it to be restored. 

WORKSESSIONS and SPECIAL MEETINGS: 

African American Holistic Resource Center November 15 at 4 pm 

Unscheduled Presentations 

Civic Arts Grantmaking Process & Capital Grant Program 

Fire Facilities Study Report 

Civic Center Vision Project (March 2023) 

Kelly Hammargren’s take on what happened the preceding week can be found in the Berkeley Daily Planet www.berkeleydailyplanet.com under Activist’s Diary. This meeting list is also posted at https://www.sustainableberkeleycoalition.com/whats-ahead.html on the Sustainable Berkeley Coalition website.If you would like to receive the Activist’s Calendar as soon as it is completed send an email to kellyhammargren@gmail.com. (Your email is not shared). If you wish to stop receiving the weekly summary of city meetings

On Saturday, October 22 I attended another operatic rarity offered by Céline Ricci’s Ars Minerva, a company dedicated to reviving long forgotten Italian Baroque operas. This year’s offering was Astianatte by Neapolitan composer Leonardo Vinci, whose operas have never before been seen in USA. Having read an online summary of Astianatte on the Ars Minerva website, I also left myself plenty of time to read the program notes and synopsis at the ODC Theatre in the Mission District where Astianatte was presented. The plot, I read with interest, involves Andromache (Andromaca in Italian), the widow of the slain Trojan hero Hector, and her young son, Astayanax (Astianatte in Italian). In the aftermath of their successful siege of Troy, the Greeks and their allies debate over what to do with Andromaca and Astianatte. So, having reviewed the plot and briefly greeted Céline Ricci in the lobby, I took my seat in the theatre and noted the projected backdrop which read “Teatro San Bartolomeo, Naples, ASTIANATTE, 1725.” 

Then a representative of ODC’s management made a brief announcement which included the news that technical difficulties were preventing the use of supertitles for tonight’s performance. 

A slight groan was heard from the audience. Then Matthew Dirst seated himself at the harpsichord and began conducting the overture to Astianatte. The chamber orchestra of eleven string instrumentalists was augmented by two trumpeters. Meanwhile, the stage set consisted of what seemed to be a make-up table, a chair or two, and a clothes rack bearing a motley collection of pants, tunics, vests, etc. What this stage set had to do with an opera that takes place shortly after the fall of Troy was a mystery, one that, alas, was never resolved. 

Indeed, when singers made their way onto the stage things got even weirder. The costumes were outlandish in the extreme. Several members of the all female cast wore bizarre headdresses featuring spiky extensions. Contralto Jasmine Johnson in the role of Andromaca also wore a headdress that seemed to symbolise a crown. To make matters even weirder still, two cast members in the roles of Pylades, (Pilade in Italian), the male friend of Orestes, and Clearte, male attendant to Pyrrhus (Pirro in Italian) were sung by sopranos who were costumed in white hoop skirts and the aforementioned spiky headdresses. They flounced around the stage like two floozies. In a trousers role as Pirro, king of Epirus, mezzo-soprano Deborah Martinez Rosengaus initially appeared in an all white outfit but was soon helped into black pants and vest by the two floozies, who chose the new outfits from the clothes rack. Andromaca was also given a black cloak. In the opening dialogues between Andromaca and Pirro, the singers expressed their emotions not only vocally but also with highly mannered facial expressions and bodily gestures. Pirro expressed his love for Andromaca while she angrily refused his affections, even shoving him to the floor at one point. Pirro’s resentment at this treatment was initially consternation but soon degenerated into anger and vituperation. It was all very arch and mannered, almost campy. 

It is then announced that Orestes (Oreste in Italian) is arriving with an embassy from the Greeks. Mezzo-soprano Nikola Printz as Oreste entered the stage by descending through the audience. Singing in her dark, velvety voice, Nikola Printz as Oreste demands that Astianatte be killed lest he become the enemy of Greece when he grows up. If Pirro refuses to kill Astianatte, Orestes will not allow Pirro to marry Oreste’s cousin Hermione (Ermione in Italian). Refusing this ultimatum, Pirro says he will renounce Ermione — a position he can easily take given his passion for Andromaca. This decision by Pirro secretly pleases Oreste for he loves Ermione and she has in the past returned his love. 

This convoluted plot develops with Andromaca continuing to angrily refuse Pirro’s affections, even when he offers to save and protect her son Astianatte. She would rather see her son die than to betray Hector’s memory. Now angry in return, Pirro tells Oreste he will accept to kill Asstianatte and marry Ermione. Oreste fears he is growing mad with anxiety and the fear of losing his beloved Ermione. In a lengthy aria, Nikola Printz as Oreste mounted a step ladder provided by the two floozies and threatened to commit suicide by leaping to his death. At one particularly dramatic moment, Nikola Printz’s Oreste entered into a brief dialogue with concertmaster Cynthia Keiko Black’s violin. As Act I ends, Oreste suddenly flips himself backwards while clinging to the step ladder’s top rung by his lower legs, thus suspending himself in the air. 

Leonardo Vinci, following in the footsteps of Alessandro Scarlatti, was a leading composer of Italian Baroque operas. Working initially in Naples before venturing to Rome and Venice, Vinci largely set in place the Neapolitan style, which consisted of an enlarged dimension and scope of the aria. Vinci employs many mannerisms of rhythmic or harmonic expression. Syncopations and appoggiaturas are used with great expressive effect, and, as we hear in Astianatte, vocal coloratura is clearly in the service of extreme emotions. In this Ars Minerva production of Astianatte, Jasmine Johnson’s coloratura as Andromaca, as well as Deborah Martinez Rosengaus’s coloratura as Pirro, had ample opportunities to express varied extreme emotions. Likewise, soprano Aura Veruni as Ermione and Nikola Printz as Oreste also had their moments of coloratura that expressed their extreme emotions. Indeed, all the singers in this Astianatte were excellent in their vocal technique and phrasing. Even the floozies, sung by sopranos Daphné Touchais as Pilade and Jayne Diliberto as Clearte sang beautifully even as their stage mannerisms remained flouncy and campy. 

During the intermission, ODC’s technical problems were solved and supertitles were available for the rest of the opera. Acts II and III proceed quickly. Act II is particularly full of dramatic music as Andromaca wavers back and forth in facing Pirro’s affections and his own wavering resolve to kill Astianatte unless Andromaca marries him. Oreste, goaded by Ermione, stabs Pirro, who is rushed offstage by the floozies. Oreste is caught by the people of Epirus and placed in prison. Act III opens with Clearte reporting that Pirro is dead. But this is a stratagem to test Andromaca, who suddenly realises she may love Pirro after all. This is surprising, to say the least, for thus far she has expressed only contempt for Pirro, whom she treats as “barbaro.” When Pirro rearrives well recovered from his wounds, he and Andromaca pledge their love, repeatedly singing “Hai vinto amor” (“Love has conquered”). After still more twists and turns of this convoluted plot, all’s well that ends well as Oreste is freed from prison and marries Ermione while Astianatte is returned safely to his mother, now the adored wife of Pirro. 

Céline Ricci’s direction was, initially, at least, far too mannered for my taste, and I found the stage set and its frequent resort to the clothes rack for costume changes, quite tedious and adding nothing to the plot. Further, the costumes of Marina Polakoff were bizarre, to say the least! Projections by the German-born artist Entropy were unobtrusive, though clearly not depicting anything the aftermath of the fall of Troy but instead depicting architecture and decoration of the Italian Baroque period.