Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2025-11-12 19:31:10 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_dcfffd11-2271-41a0-bf35-0239bf4a8dfa.ogg

Segment 1

Okay.
Hello, good evening everyone.
I'm calling to order the Monday, November 10th, 2025 Berkeley City Council meeting.
Clerk, could you please start us off with the roll? Okay.
Council member Kesarwani? Here.
Taplin? Present.
Bartlett? Council member Bartlett? Roll call.
Here.
I can't hear you guys.
I wonder if it's on my end.
Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you.
Okay.
Can't hear us say that.
Tregub? Present.
O'Keefe? Here.
Blackaby? Here.
Lunaparra? Here.
Humbert? Present.
And Mayor Ishii? Here.
Okay, Quorum is present.
Do you need to read for Council member Bartlett? Yes.
So Council member Bartlett is intending to participate in the meeting remotely pursuant to the Brown Act as amended by AB 2449 under the emergency circumstances justification.
Quorum of the Council is participating in person at the noticed meeting location.
And Council member Bartlett has notified the Council of his need to participate remotely.
Council member, please provide a general description of the circumstances relating to your need to appear remotely.
However, do not disclose any specific medical diagnosis, disability, or other confidential medical information.
Thank you.
And I'm reading the transcription because I still can't hear anything.
I'm going to restart in a second.
Yeah, I have a family medical situation to attend to here in the house.
Thank you.
And Council member, please disclose if there is anybody there present with you who is 18 years of age or older, and if so, their relationship to you.
No.
He's reading.
He's reading the.
Okay.
Councilor Bartlett will participate through both audio and visual technology.
For the emergency circumstances request, the Council must vote majority vote to allow Council member Bartlett to participate.
So is there a motion? Some of.
Okay.
And.
On the motion Council member Kester wanting.
Yes.
Kaplan.
Yes.
Customer Bartlett on the motion.
Yes.
Hi.
Okay.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
That's approved.
So Councilor Bartlett will be participating remotely.
Thank you.
Council member Bartlett before you restart your computer.
Do you want to read the land acknowledgement or would you prefer someone else do it in your stead tonight? I can do it as long as you hear me.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
So beginning now.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
So, as the City recognizes the community that we live in was built on the territory.
Who's shown the ancestral and unseated land of the Cho Chino speaking Oh, lonely people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona band of Alameda County.
We acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley, the documented 5000 year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley show now, and the Oh, lonely people who continue to reside in the East Bay.
We recognize that Berkeley's residents have and continue to benefit from the use and occupation of this unseated stolen land.
Since the city of Berkeley's incorporation in 1878.
As stewards of the laws, regulating the city of Berkeley.
It is not only vital that we recognize the history of this land, but also recognize that the Oh, lonely people are present members of Berkeley and other East Bay communities today.
The city of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the liaison tribe, and to create meaningful actions that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.
Thank you.
Thank you so much Councilmember and go ahead and restart your computer and hopefully you can join us soon.
I'm going to report out from our closed session on the claim of Sierra Campagna claim number 0164 B C 2025 dash 0001.
The city council met in closed session and approved a settlement agreement with the Sierra Campagna for a total amount of $700,000 $350,000 of which we paid by the city.
The homeless union at all the city of Berkeley at all USDC and the cow case number three.
Excuse me, calling 25 dash CV dash 01414 dash EMC.
The city council authorized the city attorney to appeal the court's order extending the preliminary injunction initially issued by the court on June 10 2025.
So, even though there was listed a ceremonial item this evening it's going to get moved to December 2nd so we will not have any ceremonial items this evening.
I will move on next to the city manager comments.
Thank you.
I just want to make just one comment at the council meeting of September 9.
I removed an item pursuant to flock fixed cameras, and indicated that we would do some more research on potential other vendors and bring that item back to council.
I just want to make just one comment at the council meeting of September 9.
I removed an item pursuant to flock fixed cameras, and indicated that we would do some more research on potential other vendors and bring that item back to council.
That's all thanks.
Thank you so much.
And we have no comments from our city auditor this evening as well, or either.
Thank you.
Next item on the agenda is the public comment on non agenda matters.
Okay, and if you are participating remotely, and you would like to provide comments on non agenda items now is the time to raise your hand we would take the first five online.
After we do the five speakers in person.
All right.
This is riveting television I can tell.
Okay.
The five names are.
All right.
We have.
Marjorie Alvord.
And Linda Curry, so just come up in any, any order.
You have one minute each.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm a homeless person homeless living in the streets of Berkeley so I know what it's like to own a home in Berkeley, as well as being homeless.
I don't know if this is the right place or not, but I was curious of how does a person use the free thrown bathroom in Civic Park.
Because I'm homeless.
Thank you for hearing.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to actually ask that my staff can hopefully answer some of your questions unless the city manager.
Okay, you're the city manager will meet you over there and answer your questions.
Thank you.
Okay.
Now, we have West Berkeley need a fair meeting for our San Pablo Avenue specific plan rezoning.
And we ask that you give our community a new work session meeting before the plan gets finalized scheduled at a time when community members.
Including business owners, you know, we heard from the business owners from the other plans for four hours, and the business owners on San Pablo Avenue weren't able to come.
So, we'd like to give everyone a chance to participate.
And I think that's only fair.
AB 686 was invoked several times last week.
And it's only fair that there's a fair discussion of all the work that Robert and the consultants put into that plan.
I mean, it's massive.
So that's our request.
Thank you, Mel.
Okay, you will have two minutes.
I'm Marjorie Alvord with the 350 Berkeley hub, and I want to let you know how much we loved participating in the wonderful Berkeley Sunday event in September at Willard Park.
Thank you all for your support of that event at the 350 Bay Area table.
We made this beautiful poster where we invited people to convey their green ideas for a livable city.
We also made postcards available for people to sign to tell their leaders, quote, climate solutions for a livable future are my top priority.
Please make it yours, close quote, with space for individual messages.
Now, we believe it's critically important to fight the myriad of inhumane practices that are coming down on us from the federal administration, as well as the affordability crises and so on.
But as we do that, atmospheric CO2 continues to increase, already dangerously high at 425.7 parts per million, when 350 parts per million is the safe level for a sustainable climate.
We can't afford to defer climate action.
All those that CO2 is increasing the heat impacts and all the dangers and risks that we incur from, you know, heat illness and drought and floods and atmospheric rivers and all that.
So we brought for you the postcards with some have comments, some don't for you to peruse.
And now my colleague, Linda Curry, would like to tell you about the livable city ideas.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak.
And thank you for your service to the city of Berkeley.
Good evening, Mayor, Council members.
Yeah, I'm Linda Curry.
I'm a longtime climate activist in Berkeley and founder of Transition Berkeley, although I'm speaking on my own behalf tonight.
So people are really enthusiastic.
They're still really enthusiastic about a clean, healthy environment and clean water and air.
And some of the comments that were offered were people wanted lots more solar, car-free streets, especially in the downtown area.
Please enforce no gas lawn and leaf blowers.
We have that on the books already.
Build more public EV chargers in our neighborhoods.
Please, more native street trees.
Replace PG&E with public utility.
They'd like to see over-the-counter heat pump permitting.
Please tell your city council to support green energy and fully fund bus excellence.
Make e-bikes more generally available.
All neighborhoods should have a walk score of 80 or more.
That would be nice.
Hire Uber and Lyft taxes.
I'm sorry your time is up, but thank you so much.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you for your time.
You're going to give us..
Okay.
Would love to get a picture of that poster.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Moving to non-agenda comments for people participating online.
The first speaker is Amy Baldwin.
Hi, thank you.
I don't know if anyone else online was going to cede their minutes to me.
Do you know? I guess I don't know.
Okay.
I'll read mine in one minute.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Council's rejection last Thursday of the community's request to reschedule a work session for San Pablo Avenue specific plan, and its dismissal of the recommendations of its own planning department's two-year outreach to the communities of West Berkeley, reveals our council's false and performative commitment to the intentions behind affirmatively furthering fair housing, which are to repair and prevent biased treatment favoring historically wealthy communities.
West Berkeley communities deserve to be heard, and at a fair time when whole communities can attend, and council needs to stop favoring the wealthy class of major landlords over its historically disadvantaged and disinvested communities and its small businesses.
I'm from beautiful San Pablo.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks, Amy.
Next is Judy Stroyer.
Never mind.
Go ahead.
Hello.
Can you bump me to the end of this public comment? Next is Eve.
Eve, you should be able to.
Can you hear me? Yes.
Hi, I wanted to second Amy's request to.
For the, for another session.
To discuss West Berkeley, San Pablo upzoning plan.
The last 1, when this, when, when the issue even started at the city council meeting, most of us weren't able to, to attend.
We did notice earlier in the meeting that the city council was rightfully and understandably giving a preferential treatment to parents because 7 PM or 8 PM makes a big difference.
And that makes sense.
But to West Berkeley residents, whether parents or not, whether business owners or not, who need to be at work the next day, our only choice was you're here at 11 PM, or you don't get to participate.
We would like to participate.
Thank you.
Okay.
And the last speaker is Tony.
Good evening.
So, for all the talk about equity, it was not an evidence on Thursday night when you spent 4 hours listening to wealthier people.
But when it came to the San Pablo Avenue specific plan, you refused our request to postpone it so that we could participate.
I do not stay up after 11 o'clock at night and neither do business people, parents, workers, the disabled and other elderly people.
So, to be fair and equitable, we would like you to reschedule the workshop on the West Berkeley, San Pablo Avenue specific plan and hold it at the 6 o'clock hour.
It is a matter of.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks, Tony.
Okay, that was that's it.
That was our final.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Are there any unions for public comment by employee unions.
None in person.
Is there anyone online.
No, nobody has their hand raised.
Okay.
All right, I will move us on then to the consent calendar.
Sorry, my parliamentarian is now on.
Council Member Trager.
Thank you.
I wish to contribute $250 from my T13 account towards item six, the 15th annual MLK Jr celebration.
And on item eight.
I want to thank my co sponsors, which for my supplemental item includes council members Humbert and Taplin, as well as Council Member Luna power is my original co sponsor.
This is a resolution, supporting the Bay Area Air District zero emission building appliance rules.
I'm very proud to have been one of countless of individuals in residing in the Bay Area districts jurisdiction that led to a unanimous vote to put forth these rules.
Several years ago.
This is a time, as you've heard from a couple of previous speakers for climate leadership.
The time is now.
And so it is very important that these rules continue to be in place.
And at the same time, that we also give the air district, the flexibility and support their efforts to ensure that climate equity is something that is accessible to all, including lower income homeowners and renters, which is what this resolution purports to do.
So I want to just thank everyone, and thank my colleagues for considering your support for this item.
Thank you very much, Council Member Humbert.
Excuse me, thank you, Madam Mayor, and I want to thank you, Madam Mayor for adding me as a co sponsor on item number six, this really important event, Martin Luther King Junior celebration.
And I'd like to contribute $500 from my office account to support that as to number seven, which.
No, excuse me.
Number eight, number seven, number eight that Council Member just addressed.
I want to thank him for adding me as a co sponsor on this very meritorious item and I join in his, his comments.
Thank you.
That's all I have.
Thank you, Council Member Blackaby.
Thank you, Council Member Blackaby.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
I'd like to contribute $250 from our district six account towards item six for the MLK Junior celebration, and that's my only comment.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member Luna Parr.
Thank you.
I would like to donate $200 to item six, and thank Council Member Trega for the resolution for the emission rules.
Thanks.
Thank you, Council Member Taplin.
I would like to contribute $500 to item six and I likewise thank Council Member Trega.
Did you say $500? $500.
Okay, Council Member Kesarwani.
Yes, I would also like to contribute $150 to item number six celebrating Martin Luther King Junior Day and, and, and you know, I also, why not thank Council Member Trega for the resolution.
I got to get in on that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member O'Keefe.
You'll never guess what I'm going to say.
I'm actually not going to thank Igor, but, but I am going to donate $250 to item six.
Okay, thank you.
Oh, Council Member Luna Parr again.
Sorry, I realized I had actually already donated as a co-sponsor of the item.
I'm sorry.
You were just wanting to make sure we knew.
Okay, very good.
Well, I'm really honored to be the author of the 15th annual Martin Luther King breakfast celebration.
And this is going on 15 years now, and I'm actually the third mayor to champion this important community, not because others didn't, but because they continued to do it throughout their term.
Just to clarify this important community building event that celebrates the lifetime achievement and the next generation of leaders in the spirit of Dr.
King.
And this year's theme is Beloved Community.
Be the Light.
Please join me tonight in allocating while you already did.
So thank you all so much for allocating from your office discretionary accounts.
And I also want to take a quick moment to thank Dr.
P.
Robert Beattie for his commitment to and interest in continuing to serve on the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Board of Trustees.
Okay, and then yes, and oh, I'm sorry.
Council Member Bartlett.
Did you have any comments? Yes, I was just going to just affirm that a thankful thanks to you for doing the lucky breakfast item, and to to make sure that my 250 is registered.
And also to join the chorus of thanks for Council Member Trujillo for bringing equity to the stationary emissions world.
So I thank you for number eight as well.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Council Member.
So now I'll close council comments and open public comments on our consent calendar.
Are there any comments on our consent calendar information items only? Thank you.
Oh, no need to run.
It's okay.
Good evening, Mayor and Council Members.
I'm Louis Ames, resident of Central Berkeley and chair of the Berkeley Rotary Club Climate Crisis Committee.
Tonight, I'm speaking on behalf of the 350 Berkeley Hub to support the resolution on the Bay Area District Zero Emission Building Appliance Rules.
We support this effort to combat the climate crisis as space and water heating accounts for nearly a third of all greenhouse gases in Berkeley.
With the people who signed the more climate action, less hot air postcards, we applaud the city's leadership by approving this resolution.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next speaker.
Hello, Council Members, Mayor.
My name is Sam Fishman.
I'm with SPUR, the public policy nonprofit in the Bay Area.
I just want to take a few seconds to thank you very much for this resolution.
These rules have been in the making for many years now and are really going to be transformative for the Bay Area.
And the resolution supports a process that's happening right now to ensure equity, flexibility in the rules.
So, but we do need cities to step up and to do more.
So, I just want to take a few seconds to thank you very much for this resolution.
Thank you.
I'm Tom Greely.
I've been a resident of Berkeley for almost 60 years now.
And I am the owner of an all electric home now when I really appreciate every thing.
Well, I think we should put a milestone.
In the city of Berkeley capital development, that just started more than five years ago.
Council member resolution I think is absolutely perfect.
I have a very healthy, safe home.
I also work with a variety of other groups, citizens, climate lobby, Berkeley, electrification working group.
And so we greatly support this and we, we really thank you very, very much for supporting this.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else have comment on our consent calendar or information items, perhaps online.
Okay.
First speaker we have is Ann.
Mayor Ishii and council.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.
I'm Ann Pernick with safe cities that stand at earth.
We are in strong support of the Bay area air districts, zero emission appliance rule standards rules, nine dash four and nine dash six, and the resolution by the city council to support the consent calendar.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And this is the, this is the first resolution by the city council to support those rules.
Berkeley is a leader in your own policies to cut air and climate pollution from buildings, protecting your neighborhoods and the planet.
So your voice is especially important in this discussion.
We appreciate you speaking up for these critical regional rules.
The Bay area air districts rules will phase out the most polluting buildings in the Bay area.
And the city of Berkeley is the only city in the Bay area, that has a non-polluting air district.
The Bay area is failing to meet state and federal air standards for harmful pollutants.
And appliances that burn methane, including the furnaces and water heaters founded nearly every home in the region are among the largest sources of local pollution, leading to asthma attacks, premature deaths.
And nearly $900 million annually in health related costs.
Meanwhile.
I'm sorry, your time is up.
Thank you for your comment.
Next is Jeff.
Jeff, you should be able to unmute.
Do you hear me? Yes.
I also support the resolution to convert fossil fuel.
Furnaces and heaters and so on to.
More to clean energy devices.
I am requesting Howard that possibly the.
Council can lobby the organization.
To only require new homeowners to convert fossil fuel furnaces and.
Hot water heaters to clean energy devices.
In that typically.
The upfront cost for a.
Keep pump for instance, is often double what it is.
For a natural gas furnace and for cash strapped elderly people.
That's a big, that's a big cost.
According to our model that.
Mr.
Referenced an email to me.
It would cost like $5,400 for me to get a.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That is all.

Segment 2

No more speakers.
Okay, thank you all very much for your comments and is there a motion to approve the consent calendar? So moved.
Second.
And we need to take the roll since Council Member Bartlett is online.
Who's the seconder? Okay, on the consent calendar, Council Member Kesarwani? Yes.
Taplin? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Tregub? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Lackaday? Yes.
Lunaparra? Yes.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mary Ishii? Yes.
Okay, motion carries.
Very good.
Okay, well we move through consent.
So we are now moving on to the action calendar.
So I'm going to ask that folks who are presenting here for item number nine, adoption of the 2025 California Fire Code with local amendments, come on forward.
Thank you.
Good evening.
Good evening, Mayor and Council.
We're here to present first the Fire Code update and adoption and to do that I've got Fire Marshal Drew White with me.
He will go ahead and take this first presentation.
After the first presentation, we'll pause and then we have a separate presentation for the WUE Code adoption.
Thank you.
Good evening.
Tonight we are discussing the Fire Code adoption.
This is something that happens every three years.
A new Fire Code comes out.
The International Code Council introduces the International Fire Code that is then taken by the state.
Each state adopts their own version.
In California, we have the California State Fire Code and once we adopt that code, which will be in January, it will go into effect and it goes into state law and it's something that we must follow.
In addition to adopting the state code, we also adopt local modifications and we also carry over existing ordinances and modifications from previous code cycles.
Something new this year in the Fire Code adoption is chapter 49 of the California Fire Code used to address wildland fires.
In addition, chapter 7a of the California Building Code used to adopt home hardening about wildland fires.
Chief Arnold will talk about that when wildland is up.
This year they have removed both of those chapters from their respective codes and created a wildland urban interface code that stands alone.
Chief Arnold will talk about that later.
The California Fire Code provides minimum standards for safety.
Local jurisdictions must enforce the state code.
We don't have a choice in that.
The state fire marshal puts it out and it is our job to follow it.
This includes state mandated fire inspections for a number of different occupancies.
For example, assembly areas, schools, high rises, hazardous materials, facilities and certain types of residential structures.
I actually have to send a report to the state fire marshal every year to let him know that we completed our state mandated fire inspections.
God bless you.
Additionally, during Fire Code adoption for this year, the last code that we are still under is the 2022 code.
The 2025 code goes actually into effect in 2026, which can be a little confusing.
But once the code goes into effect, it gets adopted and we start that process tonight.
And then it also becomes part of the Berkeley Municipal Code.
So when we are able to enforce our code, we have adopted the state fire code into Berkeley's Municipal Code and that's what we use to enforce these things.
In addition, this year, a few changes.
The state code has added some operational permits.
And when they do that, we decide to adopt them as well.
So this year, some of the new ones that came across in the state fire code were inspection regulation of indoor plant cultivation, mobile food preparation vehicles, i.e.
food trucks, temporary heating or cooking tents for festivals, and temporary heating for construction sites.
So we also have a number of local amendments that we are adopting as well.
And those are things where we have the ability to be more strict than the fire code in certain instances, but we cannot be less strict.
Some of the amendments that we are adopting locally this year, I'm going to read this off the screen so a little closer.
It's pretty bright up there.
A lot of them have to do with administrative, which is chapter one of the fire code, and had to do with the Berkeley Building Code and home hardening.
And like I said, Chief Arnold will talk about the WUE code changes.
For chapter nine, which addresses fire alarms and sprinkler systems, we made some changes taking away a, there was something that said that all new one and two family dwellings did not need to install a certain type of alarm.
And we've made a change that simply says we want you to add a visual indicator, not just an audible alarm.
And that really is just not only for anybody who's on the street can see that the alarm is going off, it also addresses any ADA issues, and it makes it easier for our responding units to see from a distance as they're approaching.
So not a big change at all, and it's only for new systems.
We're not making people go back and spend money.
Chapter nine also requires that property owners with fire alarm systems now provide a UL certificate.
It's very common in most cities when you install a new fire alarm system that the UL laboratory needs to have inspected it and certified it as a system that is acceptable under NFPA 72.
In Berkeley, we had not been requiring contractors to provide us with that documentation at the time of inspection, and we just made the change saying to the contractors you must provide us the paperwork from the UL that says that they've certified the system.
Again, not a cost item, just a bookkeeping item for us to ensure that it's a system that meets all the minimum requirements.
Second to last, we removed Appendix L.
We used to have something called firefighter air replenishment systems, and we still have them in a few high-rises in Berkeley.
This is a system where firefighters can actually refill their air bottles on certain floors of high-rises the higher up they go instead of having to carry them up.
One of the reasons that we've eliminated it is that we are no longer going to be installing these systems in new buildings because the code has come up with what they call an FASE or a fire access safety elevator.
Typically or historically, firefighters did not take elevators because it was unknown where they would open, and unfortunately there was a tragedy many years ago where an elevator opened onto the fire floor and many firefighters were killed in Philadelphia.
So they made this change to these air systems, but they are finding that they just weren't sustainable and they weren't maintainable.
So they've added this to the building code, this new fire access safety elevator, and we are going to start adding those to any building above four stories in Berkeley, and that's eliminating the need for us to be able to have to have those air filling systems.
Lastly, we are adopting Appendix O, which there is a new thing called valet trash service, which is coming along in a lot of different places with central corridors where you pay somebody, you literally put your trash out in your hallway and somebody comes and takes it for you, so you don't have to take it to a dumpster or a trash chute.
And so we are approving Appendix O, which addresses valet trash services within our our two occupancies.
For our timeline, tonight obviously is our first reading.
We're scheduling the public hearing and the second reading for December 2nd.
Findings of fact ordinance, adopter resolution, the fee schedule, which was adopted back in July.
Some of the new operational permits carry those same fees.
We're only addressing that not because the fees went up.
We adopted that in July and those fees have not changed, but they've added some permits to the list that are going to be chargeable, and we are just adopting those permits.
We're not changing any of the fees or the fee schedule, so just to be clear on that.
And then fire code ordinance, conduct public hearing, second reading, adopter resolution, hopefully December 2nd.
January 1st, this fire code will go into effect.
Trying to keep it short and sweet for you guys, that's the end of our presentation.
I'd love to answer any questions you have.
Thank you.
Do we have any questions from council members, starting with Council Member Trageb? Thank you so much for the presentation.
Just one question on Appendix L.
Is it, because local amendments are supposed to be more strict, but can't be less.
Is the state basically doing away with the air replenishment system, and so it's no longer language that's necessary? No, the state is not doing away with it.
We in Berkeley are just no longer going to be installing them anymore, so we do not feel the need to have an ordinance to discuss that, because it's no longer going to be a cost to us.
There are some appendixes that are optional for local jurisdictions to adopt.
That was one of them.
Thank you for clarifying.
Thank you.
Council Member Kesawani.
Yes, thank you very much for your presentation.
You know, so I'm looking at this from a lens of obviously fire safety, but I also, you know, I've been one of the voices on this council about the cost of housing, and so I know that you were speaking to that, and you said that the fire alarms that you're now going to require for one- and two-family dwellings, you said it's going to include a visual system.
It doesn't sound much more expensive than the existing system, but can you speak to the price difference? I can't speak to it specifically, but it's generally speaking, especially for a one- or two-family residence, it's a single strobe light, so it's very small.
Okay, I wasn't that concerned about that one, but I just wanted to ask because I'm not as familiar with these systems as a white person.
On the exterior of the building, you can see that the alarm is going off and not just here.
Okay, but the alarm is still installed inside, correct? But because of the strobe light, you're able to see it flashing through windows? Those fire alarms on the internal, they have what they call horn strobes already installed inside.
Okay.
They're just making sure that that level of alarm goes into one- and two- family dwellings as well as everywhere else.
So for example, over your left shoulder, you can see a horn strobe that's red.
Okay.
It's got the single strobe, so we already installed those, but in a single-family and a two-family dwelling, we typically did not.
So now we're going to say when you put an alarm into those dwellings, it's going to have to have one of those strobe lights as part of the system.
Okay, and at what point is, you know, a homeowner going to do that? Like, is it at the, when they are applying for a permit for a new construction or a remodel? Or what would trigger, you know, saying you need that? It depends on a few things.
New construction, yes.
That will be part of new construction.
For a remodel, it depends on the size of the remodel and the amount of the house.
For the most part, a remodel of a house, if it stays the same occupancy class, will not trigger the change.
So for example, as long as you leave two walls up and a certain number, amount of square footage, it would not trigger this.
Chief, you're welcome to add in.
I'm going to clarify.
Oh, okay.
Yes, yeah.
So installing the alarm is in the fire code already, and it's already in an ordinance for us.
We're just adding the light.
Okay.
It's the only thing that we're adding.
Okay, yeah, and that's helpful.
So that's what it would look like, that type of light.
So, and then the, my real sort of question, and I, where I'm, where I'm not fully following is, you know, obviously you described this tragedy in Philadelphia with the elevator.
So this air filling system, you're saying we're getting rid of that and having what sounded to me like a new requirement for an fire access safety elevator for buildings that are exceed four stories, you're saying.
So can you just first explain in a little more detail what was the air filling system? Is that what the state is saying we can do? So first, if you could just walk through the air filling system, if I have that right.
Right.
So air filling systems were only placed in high rises, and a high rise is defined as anything that is 75 feet taller than the lowest fire department access.
So you're looking at essentially an eight-story building or higher.
Okay.
They are also only installed every third floor, beginning with the third floor.
So essentially, if you were up on the 21st floor, you would be able to refill your air bottles from a locked closet with a, what they call a cascade system, and you could take your air bottle off, you could put it into the system, lock it in, and it had a plumbed line.
You also had to have a unit outside called an air unit that has an air compressor, large truck, that would feed that system and it would be able to pressurize your bottles all the way up on the 21st floor.
And this prevented you from having to carry spare air bottles along with the one that you're wearing, and it just eliminates some of the weight that we would carry.
So for example, a firefighter equipped to fight a high-rise fire used to have to take the stairs because elevators were all recalled to the lobby because they were unsafe and you didn't know where they were going to open.
So they added these systems so we were having to carry over 110 pounds of gear up 21 flights of stairs just to get to a fire, and then having to fight the fire.
And it was just becoming very, very cumbersome, and so they added these systems to try and at least make it so we didn't have to carry spare air bottles up to the fire floor.
Okay, that's very helpful because that clarifies it.
So are you saying, so now we are going to, for new buildings moving forward with adoption of this, we're going to eliminate the air filling systems, is that correct? And then what are we doing instead? So we're adding a fire safety elevator.
Okay, and oh, I'll give you a second.
That is going to be the new state requirement is my understanding.
Okay, so this isn't, this is not a discretionary change.
No.
Okay, that's what I wanted to understand better because, you know, we're always told elevators are costly and we see developments that sometimes just only do three stories or four stories so they can avoid an elevator.
So that's why I wanted to understand, but that makes sense.
And so you're saying this is the new state requirement to have a fire access safety elevator for buildings that are taller than four.
Right, so they're going to have an elevator anyway.
So that isn't going to change.
Okay.
Typically these only happen where there's more than one elevator and one elevator will be designated as that elevator and it just has a independent control system on the independent power system that will allow more control from the fire department to avoid it opening on the wrong floor and things like that.
Oh, got it.
Okay, that's extremely helpful.
Thank you so much for the clarifications.
I don't have any further questions.
Other questions from Council members? I'm curious if you could speak to how we're updating residents and businesses on these new codes.
As far as getting the news out in an educational way, they're going to be posted on the City website and once the Berkeley Municipal Code is in effect, they can find all of that information there.
Are there other ways that we get the word out to the community about fire codes where they can access them, how they can get that information? Historically, no.
Designers and builders are familiar with the code adoption process and they know where to go to find that information.
Okay, thank you.
Is there any public comment on this item? Anyone online? One hand raised online.
This is public comment on Item 9, Adoption of the Fire Code.
That's Theo Gordon.
Good evening, Council members.
Just wanted to speak in favor of this item.
My name is Theo Gordon.
I'm a member of the Zester Fire Safety Commission, but I'm speaking for myself.
This all seems great.
We need to keep up to date with state codes.
Just a few notes.
I'm a member of the Berkeley Municipal Code.
Berkeley has some of the oldest housing stock west of the Mississippi, so while these changes are great, they're only going to help new buildings.
We need to be looking at ways to make it more economical to tear down old buildings and build new, modern buildings with updated safety standards, especially as we talk about the WUE later.
We'll be talking about historical landmarking as part of that later tonight, but I'd also love to the city take a look at any non-life safety issues in the general building code and think about removing some of that that has been added over the years and also have the city look into adopting single-stayer reform as other cities in the state are starting to lead the way on that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Other public comment on this item? There's one more commenter.
His name is George Lance.
George should be able to unmute.
My friend, Judy, was actually hung up on earlier, so I don't know why you did that, but we wanted to speak to the prior issue, but there was also another issue earlier we wanted to speak about.
I don't expect you'll give me that courtesy, but I would like to know why you have a flag with a butthole on it.
Okay, I am guessing that that person is not interested in making a comment on this item.
Are there other people who? No other speakers.
Okay, thank you very much.
Is there a motion to close the public hearing because I think I just realized we're in a public hearing.
So moved.
Second.
Okay, to close the public hearing, Council Member Keserwani? Yes.
Kaplan? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Dregub? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Lackabay? Yes.
Lunapara? Yes.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay.
All right.
Public hearing is closed.
Thank you very much.
Moving on to Council Deliberations.
Comments, Council Members? Okay.
I move staff's recommendation.
Second.
All right.
Can we take the roll, please, Clerk? Okay.
On adoption of the fire code and the local findings of local conditions, um, adopting the permit fees and scheduling the public hearing for December 2nd for the second reading, Council Member Keserwani? Yes.
Kaplan? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Dregub? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Lackabay? Yes.
Lunapara? Yes.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay.
Motion carried.
Okay.
Thank you all very much.
Appreciate it.
Okay.
We're moving on to item number 10, which is adoption of an amendment to the California Wild Urban Interface Code.
Also known as WUI.
Yes.
Go ahead.
All right.
So again, this was used to be part of the fire code and the state has moved Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code and Chapter 7A of the California Building Code out of those codes and created this separate code.
So we are now required to adopt this as a separate ordinance.
It'll be a separate chapter in the BMC, but it'll be much easier to find all this kind of wildland-related information in one place instead of looking in six different regulations.
So with that, Chief Colin Arnold.
Thank you very much.
Good evening.
So what we're looking at tonight is a part of adopting the WUI code is the state minimum code, which is the standards for home hardening, safety precautions for wildfire prone areas, most notably probably vegetation management.
There's no substantive changes to the code.
This is just simply, as Chief Sprague mentioned, a repackaging of the code to create a more simple place to find the information.
Locally, what's been amended in the code is a non-combustible zone in the highest risk area.
That's known as zone zero.
And then more clear rules around vegetation in the first 30 feet that reduce interpretation of both the inspector and the property owner.
So where this code applies, the WUI code is essentially a rider on top of the base fire code.
So anybody building a home or building a structure would look at the base fire code and then based on where they live, that WUI code may or may not apply.
This is a map that was adopted by Council back in June.
It's a modification of the state fire, Cal fire, or high fire hazard severity zone.
And the WUI code applies across this zone in differing levels.
So the further you are from the wild land, the less restrictive the code, the closer you are, the more restrictive.
Just a key point on that is that you are not, there are no changes proposed to that map or what components of the code applied to the map.
That was all done by Council earlier this year.
So what's been happening since you adopted both the map and the local modifications in June? Just a brief recap.
So the 2022 code was locally modified and adopted in June.
Those local amendments contained additional vegetation requirements, commonly known as the EMBER proposal.
From there, two things have been happening.
One, we were directed to establish a WUI work group, which was a group of stakeholders coming together to talk through components of what was passed and best practices moving forward.
From that work group, one of the primary things that was created was the local amendments from June.
The group went through that.
They looked for clarity, looked for an opportunity to simplify.
The code was not substantively changed, but it is clearer and easier to read.
They did a tremendous amount of work working through that as citizens.
I've got to say, it's probably some of the more easily digestible work that we've seen in the past year.
So that's one of the things that we're working on right now is some of the more easily digestible fire code out there, which is impressive.
At the same time, out in the field, a couple things have been happening.
One, since June, we've seen about the highest level of resident interaction and action in recent memory, most notably use of the CHIPR program, removal of hazardous vegetation.
There's been a lot of action around vegetation management.
Access all four sides of the property has really given us the opportunity to coach folks and help them get ready for what's coming.
And so that's been incredibly successful with the folks that have chosen to participate with our division.
And what we've seen is an increase in the number of prepared homes.
So we do see a growing number of homes that are completely compliant with the future code.
Although, as we mentioned in June, it requires the majority of those homes to be compliant in order for there to be any reduction in risk.
And we haven't yet seen that number of homes.
Just briefly, this is a quick view of just on a recent tour of the hills.
These were a number of homeowners that invited us on their property to show us their nearly fully compliant homes.
So we do see that those number of homes are increasing over time.
Normally, they're missing one or two pieces to be fully compliant.
It's most notably the gates or a single piece of ornamental vegetation.
This is just a brief example of some of the work that's going on out there.
Some of the fully compliant homes that we see, they're popping up.
There's varying levels of interest in doing the work in terms of some folks are taking this as an opportunity to do a massive amount of landscaping.
Some folks are making small changes to meet the code.
So the WU work group, just a quick update.
This will be our 13th meeting on Wednesday.
The work group took multiple passes at the existing code, which is the result of what you see in front of you tonight.
That involved quite a bit of clarification and streamlining.
They worked incredibly hard at that, and it was a very successful process.
They've also established a framework for a resident guide.
So while the code is great at telling you what you can and can't do, a resident guide can start to get into some of the more nuanced approaches.
Some of our work group members are concerned about pollinators.
They're concerned about native vegetation, and so this document becomes a sort of a way to help residents through that process.
The group has also looked at the alternate means and measures request, which is for folks that are looking to modify the code for their specific property.
They believe they have a way to meet the intent of the code without necessarily meeting the exact language.
This group has walked through the process of what that would look like, and we're still working through that.
And then, of course, the group is also monitoring the Board of Forestry Progress at the state level.
As a reminder, they were due back to have a zone zero regulation in place by the end of the year.
It currently does not look like they're going to meet that mandate.
They will be going into next year.
Another thing that this group has done that's been really helpful is they've given us really good feedback about how we can better reach constituents and how we can better help folks understand what applies to them.
So in addition to the resident guide, you'll see if you go to the website now, there is a substantially different website.
Most notably, you can enter your address.
It'll tell you exactly what the requirements are for your home.
It'll also tell you what services are available.
So regardless of where you live, you should be able to enter your address and you can figure out exactly what the requirements are.
We've also, with the help of this group, established an outreach campaign.
One of the major concerns was that some folks might not know that this is coming.
So as of today, every home in the new mitigation zones should have gotten a mailer.
If not, it'll be coming tomorrow or the next day.
And that's the beginning of that outreach campaign.
Exactly the same timeline as what the fire marshal just mentioned for the fire code.
This is in parallel with that.
That's the end of our presentation.
Thank you.
Very good.
Thank you so much.
Appreciate the presentation.
Oh, Council Member Backeby.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
And thank you, Chiefs, for all this work.
And also thanks to the vegetation management work group for all the work that they've done.
And I'll comment a little bit more later in my comments.
I just had a few questions to kind of guide where we go from here.
So this vegetation management work group has done a lot of work and a lot of those edits are reflected in the code that we're approving tonight.
Once that is complete, what additional work remains for that group before they wrap up? Because as I remember from the item that we put forward in June, we basically had three things.
One was we asked you guys for an implementation plan, which you did.
And then we asked for these sort of amendments to the vegetation piece, which is what's in front of us.
And then also removing references to misdemeanors and a few other specific things that we called out.
So by my kind of calculus, all of that is more or less done.
But is there any expectation of what else they might be doing before the end of the year? I think the Board of Forestry threw a bit of a wrench in this by not being able to have their regulation back.
I don't believe that we have a specific timeline for when that'll be done.
Other than that, the work group over the next few meetings is going to wrap up the resident guide and wrap up the review of the best available.

Segment 3

Science that's out there, science being an ever-evolving and changing process.
After that, we don't have any additional mandates from Council.
Okay, so then once that work group does wrap up at the end of the year, there will still be a body for subsequent citizen engagement, and that's basically the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission.
Is that the right way to think about it? So this vegetation management work group has been around specifically to address a couple of things that we tasked you guys with.
They've been working on those.
That work group finishes up at the end of the year, and then the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission continues, and that ends up being the body where a lot of this other citizen..
Is that fair to say? Yeah, that's fair.
And I think, you know, we also field a number of complaints and other issues about the fire code through Council members, so that can also continue to happen.
Okay, but there'll be, again, plenty of opportunity, whether through Council meetings or through the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission for that.
Absolutely.
And then the last thing you referenced was the Board of Forestry.
And again, for colleagues, so this is the statewide effort where the state is hammering out the Zone Zero requirements that they're going to implement for the rest of the state.
You mentioned that they're likely going to miss their end of year deadline.
Do you have any rough sense of what that updated timing might look like? Best guess? I couldn't give you a guess there.
I can tell you because of AB 1455, this is now an emergency rulemaking process by which they also then revisit the emergency rulemaking next year.
So the final rulemaking, I believe, would occur at some point next year, but I don't have a specific timeline.
Okay.
So the other thing we did in the June item was we asked that once those rules are in place, that the Department would come back and basically provide us an update on what those Zone Zero regs are and any kind of differences between the state.
So I'm assuming we could still schedule that kind of a follow-up briefing as well.
Yeah, I think if we can have a couple months after its regulation to analyze it, we'd be happy to come back.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Other questions from Council Members? Okay.
Is there any public comment on this item? Anyone online to make public comment on Item Number 10, Adoption of an Amendment to the California Wild Urban Interface Code, WUI Code? We have one speaker.
That's Theo Gordon.
Hello again, Council.
Theo Gordon, Disaster Fire Safety Commission.
I'll speak for myself.
Again, support this adoption.
Disaster preparedness and especially fire preparedness is something that we all have to work on as members of the Berkeley community, but it's especially important in the WUI that buildings are defensible and slow down the fires so that we can get people out.
So please pass this measure tonight and let's build a safer city.
Thank you, Theo.
Other comments? No other comments.
No other comments.
Okay, very good.
In that case, coming back to Council.
Any comments from Council? Council Member Blackabee.
Sorry, I do have a couple of comments.
Again, appreciate all the work.
And again, I do want to give kudos to the members of this work group.
They've been meeting weekly since August for at least, what, an hour or two each time.
And I know we may not have all have gone through all the edits, but just to kind of summarize what they've done, it was a clarification about that mature trees are allowed in Zone Zero.
That was a question that we heard from members of the public.
So they've worked through language to make sure in the code that it was very clear that mature trees are permitted.
They made clarification regarding what continuous tree canopy means, how you define it, how we implement it.
They simplified greatly the sections about what Zone Zero, Zone One, and Zone Two are, and what's allowable in those zones.
And they also provided some very kind of Berkeley-specific clarification around annual vegetation in Zone One, like vegetable gardens, seasonal wildflowers.
These are exactly the very detailed kind of implementation details that we had asked for.
And I'm just so gratified for the work that they've done, for the work with the department, for Chief Winokur and Colin Arnold, and all who've been involved in that.
So again, I think it was a great process that really got at what we were hoping for, which was trying to build some more kind of common consensus around this work.
So I know other colleagues may have comments, but for the sake of putting a motion on the table, I just want to share my screen.
So the motion I'd like to make to move forward, and it reflects some of the questions we just talked about, would be to adopt staff's recommendation with three other items.
The fourth is then to thank the members of the work group for their efforts and ask them to submit a memo with any additional follow-up recommendations to the chief.
So that, again, if there are some items that they're not able to complete before their term of service is done, that that's encapsulated and goes to the chief so that we have the benefit of their thinking.
And then that the chief come back to the council and to the Public Safety Committee with any additional items that might come out of those recommendations.
So again, if there's something to act on based on that feedback, that we have a way of capturing it.
And then as we discussed, within 60 days of the State Board of Forestry's Zone Zero recommendation becoming finalized, request that the chief come back to City Council with an update on the differences between the state and local vegetation management laws.
So that's my motion.
Second.
Oops.
I defer to the mayor.
Thank you.
Okay.
Are there other comments? I've got Council Member Humbert on here.
Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.
I simply want to thank Chief Sprague, Chief Arnold, Chief Winokur, and all BFD staff who worked on this huge project, this huge and critically important project.
And also to express my gratitude to Council Member Blackaby for his herculean efforts in this regard.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Council Member Taflin.
Thank you very much, chiefs and everyone.
This is purely procedural.
Technically, referrals have to be to the city manager.
So I'm wondering if I may offer a friendly amendment that the final two points be requested to the city manager.
Yeah, great.
Good catch.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I agree as the seconder.
Thank you.
Okay, other comments from Council Members? Okay, well, I also just want to say thank you all so much.
I know the beginning of this was really challenging and I really appreciate that the fire department took a lot of time to work with the community.
I really want to thank the working group as well who did a lot of work on this.
13 meetings is a lot and I really appreciate that folks were able to come together and create resources that are really going to help their neighbors.
And at the end of the day, that's what we want.
We wanted adoption and we wanted to make sure folks feel supported and know what they're supposed to be doing.
So I just want to say thank you so much to all of you and to the working group.
And of course, the Council Member Blackaby and all of us who've been involved in this firework and just generally our council has been incredibly supportive of it.
And so I'm really happy to see this moving forward.
And I want to thank you all.
So, okay.
Is there a motion? Yes, there is a motion.
Yes, there's a motion.
On the motion, which is the staff recommendation plus the three bullet points from Council Member Blackaby with the amendment by Council Member Taplin.
On the motion, Council Member Kesarwani.
Yes.
Taplin.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Dregub.
Aye.
O'Keefe.
Yes.
Blackaby.
Yes.
Winnipara.
Yes.
Humber.
Yes.
And Mary Ishii.
Yes.
Okay, motion carries.
Thank you.
Thank you all very much.
Appreciate it.
Good night.
Y'all, I just want to take a 10 minute break so we can allow the chief to set up and just shift and we'll come back in 10.
Thank you.
All right, thank you all so much for your patience.
Appreciate it.
We are coming back to our City Council meeting.
We are on item 11, Annual Surveillance Technology Report for Body Worn Cameras, GPS Trackers, Fixed Surveillance Video Cameras, Parking Enforcement Officer, Automated License Plate Readers, the Street Level Imagery Project, Unmanned Aerial Systems, and Fixed Automated License Plate Readers.
Passing it over to you, Chief and Arlo.
Thank you very much.
And you're right, Madam Mayor, that's exactly what this report is.
Just to kind of set the stage a little bit, so this is our annual report that's conducted pursuant to the Surveillance Technology Ordinance.
And so this is the opportunity or the point where we report on number of uses, costs associated with complaints that we have received about specific technologies and provide an opportunity for both the public and the Council to give us feedback on both the technology and the report, the information that's in the report.
I know this year particularly, there's a lot of community interest in our surveillance technologies, especially in light of a lot of the activity that's happened around Federal Immigration Agencies.
So understand that's added a lot more questions and eyes on the reports that we produce.
So I know we'll answer as many questions as we can, just with the understanding that more information is obviously helpful in the times that we're in right now.
And just to be clear, the Surveillance Ordinance has a very specific things that it requires pursuant to the ordinance and the reporting that we do around it.
And every technology that we have has an acquisition report, a use policy, and an overall departmental policy on the use.
Those are things that are brought to Council and approved on by Council.
These reports also include audit requirements and reporting requirements.
And the report that we submit annually on this year by ordinance and by internal policy asks that we include audit results within the report.
And as we've gone through each year, each iteration of this report, really it's been guided in great part by Council who have asked us, can you include more on this thing or report on this differently? And as always, we look forward to getting your feedback and adding additional things that are of interest to the Council that we are able to collect as we use these technologies.
The other thing I do want to acknowledge or call out around the Surveillance Technology Ordinance reporting is a newer piece of the work that we're doing internally around that.
And that is the establishment of our Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability that's led by R.L.
Malberg.
So his office is directly responsible for the internal oversight processes around our surveillance technologies.
What's really good about that is he gives us a non-law enforcement perspective.
He brings a skill set and understanding of audit processes and data analytics to the work that we're doing around our reviews of these technologies.
And by doing this work and having him with us internally, we're able to identify issues quickly, early and employ interventions when needed as we're going through our processes.
So I do want to talk specifically about some of the audits that are reported.
And what is really good from one of the things we learned from all of our audits was that all of our personnel, our departmental personnel, you had appropriately accessed the surveillance technologies that we had and use those technologies according to our departmental policies.
So our personnel, our staff are aware of our policies, aware of our values, are following those and we didn't find any issues in auditing those particular pieces.
Now, when we moved to the fixed ALPR audit, which is attached to this report, it did reveal a number of, a small number of outside agency searches that included references that we wanted to assess when we discovered this information using indicators that might have evidenced an issue with SB54 connected to federal immigration agencies.
So as soon as we saw that those designators were in a couple searches, we immediately tightened up our sharing parameters to ensure that we were no longer sharing with those agencies.
And then we were able to step into the audit, the more robust audit process.
What's, what I need to remain very clear and consistent about is our values, our cities, our department's values around sanctuary city status, around not supporting immigration responses or immigration activities, around raising up what the state law has guided us on.
And so that's an important value for us.
That's always going to be a value for us as we do our audit processes and learn those things.
We understand the heightened sensitivity of our community right now, all of our community, and wanted to just continue to really clearly state that, that we don't stand for any member in our department or any other agency that would potentially be using our information to support that purpose.
So I do want to give Arlo, who conducted the audit, a chance to speak in a little bit more detail about the process we went through and what we discovered during that audit.
Yeah, thanks, Chief.
So for this audit, we looked at four areas.
Who inside the department accessed the, or ran a search on our network, how they used it, which outside agencies ran searches, and how those agencies used it.
So we found full compliance on the first three of those.
Everyone inside BPD who ran a search had authorized access and their searches matched our policy.
All outside agencies that ran searches that touched our networks were California law enforcement agencies that already had permission under state law.
The final part of the audit found searches from outside agencies with free text notes that included acronyms tied to federal agencies.
As soon as we saw a pattern, we suspended sharing with agencies that submitted a search reason that we flagged.
And on top of that, we also suspended sharing with any agency outside of the Bay Area.
One of the notes referenced ICE.
And because it's been widely reported in the news, otherwise this information is protected by rules around investigative information, but I can share that that search was conducted by the California Highway Patrol.
And it was two Southern California agencies that made searches that referenced CPV.
And again, we immediately disabled all share settings that permitted those agencies to search on our network.
So again, to be extremely clear, those three agencies no longer have access to our LPR data.
And to just zoom out for a second, these searches were not focused on Berkeley.
They appeared on agencies' logs across the state and regionally.
And I'm proud that our response was the most proactive and the most restrictive of any agency that we're aware of.
And folks can check out our FLOC transparency portal and see what agencies we're currently sharing with and compare that with other agencies.
So we took those steps early in the audit to remove any uncertainty while we completed the rest of the review.
FLOC has since added keyword filters to block any immigration related searches.
And we more regularly review the searches now to make sure that no agencies that still have access are searching anything that would raise a flag with us.
And since we took those restrictive measures, we haven't seen any further references to immigration federal agencies.
So I know there might be some more questions about our processes, about the remedy steps that we've taken.
I can say that it was important for me to recognize the importance and value of this tool.
It's not lost on me about the data that we've seen, the cases that we've seen resolved, the ability to aid our investigations very rapidly and resolve crimes that we might not ever be able to identify a suspect without.
At the same time, we are highly focused on ensuring that the work that we do, the data that we collect in order to do our work is not putting our community at risk.
What's most important to me is that we are clear and consistent in our actions around that and know that the measures that we take to tighten up our security, we'll continue to look and adjust.
And as we land and know what we're doing, know what the next, the best next steps are after we pass this initial audit period, we will be looking to absorb some of those audit expectations into our policies in ways that reflect, that continue to reflect our sanctuary city values.
Thanks, Chief.
I think there's a question from Council Member Humbert.
Yes, if your presentation is completed, is that right? Okay, thank you.
Yeah, I have a couple questions.
One is thank you for addressing the issue of these potentially problematic searches from outside agencies.
What do you think the community should take away from the way BPD responded and handled these concerns? I think, you know, Arlo was humbly admitted to it a little bit that he's proud of it.
I too, it's like, this was our initial audit.
This was us stepping into a new technology and really learning as we saw what the data was coming in and taking immediate steps when we realized there was any issue at all before launching into a long investigation.
We took immediate steps to limit the amount of data that was going out to understand what was happening.
You know, and I would love for every audit that we ever did to never have any findings.
But what it tells me is that a lot of processes are working, that we didn't shy away from it, that we made the decisions that we knew were right for our community quickly and then went through a thorough process and have set new rules and new ways to evaluate that as we go so that we don't have recurrences.
Thank you, Chief.
And then my only other question was, and I'm aware that the automated license plate readers have been really effective in helping us prevent and solve crimes and wanted to know a little bit about what the stats have been so far.
Yeah, so far this year, officers have made at least, and I say at least because this depends on their reporting after the fact, made at least 52 arrests, including for commercial burglaries, robberies, sexual assaults, homicides.
Investigators have also used ALPRs to assist in at least 29 other cases.
It means that the technology is playing a role both in immediate emergency response and also in longer term investigations.
There's some preliminary evidence that our clearance rates have gone up since we started using ALPRs, especially with robberies.
But overall, the numbers are pointing to a tool that gives the supports both immediate enforcement and these longer term investigations and that we're seeing the fruits of that already.
And our officers would tell you the same in a heartbeat.
That's all I have.
Thank you.
Council Member Tregub.
Oh, sorry.
Council Member Blackaby.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
I just want to double click on something you just said, which is, you know, the fact that we're just having this conversation, you know, is evidence that the system's working.
Audits are working.
We have an oversight through the PAB, through the reporting, through the audit kind of trail that we're asking for.
We have a mechanism for evaluating how technology is working and finding places where maybe we come up short.
And so I do want to echo that because this is evidence that that does work.
I think I'm sure there are other jurisdictions where you may not, we may not have been aware of what happened and you guys are being very forthright and forthcoming about that.
And so I just want to say that it's appreciated.
Can you give us a little more context on those on those three searches? And again, I agree with Council Member Humbert that there's a tremendous value in this technology.
And so, you know, we, you know, I understand that.
But just to kind of focus on these sort of three incidents.
To our knowledge, were there any hits on Berkeley in terms of like license plates that were identified? We don't have any reason to believe that that access to any Berkeley data specifically the statewide lookup function was turned on.
So you might have recalled there were some news stories in the summer that were, that our other local jurisdictions are reporting the same, that they had had those same searches that were across the state network.
So those were Southern California agencies searching it.
You know, you know, my assumption would be they didn't get any of our data.
We have no reason to believe any data that came out of those searches in any way affected our folks directly.
Yeah.
And so, and those were automated like pings.
There was no point where a BPD member of the personnel like reviewed it and okayed it, right? It was sort of an automated hit using the ramp.
Yeah.
So the way it's set up is we don't just share to everyone.
In order to share our data with you, you have to fill out an attestation and commit to following our sanctuary city values, commit to following state law around it.
So what happens if one of those agencies clicks the state lookup button, they were able to see across the state for those uses.
Got it.
And so now we're able to limit that down.
We still have the attestation, but we've limited down the agency, the counties that we'll even consider one from.
And we still also have to have that on file with us.
Okay.
And then you mentioned then kind of some of the additional controls in terms of the scrutinizing of these searches.
So it's a narrower group.
So it's only the barrier counties from Sacramento.
And there's more kind of scrutiny.
Can you talk a little bit more about how else you've tightened that up? Yeah, absolutely.
So we're auditing by any lead, but we're doing informal checks more often.
So we're able to confirm that any searches that would hint at an impermitted user are no longer occurring.
And if they are, we can shut off that agency right away.
FLOC has implemented filters that don't permit any search that has any reference to anything immigration or reproductive health related gets through.
And they are implementing something actually that we've been asking them for and have implemented internally, which is a drop-down list of options for a search reason.
So that clarifies to officers when they're doing a search what uses are permitted, which are not, and ensures that every search is done for one of those permitted reasons.
So we've implemented that internally, and that'll be rolling out network-wide for FLOC.
Okay.
And so the way you spot something that's problematic is there's like a reason field attached to each of these inquiries.
And so what other filters have you applied to sort of, like, again, explain how that works.
Is something, is there like a flag that gets raised if something, you know, how would you identify a problematic search? Yeah, so right now there's an audit log part of the platform, and so we go in, download a bunch of data, and then analyze it through some regular expression searches and a few other things.
And so there's some like manual aspect to it, but one of the things that we've been pushing FLOC for and they let us know is on the way is a more automated function where as soon as the search occurs, we're able to compare that to our filters and checks and document what those searches were.
One other feature that they have explained to us that's now set up is, for example, if we thought, oh, we want to share with somebody out of state, there's no longer the ability for any agency in the state of California to partner or connect with another state or federal agency.
There's no federal agencies that have that access and no state can come and ask to join, you know, so they've cut off that completely.
They've changed.
They've taken that national search out.
So again, I think they're being responsive to what they are observing needs to be done to protect the values of California and the state law.
Okay.
Great, because yeah, I think the one piece of this that would be, you know, even better, it sounds like you're working towards this, but if even at the time the search is initiated, if there's a problematic reason even at that time that right away somehow that gets, anyway, rather than after the fact, again, I don't know how close we can get to that, but.
Yeah, I think the challenge you would have is then, you know, you'd have to then verify any search that came in.
Some of these things are very time sensitive where they're tracking a vehicle as it's traveling through jurisdictions.
Yeah.
And so we would want to be careful around not hamstringing the process so much so that you would lose the connection to where that person was traveling.
Okay.
Yeah, I hear also then, so it was, well, it's publicly, it was publicly revealed that the CHP was one of the entities.
Does it mean we're no longer sharing with the CHP? Yeah, that's correct.
And the other point, small point of clarification I would make too, is that the language that they put in there for us is concerning because it mentions ICE.
But SB 54 is very clear that you cannot share information that's for immigrated related purposes.
And so, you know, for all we know, and we don't know, that CHP had a legitimate law enforcement purpose to do that search other than for immigration reasons, like they got a tip around some other crime that ICE was looking at and that they ran that search and they used the information internally and didn't share it with the federal agency, right? But we don't know.
And that's okay that we don't know.
We just cut off sharing.
And my position is if they need some specific information about Berkeley, for some reason, they can contact us and say, hey, we're working this specific case.
We need that specific information and we will consider whether or not to allow them to access for that purpose.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Now going to Council Member Troika.
Great.
Council Member Blackaby asked all my questions.
I've just, I think one, but first I want to start by appreciating this report and, you know, as someone who I think worked alongside of a United Council on the importance of having an audit this is why, this is exactly why we do it.
We did receive a letter from the pub and I wanted to hone in or perhaps double click for a previous speaker on a couple of points.
In particular, there were suggestions around shortening the timeframe of notification of a potential data breach and memorializing remedial controls that you implemented in policies 1304 and 1305.
Can you speak to both of the, whatever background you might be able to share but also if you have a position on either or both of those recommendations.
Yeah, of course, I could start with the policy one.
So I'm always very careful to make sure we have good audit processes.
At the same time, we don't create administrative burdens unnecessarily.
Administrative burden could include policy updates.
It could also include counting or measuring or capturing some information that's recorded in a better way elsewhere.
And so my position is to be very clear on the fact that we are not, if we have any reason to believe an agency is not following the rules.

Segment 4

We're not going to share it with them.
And so at the point where we figure out what exactly we need to do to make that clear, we can memorialize it in policy.
But the protections that FLOC is putting in now, the protections that we've put in, the way that they've stopped access for state, you know what I mean? I don't want to build something into our policy that requires us to do extra audit steps that become unnecessary because those things are in place.
So my position is once we finish this first audit, we're monitoring the data a little bit more.
We'll probably look to open up the policy if we need to in January, once we know a little bit more about what implementation FLOC's done.
And then if you remind me what the second one was? Shortening the time frame for notification to council.
Yeah, of course.
So right now we do six months audits on this technology.
And also with the sanctuary city ordinance, there's very specific reporting requirements that indicate a much faster turnaround time on reporting.
What became abundantly clear for me through preparing for this and having conversations with council is that you want to know more information sooner so that we can make informed decisions.
And I always want to make sure I'm giving you good information before I share, but message has been received that coming sooner and talking about what we're observing, or at least what we're working on.
Like, hey, we've put some safety measures in place.
Let us do the audit and figure out what's going on.
Of course, I'm very mindful of the emotional effect and anxiety it can cause by putting something out there around immigration related issues before they're verified.
You know, we've been sharing best practices with our community, like, don't let rumors or misinformation become spread like wildfire and frighten people more.
We're creating trauma for people that we don't we don't want to create, but we also want people to know that we're paying attention and know that we have good, good oversight into this.
So, yeah, you know, via the city manager's office, I'll be sharing more when we have things like this in an earlier process.
Thank you, Council Member O'Keefe.
Thank you for this presentation and report.
It's very interesting.
You have definitely already answered this question, but I'm going to frame it in a slightly different way, mostly for the public.
Can you explain your understanding of, briefly, of what happened with the flock LPR data in Illinois and also in Texas that was in the news a few months ago? And why, I'm assuming this is the case for you, why you're certain that nothing like that could happen here? Yeah, so just like there was a statewide lookup function that we turned off when we noticed some California agencies putting inappropriate search reasons in, there is also a nationwide lookup function.
And that's how any Illinois data made it anywhere else, because that toggle was turned on in those Illinois jurisdictions.
So we turned that off really early on as we were just setting up the system and have confirmed that it works, that no out-of-state agencies are able to search across our network.
Isn't there something where California is actually totally separated? Is that true, or is that just something I heard? Yes, no, that's exactly right.
Flock has, earlier this year, at the beginning of the year, just made it impossible for California agencies to opt in to that feature.
That's dope.
Council Member Bartlett, I know you had your hand up earlier.
Did you have questions? I did, but they're all answered.
Oh, great.
Okay.
Council Member Linapara.
Thank you.
I have a follow-up question from Council Member O'Keefe.
I'm curious why, if the national database toggle was off, why the California toggle was on? Well, we operated under the assumption that California agencies would follow state law.
And as soon as we, because SB 54 prevents agencies from sharing any immigration-related APR data, as soon as we got any indication that that might not be the case, we turned it off.
Thank you.
Other questions from Council Members? Okay, I have some questions as well.
I want to say that my questions are focused in very narrowly on specific parts of these reports.
And so, you know, I want to acknowledge that, you know, you've done great work and that this report is so much more than the specific things that I'm focusing on.
I've got other comments later, but I'm also interested in this piece around data and access.
And I know you mentioned, Arlo, that on our transparency hub, it actually says which jurisdictions have access.
And so, if you wouldn't mind just telling us, do you know, could you just tell us off the top of your head or maybe pull it up, which jurisdictions have access? And also, maybe you can more easily speak to what conditions they can, what conditions that they have to basically agree to in order to access our data.
Yeah, in short, they have to sign a letter, and there's a link to that letter in our policy, and that's public.
Everybody can see that.
Confirming that they are going to follow the state law around our sanctuary state values, as well as our local policy on sanctuary city.
And so, once they sign that, not before they sign that, can they access, will we give them the one-to-one sharing access? And if you could just give me one second, I'll look up that list.
Sure, sure.
And I don't necessarily need you to read off all of them.
You said Bay Area, like Alameda County.
It's like 14 jurisdictions in that greater area.
Yeah, and again, it's not every agency in the country.
Yeah, and again, it's not every agency in the counties.
That was just a precondition to even being allowed.
You have to sign that letter and then not do any searches that raise our flags.
So, those two things.
Okay, and just again, to help the public understand the timeline of this, when did we cut off access to the CHP and other jurisdictions outside of the Bay Area? Yeah, so we initiated the audit in late July.
And that was when I first saw any indication that there might be some irregular use.
And so, we cut that off immediately at that point.
Okay, thank you.
And then, for those who don't feel confident that a drop-down menu is sufficient, that people might think that they could lie and say that they were doing it for one purpose, but really it was for something that violated our policy.
Is there any other information that's requested on FLOC, case number, individual name, badge number? Just more information would be helpful there.
Yeah, case number is also a field that we require of our officers to enter.
And all of that is collected and logged on the audits.
Thank you, that's helpful.
And then, can you also explain, I think that it could be confusing for folks.
You know, you're saying, Chief, I totally understand that you need to look into whether or not a claim, a case like it's at ICE, for instance, or DHS.
Can you explain how a search like that doesn't necessarily mean that the data was used to violate SB 54 or our sanctuary ordinance? Right.
Well, there was one search reason that was DHS.
We've talked about this.
When we looked into it, we realized it did not stand for Department of Homeland Security.
It was Desert Hot Springs PD.
So there's things like that, right, where you look at initially, and if you can't dig into it a little bit more, you don't realize that it's something else.
And the example I gave earlier was it might say CBP or ICE on there.
But it may be that the jurisdiction received some crime information about an individual that ICE was working a case for a crime, whatever that crime was.
In the state of California, in the United States, they were investigating a crime.
And so they told the jurisdiction, hey, you have somebody living in your city that we think is a suspect in a homicide or something like that.
And we're letting you know we're working on the case or whatever.
That agency, you know, I would want to know if there was someone living in the community that was a potential homicide suspect that that officer might run the search.
And the reason why they're running the search is because ICE gave them some information.
That doesn't mean that they then tell.
We don't know.
We don't know.
We don't know for sure that that means they then turn to ICE and say, hey, that car got picked up on our license plate reader at this date and this time and this location.
It means that that agency ran that search.
And the reason why they considered to run that search was because of, again, that's me filling in a lot of blanks and giving a lot of grace to somebody doing it right.
But also, I don't want to assume that it was wrong and that someone was violating state law in doing that.
Because they would, if they made a search for ICE for the purpose of giving information to ICE for immigration enforcement related activities, that is against the law.
This is not something that we would allow in our city.
Thank you.
And you mentioned, Arlo, you said that our officers need to put their case numbers into FLOC, but does that go for everyone or just our officers? Everybody else has the ability to, but this is another feature that we've been requesting of FLOC is to require that any search that comes across our network include a case number.
Okay, so currently we can't require that.
Okay.
That's good to know.
And then, Chief, could you also speak to why we can't tell exactly what it was that came up when they searched? Or maybe Arlo can.
So you're asking why we can't know that a statewide search hit or did not in Berkeley.
Yeah.
It's just not a feature that FLOC offered back then.
They've actually, they're starting to roll out a feature that for certain search types would allow us to know if that showed up on our network or not.
But my understanding is it's not complete either.
Thank you.
That's helpful to understand the limitations there.
Okay.
I think those are all of my questions.
Do we have public comment? Do you have people who have time to give you? Okay.
Go ahead.
Hold on.
Sorry.
We can.
Okay.
Hey, good evening, honorable mayor, council members.
I will say that I had a, you know, kind of a speech planned for this evening, but I'm actually a little more optimistic after coming here and listening to the comments.
I'm here to speak on the annual surveillance technology report.
The audit discloses that external agencies use search terms like ICE and CBP when creating statewide ALPR data that includes Berkeley's.
And that is precisely the kind of impermissible immigration related use our policies prohibit.
And you would think that based on this discussion that we've been having that the department concluded that there was a violation, but it didn't.
But I do want to acknowledge the remedial actions that BPD took, including cutting off sharing from responsible agencies.
You know, I think council member comments are on point and that in in Berkeley police policy, there should be a provision that specifies that any responsible agency should.
Their data should be cut off in the case of a violation.
I will just point out that because the audit report didn't find that there was a violation.
I don't know how under that policy there would be that cut off.
And so there is a bit of a different there.
It's my time.
You have two minutes because no one else is speaking.
So great.
I also want to point out that the provision around notification is important.
It's important for transparency.
It's important for public trust.
We, you know, I haven't heard it precisely when the department discovered this information.
I only know that it was in July.
It was around the time of the conversation, the flock cameras for the fixed external surveillance use.
I think council would have been interested in this discussion and in this conversation when it was considering that, because when council was considering that, it actually was implementing an audit procedure that we took from the LPR data, which it's considering today.
And so I think that this conversation could have been had in July had that notification process been in place.
So, thank you.
Thank you.
Is there any other public comment here? Thank you.
Is there any other public comment here? Or anyone else online? One speaker, Theo Gordon.
Hi, council members.
I guess it's a slow night tonight.
Just had a couple quick questions.
I mean, I'm glad that the police chief and have been doing this audit and shutting down on authorized access.
I guess I would just ask if there are provisions in the contract for damages of flock were to leak data to out of state or federal actors, whether that be accidental or intentional.
And then also, I'd be curious if flock can be subpoenaed by federal actors and then use that to get around our data sharing rules.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Was that the only comment? That is the only comment.
Okay.
All right, then.
Coming back to Council Member Taplin.
Thank you very much.
I want to thank the chief and Arlo and commend the both of you for your continued commitment to the city's values, for your swift and decisive action to cut off access.
And I also want to live with the work of my colleagues in the dais, our counterparts on the PAB, the city manager's office and the city attorney's office for our collaborative and proactive efforts to put these safeguards in place.
Thank you.
And with that, I move adoption of the SAC recommendation.
Second.
Thank you.
Council Member Lunapara.
Thank you.
I was wondering if staff could first answer some of the questions that the commenter had.
I wrote down one of them, but I didn't write down the other.
If the feds can access the information through subpoena just for the public's benefit.
Yeah, so flock's position is it's not their data to release.
It belongs to us.
If they were approached with a request for data, they would immediately, pursuant to the contract, immediately notify that that happened and they would point them to us.
At which point we would say, no, thank you.
Thank you.
Did anyone catch the other question? Whether the contracts had provisions for remedy if damages.
Yeah, I also I want to make a really kind of interesting nuance point to that, too, which is the concerning searches or the problematic trying to access for an impermissible point was done by an agency, a police department agency.
Right.
So it wasn't the vendor.
So for this particular examples that were given, it wouldn't be that the vendor was in breach or in violated a term of the contract because they weren't the one that did the impermissible search.
If it was an impermissible search.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Just to follow up on that.
If if they were, if it were to be flock's fault and not another agency, is there a path for remedy? So the sanctuary city contracting ordinance allows that if there is a breach of contract that we are allowed to call up that breach with a care period and then cancel that contract if they're in violation.
But no, no damages or fines.
Correct.
I don't believe so.
Okay, thank you.
And then I was wondering if you could speak to the other to be chairs comment about the request that this be sent to them ahead of submitting for council review.
And it was in their letter to that the report.
The audit report be sent to them early.
Yeah, they had 30 days with it beforehand.
I think I'd want to hear from them about how long they would need, knowing that our turnarounds are really tight right now because where the audit ends and the preparation, the surveillance ordinance with the data runs up in October with our first meeting being in November, first meeting in November.
So I want to hear a little bit about how much more than 30 days they need to look at it.
But certainly 30 days we could do.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
I want to thank the chief and Arlo for your immense work that went into this audit.
I also want to talk I'm still very concerned about new technology that could put our neighbors at risk.
The situation shows that we can't anticipate all situations and all consequences because we don't know what we don't know.
And we don't know a lot when it comes to new technology like mass surveillance.
And with that, I think it would have been productive to confer with the PAB ahead of bringing this to council.
I also, we also have these audits in place for a reason.
And I want to thank the chief and our team for taking it seriously.
I want us to continue to take it seriously.
I think immigrants and our vulnerable populations deserve honest skepticism of new technology.
And I recognize that actions have been taken to ensure that something like this doesn't happen again, which I really appreciate.
And I'm also concerned that, one, it happened in the first place.
And two, that council and the public didn't know that this had happened or that there was any investigation going on about the exact issue we were worried about as we were prepared to enter into our next plot contract.
I'm concerned that this is not going to be the last time we go out of our depth with new technology.
And I think that the stakes are too great to risk it.
Thanks.
Thank you, Council Member.
Council Member Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I have relatively brief comments.
I want to thank the chief, Arlo, and everyone at BPD for their work to carefully monitor and regulate the use of these technologies and for taking the time and effort needed to provide these detailed reports to us about how these technologies are being used and what, if any, issues are arising.
The content of this report and the chief's responses and Arlo's responses here tonight continue to give me a lot of confidence in BPD's use of the various surveillance technologies we've chosen to allow so far.
In my view, the impacts of our use of these technologies, especially the recent addition of the license plate readers, have been incredibly positive.
I've seen compelling evidence that they're helping to deter and solve crimes and are basically working as intended.
That said, given what's happening at the federal level, I think we do need to be careful going forward with all of our surveillance technologies.
But knowing that BPD is monitoring the use of these techniques and technologies at this level of detail and takes issues of privacy and data security very seriously, again, gives me confidence that we will be able to continue using these productively and responsibly.
Thanks again to BPD leadership and the officers for their work to produce this report, and I'm pleased to be able to vote to accept it tonight once we take a vote.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member Humbert.
We are moving on to Council Member Trakov.
Thank you very much again, Madam Chief and Arno.
Chief Lewis.
I would say it's late, but it's not as late as the last time.
I want to thank you for being forthcoming and so transparent with this audit report.
As someone who has done assessments in the past, one aspect that was drilled into me early on is the spirit of continuous improvement.
One thing I wanted to mention before I provide some feedback for continuous improvement is I just want to mention that this report is very comprehensive, and I thank you for it.
I think it once again demonstrates that the work of BPD represents really the apex of professionalism and transparency at a very challenging time, both locally and nationally.
With that, I appreciate having this information now, and I too, like the PAP Chair, also feel very comforted hearing your responses.
I hope that should situations like these happen in the future where there may be some questions as to who might be accessing data that may potentially impact information relating to Berkeley, that the Council would be notified at the most expeditious time practicable after due diligence has been conducted to verify and validate the integrity of such information.
I also want to thank the work of the PAP, and I think there is an opportunity here to continue working cooperatively and collaboratively between the PAP and BPD.
And to the extent that there may be some additional tightening that would be appropriate around securing the integrity of our data and safeguarding it as it must be safeguarded, I sure would be very interested in having continued conversations.
And also very interested in having such suggestions come back to the Council.
With that said, again, you mentioned these were your first audits, and I remember when we were working on a policy around this, this is certainly the kind of reporting structure and level of comprehensiveness that I had in mind.
And so I do believe that the process is working.
And so to the extent that there is always going to be room for continuous improvement, I look forward to working with you to support the execution of that as well.
Okay, thank you very much.
Council Member Bartlett, I know your hand's up, so I'm going to go to you and then come back over here.
Okay, thank you so much, Madam Mayor.
And I wanted to just also thank the team for putting this together.
This, in many ways, affirms the process we had back in the day, crafting, crafting solicitation and these policies around our collective data and the data rights attendant to the residents here.
And so it looks like the data sharing that did occur was inadvertent and not very many times.
And this appears to be sort of just par for the course of an iterative process for creating just a compliance mechanism that is responsive and precise.
And so this appears to be a very normal creation of that process.
And I'm really thankful for your responsiveness and I look forward to further iterations of this as well.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member.
Council Member Backeby.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
Thank you, Arlo.
Thank you, Chief, for being here.
Thank you, PAB Chair Cayetano, for being here.
And thank you for colleagues for, again, a very robust discussion and Q&A.
You know, as we said from the outside, I think the good news here is that the audit process is working.
Because of the audits, we found these three problematic searches.
They were flagged.
The department is responding.
We've had this hearing tonight.
We've had a thorough sort of vetting of this information.
And to me, this is an example of the kind of good, effective oversight that we want and expect.
That's the conversation we've had and we've sort of plumbed it in a very thorough way.
I'm sure, as colleagues have mentioned, I'm sure the process could be improved.
I know it can.
I know there could be more collaboration as we build more trust and just sort of relationships in this process between the various entities.
And anything I can do to continue to support that, I'd like to do.
One thought, just as we're kind of sitting here, is if there are opportunities from various time periods to do a kind of a quick review, to sort of have eyes on something before it comes to council without bogging down the process in a multi-weeks or month effort.
Is there a way to sort of do a quick check or a quick kind of eyes-on review that gives an opportunity to see something before it comes here? Again, I don't know under what circumstances.
I don't know how we can play with the Brown Act and kind of all the noticing that's needed.
But I do wonder if there's something that can meet our needs of expeditious transmittal to council, but also make sure we have the value of more participation.
I'd be interested in exploring that.
And I think, Chief, it looks like you'd be interested in exploring that, too.
The last thing I'll just comment is I think most of us are sold on the value of this technology.
The ALPRs are working.
And now the good news is, unlike when we first, I think, acquired the technology from Flock, there are multiple vendors available to provide these sorts of technologies.
And I think the good news as a purchaser of this technology is now we can be putting these vendors to the test, to out-compete each other, not on just how safe are they going to keep the community, but how safe are they going to keep our data, how much will they guard the privacy rights of our citizens.
And we should force these vendors to compete on all of those bases.
And I'm interested in doing that.
Again, I support the technology.
We should have the ALPRs.
But we should also hold vendors accountable to sort of meeting our very high performance expectations.
And I welcome that conversation.
I hope there's going to be an opportunity as we think about the next sort of wave of surveillance technology to think about the different vendors.
And again, hold them accountable, hold them to the test, and make them out-compete on the basis of all these really important requirements.
So with that said, again, I thank you for the work here.
And we'll support the adoption of the resolution and look forward to moving this forward.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council Member Castelhani.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor, Chief Lewis, Mr.
Malmberg.
Thank you for your presentation this evening.
I appreciate the transparency that you have included around those three concerning searches and the quick action that was taken to address it.
The report and your presentation tonight give me confidence that we are using these technologies to keep our community safe while safeguarding our data.
And as others have noted, we are seeing regularly that technologies like automated license plate readers are helping us to solve crimes that I think we would have a hard time solving otherwise.
And I see you nodding at that.
So I think we need to keep that in mind, that in this era of...

Segment 5

I know we have a lot of short staffing, to be quite honest.
I know we're working as hard as we can to recruit officers, but we need every tool of automation in our toolbox.
I know Councilmember Taplin has brought forward the consideration of drones that can actually act as first responders when our officers will take more time to get to the scene of a particular issue.
So I am supportive of these technologies, but also appreciate the reporting and the transparency that is being provided tonight.
So thank you very much.
Thank you.
Other comments from Councilmembers? Okay, so thank you all again very much for the report.
I want to take a huge step back and just say the fact that we have a police department where our chief really prioritizes this transparency, that we have Arlo here that's going over this data, doing this audit.
I spent a lot of time already, a good chunk of time talking to the chief today, asking about some of the questions that were brought forward by the PAB.
And I just really want to thank you, chief, for taking the time to answer my questions and kind of help me understand different pieces of it.
And just generally, I really appreciate how quickly you all responded to the ALPR concerns that came up.
And I also do want to add my comments here about my concern of technology and how it gets used in our city.
Because, of course, we acted really quickly, but we don't really know what happened with that information.
And I think that that is something that makes me concerned, and I know it's something that concerns our community as well.
And so, you know, as we're thinking about ways that we can make changes, I really thought it was great that before even doing an investigation, you decided that you were going to just cut off access.
And if that's something that should be put into writing, I know that you stated, chief, that you'd be interested in having that conversation.
So I just want to say I'm also interested in that, because I think you absolutely did the right thing.
And it's good to just kind of have things down so that we can all be clear about what that looks like moving forward.
And I also just want to make sure the community understands that.
And you said this many times, but this is like, these are our values that we care about.
We are a sanctuary city.
And so this isn't like, you know, a gotcha moment.
You know, we're really trying to make sure it's clear.
Our police department cares about this as well.
And I do really appreciate, chief.
You mentioned that in the future, you would let us know ahead of time, just giving us a flag that these things are going on.
I, too, would have really liked to have this information sooner.
And I know that Councilmember Lunapara has authored and I co-sponsored a proposed amendment to the sanctuary contracting ordinance for the November 18th council meeting that will require more timely reporting and action in the case of a violation.
And so I really want to say that that's something that I'm looking forward to and kind of making sure that everything is really tight here.
I have a bunch of other random comments.
I want to say, I also heard you say, chief, that you'd like to understand more how much time, more time is needed than 30 days if PAB needs time.
And so I just I'm hoping that you all can have that conversation.
I agree with Councilmember Trageb.
I think there are opportunities here for collaboration while also understanding that that was not a requirement of you to send it to PAB within a specific amount of time before.
So I really want to acknowledge that but appreciate your your comments are interested in and having more collaborative conversations.
Let's see.
Yes.
And and something else I want to just comment for all of us to make sure we know this is that this report comes out the same time every year.
And so knowing that I think it's good for all of us to just think about, like, what is it that we want to see? You know, how are we preparing for this report to come? So that way we can let you know ahead of time what it is we want to see.
And so another thing that I am interested in seeing is that that if there are situations in which the technology isn't being used properly, that even if it's not a citizen complaint, there was a concern brought up in the PAB about a concern that came up during an investigation about the technology.
And I understand that that's not something that was required to be part of the audit.
But that's something I am interested in knowing.
You know, if during an investigation there was a concern about how the technology was used, it would be good, I think, for us to know that.
And I believe that those are all of my comments.
I want to just thank you again.
I know this is just an immense amount of work.
And I really am proud that our officers conducted all proper searches, too.
I really want to notice that as well, because I think that that shows, you know, good training, good values, good officers.
I think that the technology, I really see the benefit of it.
And also, like everyone else has said, we want to make sure that we're using it in the right way.
So thank you all very much for being aligned with that.
And those are my comments.
Okay.
So can we take a vote, please? Okay.
To adopt the resolution to accept the report.
Council Member Kisarwani? Yes.
Taplin? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Trigub? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? Yes.
Lunapara? Yes.
Humber? Yes.
And Mary Ishii? Yes.
Okay, motion carries.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you all very much.
Are we doing okay? Can we push through? Yes.
Okay, good.
All right.
We're going to move, yeah, we're going to move on to item number 12, referral to amend Berkeley Municipal Codes 3.24.120 and 3.24.300 to improve procedure for designating landmarks, historic districts, and structures of merit.
And since Council Member Kisarwani and Council Member Humbert, you're the authors, did you have a presentation, something you want to share with us? Yes, I would be happy to make a brief presentation.
Madam Mayor, thank you for the opportunity.
First, I just want to thank everyone who has engaged with me and my co-sponsors on this item.
I want to thank Council Member Humbert, Blackabay, and Lunapara for their co-sponsorship of this item.
And first, I just want to say that I hope that our city can do a historic context statement at some point in the near future.
A historic context statement, for those of you who don't know, is a document that includes a comprehensive understanding and structure for grouping information about the city's historic, excuse me, history, historic properties, and the built environment.
We know that the costs for doing a historic context statement are around $250,000, and we have tried in recent budgets to fund that historic context statement and have been unsuccessful, so I know it's something that we will work to prioritize in the future.
Having said that, the item before us tonight is intended as a stopgap measure, because myself and my colleagues, my co-sponsors, we are concerned about what we have called some of the frivolous attempts to landmark structures in our city.
You know, I want to just acknowledge that I think we have a beautiful city with many beautiful, varied structures.
Some of them are worthy of landmarking, but I became particularly concerned with our process when, as we recall earlier this year, I believe it was in May, we had two landmarking appeals before the council in which a developer had submitted an application for a preliminary use permit under state law, SB 330, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.
In both cases, the developer was proposing a significant number of homes at sites that turned out to be unremarkable homes, and that was according to our staff report, that those homes were not worthy of landmarking.
So what we are proposing here, and this is just a referral, so I don't want folks to get too caught up in the number of signatures, whether the property owner is going to be required to sign, and how many signatures might be required if they do not sign, because we are asking our city manager and our city attorney to take a look at this, because we want to make sure that we address California Environmental Quality Act concerns and just dot our I's and cross our T's with this.
So the idea here is to increase the threshold for initiating a landmark petition, and the reason for that is because over the course of my time on the city council, I have heard about numerous attempts.
We profiled four cases in the report, but numerous attempts to landmark with, you know, essentially the same 50 people across the city signing every petition.
So the concept of increasing the signature threshold is not to prevent landmarking, but to simply ensure that a critical mass of people are in fact support of the landmarking and to try to help ensure that it is a legitimate site that is really worthy of landmarking.
And I know Councilmember Trager will probably get an opportunity to present.
I do want to just express my appreciation for his engagement and that I think that, I'll just say this, you know, to hopefully get us moving towards a resolution quickly.
The concept of asking folks to wait five years after the submission of the preliminary application under SB 330, I am very supportive of that, because I think it gets at one of the key problems we want to address, which is that, you know, once that application is submitted, the developer has vested rights, and we cannot change the rules after that.
And I know this is something that our city attorney will have to review in more detail, but I would be open to referring that concept as well with this.
And I do want to say I still think that the signature threshold has to be increased, because it's not just the big projects where we're seeing this happen.
Two of our case studies are about smaller projects.
We had just a single-family home that wasn't really a significant site in which, you know, about 57 neighbors decided that they wanted to landmark it.
And that was done after it became known that that property owner needed to do some remodeling so that they could be able to house an elderly parent.
So I just want to make sure we treat everybody fairly, that we're not ensnaring homeowners who have sort of an honest desire to remodel their home to meet their changing family needs, you know, to be able to do that.
So let me pause there, and I know we still need to take public comment and all of that.
So thank you very much for the opportunity to present.
Thank you.
I would like actually Councilmember Trajkup to—unless you want to add to the presentation, Councilmember Humbert? Well, I have comments to make, but— It would be helpful, I think, to hear also from Councilmember Trajkup, and then I'll go to comments since he's also got a supplemental.
I think that's fine.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And I, too, would like to echo the gratitude expressed by Councilmember Cassavany.
Thank you for teeing off this issue.
So my supplemental builds upon the original proposal, and specifically supplemental one.
And it purports to do two things.
One, as has already been mentioned, many of the examples that were provided in the Councilmember Cassavany report and also what I believe to be the concern in the community is around applications that receive their preliminary SB330 entitlement are then suddenly part of the process of being an application for landmarking going in.
And so I hope that that recommendation directly addresses the concern.
The second part of the recommendation is simply to streamline the number of signatures to 200 in all cases.
And I use that number, I mean, supplemental one was a starting point for that.
I am concerned about staff time involved in figuring out not just, well, the staff time involved in counting 400 signatures, but also what is going to be the mechanism to determine whether the property owner of the application up for landmarking being supportive of it.
What is that going to look like? And what happens if, say, they do not respond to it? So the 200 number, I feel, I mean, that is a fourfold increase from the current number of 50.
I believe it provides the appropriate threshold while still allowing the process to move forward in certain cases.
And, again, I look forward to the discussion on the council.
I think that we can find a middle ground here as well, or perhaps refer both to the city manager and the city attorney.
But I, like everyone on the council, support all three Ps of housing, production, protection, and preservation.
Thank you.
Okay, so those were the two presentations on the supplement, well, both the item and the supplementals this evening.
And so I'm going to go to Council Member Humbert, actually was going to take questions first.
Do you have questions and comments? No, I have mainly comments.
So, I mean, I suppose I could wait until after public comment.
Sorry.
Okay.
I'll put you first in the queue.
How's that? Okay.
Other questions? Do we have questions from Council Member Taplin? Yeah, I have two questions.
First is, I just wanted to, if someone could clarify what the third P of the three Ps is.
It's my understanding that it's preservation of existing affordable housing.
Is that correct? Existing naturally occurring affordable housing.
And so is it correct that if you own a property and do not wish to landmark it, it can be landmarked against your will? Is that correct? Yes.
Well, I got my answer, but it was a question for whomever was able to answer.
Council Member Taplin, yes, that is what we have found.
And one of the case studies that we described is a situation in which the property owner wanted to remodel their home, and it was the neighbors who initiated the landmarking.
Ultimately, they reached a compromise, but it was not something that the homeowner initiated.
I don't want to speak for them, but they didn't seem to support it initially.
And it was done in response to the homeowner desiring to make the property, the modifications to enable, make it possible to house their elderly family member.
Yes, that is correct.
Thank you.
No further questions.
Thank you.
Other questions from Council Members? Council Member Bartlett, I'm sorry, I see your hand.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And thank you, Council Member Gosarwani, for your work here.
Without a doubt, the landmark process has been tricky for quite some time.
The group that sort of runs it tends toward a certain cultural affinity that ignores others.
I've noticed this through the years.
And then you also have what I think you're responding to, which I also was very upset about, that would appear to us to be an abusive process with those two parcels downtown.
And so I guess, you know, my question is, I guess trying to understand what the process would be for the city manager to go through this and come back with recommendations at it.
And then second, I guess maybe this one question only, is, you know, because again, as we do this, I don't know what the right number is.
Is it 200 people? Is it 400? Is it 80? I'm cognizant of the burden of an ordinary person who has studied something historical and found something amazing that wants to share with people and to get it landmarked.
And I'm cognizant of an ordinary person who's not an activist, not an organizer, not one of us, but a person who can talk to their neighbors.
I don't know what the right burden is in that person.
That's also fair.
And so my question is, I wonder, I would have loved to have heard this at my committee, the Land Use Committee, and discuss this with you and gone through it.
I wonder why we avoided the committee process for this one.
Council Member Bartlett, if I may, just to address your first question about, you know, what is the appropriate signature threshold? I think that is, to be honest, a question that my Brown Act circle and I struggled with as well.
And we did consult with our planning staff about it.
And I just want to remind you that this is a referral.
And, you know, I'm open to referring, you know, my version as well as Council Member Tragoob's version, which just provides for the straight 200 signatures, and have that be reviewed by our city manager, you know, planning department and city attorney, and come back to us so that we can then make a determination as to what's best.
What I know for sure is that 50 should be increased.
Did you have follow-up questions, Council Member? Just a question about the committee process.
I'm wondering why you didn't want to bring it to me at Land Use Committee.
I'm a very friendly audience there.
You know this.
Yes.
You know, that is a decision made by the Agenda and Rules Committee.
So I would defer to anyone on that committee who would want to speak to that.
Sure.
For me, I would say that given that the item does not recommend final amendments to the BMC, it's a referral to the city manager and city attorney to produce recommendations subsequent.
It would make more sense to me to send that work product or whatever they return to the Land Use Committee, because that's closer to when the full council would vote on the final recommendation.
And it's, in my opinion, it's best practice to make referrals as least prescriptive as possible.
I would worry that had we sent this to committee that the recommendation might result in a more narrow prescriptive recommendation, which would then render the referral to the city manager and city attorney not necessarily moot, but it would kind of predetermine how council would vote, which is not ideal for the committee process, in my opinion.
Did you want to respond to that, Council Member Humbert? I thought I saw you.
No, I don't.
Although I do want to join in Council Member Taplin's comments.
Yeah, I think I was the lone person who wanted to move this to Land Use, but I agreed.
You know, I understand why you wanted to keep it on the agenda.
I think my feeling is that oftentimes it can be really valuable to send things to committee so that folks can kind of have some time to work out the details.
And perhaps Council Member Trager would have brought his piece to the Land Use, and then we could have figured out what it looked like a little bit more together.
And so I think that was my thought, not that I knew what Council Member Trager was doing, but just that if there were other opportunities for council members to weigh in, then by the time I came here, we might be more aligned.
But I don't think that we're far, so I think it's OK.
But just to address your question, Council Member Bartlett.
OK, thanks very much.
Yeah.
Oh, did you have questions, Council Member Apif? I actually have a question for the city manager.
I'm a little surprised at how sort of loose these numbers seem to be, because my read on this referral, it seems pretty prescriptive.
Let's say we pass it with 200.
The way it's written, it seems fairly prescriptive, like come back with a recommendation, changing it to 200.
And so my question for the city manager is, if this is passed, how much leeway do you feel you have to produce a different number? I've worked with staff in the planning department and the city attorney's office, first to assess what kind of workload issues do we think that might present.
If it seems minimal, then it's purely a policy call, then I would just come back and say 200 is not an issue for us at the staff level to manage.
And some of the other aspects of this are pretty straightforward as well.
So, you know, there may be some legal issues with, I don't know, state law.
I don't know.
But we would confer with each other.
And if it seemed like we would need to make a recommendation to improve it on an operational or legal side, we'd bring that back.
Otherwise, we would just bring back what you guys proposed.
Okay, so it sounds like you wouldn't necessarily be making a change for policy reasons, just for sort of like legal issues or staff issues.
Correct.
Okay, thank you.
So it seems like we should give some serious thought about what number we propose, because I think that's up to us.
And just following up on what you just said, Mr.
City Manager, for our city attorney, are there things that you wanted to flag? I know you just, someone mentioned that FEMA might have some thoughts, so I'd like to see if you have any thoughts.
I don't have any thoughts in terms of legal issues.
It's a referral, so we're going to take the opportunity to do a deep dive.
Generally, I don't see any red flags with the proposal or the SOPS.
Thank you.
And also for the City Manager, a question was asked earlier about, or a concern was made about how staff might go through signatures, but my understanding is that it would be the same process that's currently done for the 50 signatures.
Is that right? That's correct.
Okay.
And could you just briefly? Staff doesn't attempt to verify each signature against a voter roll or anything like that.
We just have a look at them, try to make sure there wasn't just one person with the same handwriting.
We did 50.
But it's sort of a cursory check of them.
Okay, that's good to know.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much.
Any other questions? Council Member Bartlett, do you have your hand up just from before? Sorry, that was a remnant.
Okay.
Thank you.
Do we have any public comment on this item? We're on item number 12, which is the referral to amendment, Berkeley Municipal Codes.
Yeah.
Okay, we've got some folks coming up.
How many? Okay, so I think given that we have many people, we will have one minute per.
One minute is fine.
Good evening.
I'm Dr.
Stephen Alpert, a resident of District 5.
I'm here to oppose the unjustified minor proposed changes to the Landmark Preservation Ordinance.
The original requirement, which I understand has changed only suddenly from 50 to 400 signatures, is certainly excessive.
But my main comment is with the recent passage of the Middle Housing Ordinance and the proposed upzoning of the Solano College and North Shattuck Avenues, city staff and this council have demonstrated complete disregard for the unique architectural character and heritage of Berkeley and the determination to transform the city to a landscaping of nondescript apartments.
Thank you.
Good evening.
I'm Dr.
Celeste Marks.
The proposed change to the Landmark Preservation Ordinance, going from 50 signatures to 400 signatures, is excessive.
This council showed its disdain when it overruled the landmark status supported by Baja for two properties to allow a 20-story building at the site of an 1886 Victorian 2421 Durant and an 8-story building to replace a 1906 Georgian Revival at 2138 Kittredge.
I do not support any change to this law.
Nothing is justified.
Thank you.
Hello, Brandon Young.
I'm on the Zoning Adjustments Board, D2 resident.
One of the issues with SB 330 is that actually it doesn't change how CEQA interacts with landmarking, and if you see a lot of the permits that we've dealt with, have CEQA be a huge issue.
I sent you an email with one of the projects where there was a four-year delay, even after it was landmarked after the SB 330 preliminary application.
I support combining RASHE and the main item, and what's important, what's more important than number of signatures, is that we require owner consent for third-party petitions.
The state of Washington recently outlawed everyone.
They outlawed local governments from landmarking properties without the owner's permission.
Say what? That's our peer West Coast state.
LPC can always self-initiate, and that's a better approach.
If someone goes to LPC and asks them to self-initiate, it's more public, it's more civic, it's better than having neighbors go behind neighbors' backs and initiate landmarking to try to stop progress.
I mean a permit or either of those two things.
Let's see.
After this, we're in dire need of more structural LPC reform.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm sure I caught those last few words, but thank you for your comment.
Go ahead.
Hi.
I think you can't really take this out of the context of the middle housing either, because as far as the public being heard, it seems like a slap to us to curtail, because although it takes you a lot of time.

Segment 6

I would like to start by saying that if you're in a position and you might feel it's an abuse of your time, I think you want to smooth over the oil that's roiling, where we feel like our time is not also respected.
Because the people that know about history and architecture probably know a lot more than any of us.
So I think it's important to approach your neighbors and get 50 signatures.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
Hi, I'm Amelia.
I wasn't planning on speaking tonight.
The amendment to further disempower your constituents is both unnecessary and mean-spirited, as is the disdainful language around your constituents' frivolous concerns about maintaining the feel of the neighborhood.
Like, did a bulldozer write this? Come on.
There's some mean language in here.
The case studies cited in this amendment are all examples of the current policy working democratically as intended.
You listed four stories of concerned neighbors coming together to protect something they love and losing at the cost of delaying a bulldozer.
Okay, the argument that people only fight for protected status when they know the thing they love is getting bulldozed is absurd.
You didn't ask the firefighters why they only use hoses on buildings that are on fire.
I appreciate that you've since realized you created a logistical nightmare for yourselves.
But the idea.
Thank you.
Good evening, council members.
I'm Steve and I come on the landmarks commission, but I'm speaking as an individual.
So a little bit of context here.
The landmarks ordinance has been around for about 50 years.
We have, I think, about 400 landmarks out of about 20,000 parcels or buildings in Berkeley.
That's an average of about eight designations a year.
And since many of them were done in the early years, we've had far fewer than that recently.
It's simply not the case that this is popping up all the time.
And a lot of the information that was given to the council council member is incomplete.
And I wish I could speak to the actual what actually happened, those initiations.
I do want to say that one thing that I hope you will do.
First, I think you should refer the general concept, not exact specifics.
But I really hope you refer to the landmarks commission as well for its comments, because the commission, your appointees work really hard and have a lot of expertise to share with you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Moving on.
I currently have nine hands raised online.
The first speaker is David Shear.
Hi, I am speaking in support of item 12 tonight as well as supplemental one.
There's a really telling line in a Berkeley article that 400 signatures can be challenging for a niche topic like landmark status.
And I think that says it all.
This is a niche.
It is a hobby for some people, and that is fine and good.
I have my hobbies, but that hobby and that preference for a certain aesthetic should not have any force of law whatsoever.
This proposal tonight is a moderate and truly incremental reform, someone called going from 50 to 400 extreme 50 signatures is extreme.
And I'll point out we have about 120,000 people in this town, 400 signatures is one third of 1% of the population.
Next is city of Berkeley has a long and storied history of placing the interests of buildings over the interests of people.
That is what the neighborhood preservation ordinance was and it devastated this town.
We need to completely turn away from that legacy.
And I hope that you will take a step in that direction today.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is just says iPhone three.
Evening, mayor and council members.
This is Kathleen Crandall.
I'm vice chair of the landmarks commission.
I'm speaking tonight.
As an independent voice, but I have served 8 years on the commission.
And so if you follow the bulls votes, you know, I've often been the dissenting voice voice for many of the same reasons council member question why has raised I agree with her that reform is needed.
With respect to myself, Berkeley district, as appointed by council member Bartlett, I urge you to take a little more time.
Even the late changes for raising the signature threshold 200 and 400 deserves more discussion and nuance.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I appreciate your summary asked me to point out also in emphasize the Japanese American community in this conversation.
While the LPC works hard to protect our history and Kathleen, I'm sorry.
Amen.
Thank you.
I just wanted to weigh in briefly on this, and I agree with the prior comments that the specifics here, in terms of the 50 or 200 or 400, or the.
But I think the fact that the system produces only frivolous applications is very, very misguided.
The substantive requirements for making a landmark determination are already in the law or in the code.
So those should be what you're guided by.
It doesn't matter whether the number is 50 or 150.
But the substantive question of whether something meets the landmark designation is already in the municipal code, and that should be respected.
I don't think you shut down people's voices and deem everything to be frivolous without allowing things to go forward and be decided on their own merits.
That's backwards, and it's denying people a voice.
Thank you.
Next is Leila Mankar.
Leila? Isaac Warshower, if he called in.
I don't know if he did.
Yes, Isaac is on.
Isaac, are you yielding your minute to Leila? I yield my minute.
Thank you.
So do I have two minutes now? Yes, you have two minutes.
Thank you.
So I'm the president of Baja.
I've been on the Baja board for 15 years.
I'm a land use attorney, and I have quite a lot of experience with preservation.
Thank you.
Can you say one sentence, because that's all I'm going to say about this.
There's a big difference between evidence and wives tales, evidence, and hearsay, evidence, and conjecture.
And I think that there really is.
But right now, there is this pending matter that we need to respond to.
And it is important.
There was a comment that the people that do the organizing or whatever don't care about the cultural whatever.
And I think that there is a lot of work to be done.
There's a major project going on with UC with the San Pablo neighborhood, San Pablo Park neighborhood.
We have invested a lot of money.
UC has invested a lot of money in doing something to talk about that neighborhood and how it survived many years of abuse and prejudice.
And we have to be able to work with the council.
And we can't do that if we've got a bad relationship.
Right now, we don't have a very good relationship with you folks.
And that's really too bad, because it may cost that project.
But right now, let's talk about what's in front of us.
I think that the council member, Trev, appreciate his effort.
I think that he at least zeroed in on the two issues that were brought up to us, which was SB330 and also the staff time.
That's what we got told, that it wasn't going to be a hate scene.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
All right.
Let's go to Darrell Mullins.
Darrell, go ahead.
Go ahead.
Darrell, I see you're unmuted.
You should be able to keep your comments.
All right.
Let's go to Sarah Bell.
Hi, Sarah Bell.
I'm calling in from D1, here to support the item and supplemental one.
California has seen cases of parking lots and gas stations landmarked in order to prevent housing construction.
Landmarking is, it's possible to block anything with landmarking.
The question is, how does it work? And how does it work? The answer is, the signature threshold.
50 seems way too low for a city of Berkeley size.
200 is very reasonable and may even be on the low side.
Landmarking in the context of middle housing is extra important.
Middle housing projects are already very difficult to pencil.
And if there's this background threat that people who don't like your project, neighbors, might try to landmark your structure, then that could have a chilling effect across the city.
The question is, how does it work? The answer is, there are a lot of requirements going up on every petition, requiring neighbors who are more likely to be familiar with the site to sign the petition is a great solution for the problem that a small fraction of the city can block almost any project.
In summary, these reforms are great.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Let's try Darrell Owens one more time.
Go ahead, Darrell.
It's unmuted, but we're not hearing anything.
Sorry, Darrell.
We'll come back at the end.
Oh, there he is.
Okay.
Try it again, Darrell.
Okay.
All right.
Sorry, I gave my whole comment, didn't realize I wasn't being heard.
Okay.
Basically, I really love the work Baja does.
And I think that historic preservation is extremely important.
So I did have issues with the original item.
And I think it's important to make sure that it's landmark worthy.
So, but that said, I think Igor supplemental really nails the issue.
Which is that SB three 30 basically prohibits the use of landmarking to obstruct.
Or impede in any way incoming housing.
So we.
So, essentially cutting that off so that we don't waste time on that is just a good idea.
And long-term, I think that a better approach to landmarking would be a census approach where we look at the city comprehensively.
Rather than on a case by case basis.
Okay.
Thank you.
Next is Theo Gordon.
Thank you.
So, I'm speaking in favor of the original measure as well as supplemental one.
While there are a lot of historical buildings in Berkeley, it's clearly existing process is not used to preserve resources.
It's used as yet another veto point.
And from the same old characters.
Got in touch with both what the people in the city had voted for.
And that's what the housing prices were in.
At a recent landmarks meeting, they said that if we don't make a unilateral veto, the housing laws that are passed by Berkeley's own and popular elected Buffy wicks.
And we city resources and council time.
And they need to be reined in.
I know that people want to make this about SB three 30.
The commission knows about SB three 30, and yet has continuously tried to hold up projects that they know are going to be.
Turned down at council because of SB three 30.
They have, because.
If they are going to be violating these laws and wasting all of our time.
If we don't make a unilateral veto.
Then we need to raise the threshold.
400, a thousand signatures.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Next is Kelly hammering.
Hey, can you hear me? Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
So, what is worth landmarking for the landmarking ordinance in the first place? There is a misconception that landmarking stops construction from what I've often seen buildings that were a landmark years ago, decades ago.
I demolished anyway, and we get a plaque on the new building describing what was there.
What is worth landmarking for one person, but I don't think that's true.
I think it's really disappointing that it didn't go there because we could have had a full rich discussion.
The problem with SB three 30 is those applications are submitted before.
The project application is complete.
We don't even know that it's there.
And just to the community for any member that needs signature.
With my eyes.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Susan or butch.
Now we have one more after that.
Okay, Susan, you should be able to unmute.
Yes.
Hi.
I am on the landmark preservation commission and I'm.
Been appointed to represent district five.
Thank you, Susan.
I just wanted to say, I appreciate the concerns that you have, especially based on the appeals that have come before you over the last year.
Regarding to the SB.
Three 30 applications that came before you.
There was some question as to whether it was okay to landmark or not.
And I don't think it's okay.
Because during the process that was evaluated and found.
That that's not how the city or perhaps even the state, although we're not clear interprets it.
And so I don't think you'll see the commission.
Taking that step in the future now that it's clear how we're interpreting the law.
Thank you.
Thank you.
But if you, if you want to finish that thought, you can feel free to email us.
I know you've been in touch with your council member as well.
Okay.
Last.
Constructive about the website.
So I do want to know what it was.
Okay.
Thank you.
Hello.
Can you hear me? Yes.
Yeah.
I.
Moved to Berkeley in 1974.
And.
I just want to say Berkeley is unique.
It is.
You're going to kill the goose.
If you keep going on.
Putting in these steel structures that are eight stories high, and you're making it look like a corporate city.
And you're ruining.
A beautiful.
People come from all over the world.
For our neighborhood field for the quality of the community.
You're making it look like.
Another corporate city.
And of course we have to preserve our historic buildings.
Of course we shouldn't have more than 50 people signing.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
I promise council member home, but I've let him go first.
So go ahead.
Thank you, madam mayor.
And I want to say, I really listen carefully to the.
The public comments made here tonight.
A lot of them were very thoughtful.
I want to thank council member.
For bringing forward this overdue reform.
And for allowing me to be a co-sponsor.
On the proposal.
In past comments we've adjudicated.
In past instances where we adjudicated individual landmark applications.
I've expressed my position.
But it's important for us to keep the ultimate public purpose.
Of landmark preservation efforts in mind.
As we consider potential landmarks.
And that ultimate public purpose is to benefit the people of Berkeley.
Serving that ultimate purpose also demands that we re-evaluate our landmarking procedures from time to time.
When the negative impacts of our preservation efforts start to outweigh the positive impacts.
It's time to consider reform.
And I feel we've been seeing that happen with increasing frequency.
With more landmarks initiated for the specific purpose of blocking new housing.
And some landmark applications don't seem to be fully meet.
In the fairly liberal criteria established by our ordinance.
These sorts of efforts also take up the time of staff.
And the preservation commission as well.
I therefore agree with council member Keserwani.
That we need to raise the bar for initiation.
Of a landmark.
I also think we ought to probably send.
Both the Keserwani item.
And the Tragoob item to the city manager.
And city attorney.
So I send them both.
I do want to say that when we establish a landmark.
It should be an expression of broad community appreciation for a structure.
Or other historic resource.
And what it contributes to the community.
When a small and self-selected group of people are able to repeatedly.
Initiate landmarks with minimal effort and community support.
Our landmarks procedures are no longer effectively.
Serving that broad public interest.
And there's room to tinker with the number of signatures.
And.
But I do think that one critical element is.
The number of signatures ought to vary depending on whether the owner.
Consents to the landmarking.
Because we've seen.
We've seen, you know, at least one significant case of abuse.
Where the neighbors attempted to override.
The owner, the owner's legitimate concerns.
So, again, thank you.
I appreciate being invited to be a co-sponsor.
And I look forward to moving this and the Tragoob.
Item as a, as referrals to the city manager and city attorney.
Thanks.
Point of clarification.
Thank you.
What would it look like if we were to send both? Because I just want to make sure I'm understanding how you're both imagining that would look.
Yes.
Thank you, Madam mayor.
It was my intention.
And I don't know if customer had made the motion.
I was saying he would support such a motion.
I'm just going to say that.
The way that it works is so.
So the concept that, that we have put forward in, in the item that I authored is.
The idea of increasing the threshold to 200.
And having the property owner sign and barring the property owner signature, requiring a greater threshold.
We happen to say 400, although that could easily be amended upon return.
So, you know, I think what we're saying is we want to consider that concept of a differentiation between whether the owner signs or not, as you can see it, these are very minimal edits to the ordinance.
There's just two places where this would happen.
But I, and I think that what council member Tragoob has brought up with.
Isolating for those SB three 30 applications and putting in a five year freeze.
So, you know, I think we just want to refer both concepts to staff.
I'm comfortable with that and allow them to present any, any further considerations that we haven't thought of.
You know, I know, I know you've already talked about.
The administrative.
Process for verifying the signatures.
You know, my understanding is there, there may, I appreciate that the city attorney said that she didn't see any major legal issues.
I don't think there are major legal issues, but we worded it as a referral because we understood that there could be some potential CEQA.
Issues and, and obviously with this introduction of the SB three 35 year freeze that you just want to take a look at that.
So, so that's how I think it would work.
And ultimately, you know, the council would have to decide between the two or, or some hybrid when this returns.
Does that answer the question? Madam mayor? Yes.
Thank you.
And I, I guess I wanted to make sure.
That if we, if we sent it over that I wasn't clear about like the numbers since we're on, it doesn't sound like we're really clear about which numbers we're using.
If they would also make recommendations on numbers as well.
Love signatures.
I think we would just bring back to you, the options that you presented and that you make that policy choice.
Okay.
Yeah.
Figured.
I just wanted to make sure.
Okay.
All right.
Moving forward on our queue council member.
Thank you.
So would that, I would like to motion to refer.
Supplementals one and two.
To the city manager and the city attorney.
That's my motion.
Second.
Thank you.
Okay.
Council member Kaplan.
Thank you.
I was not aware of that.
So I, you know, please be patient with me, but I'm.
Just to respond to a couple of things.
I'm not quite sure what this item has to do with the middle housing ordinance, other than the same people who don't like.
Apartments don't like.
Middle housing and don't like housing or people in the neighborhoods.
I am.
To ever spoke about black neighborhood, the Southwest Berkeley.
I spend a lot of time in those neighborhoods.
And there are a few things I can say about those neighborhoods.
One of which is that the neighbor preservation ordinance.
Didn't really increase the black population.
Another thing I can say is that.
We are fully capable of.
What we want to see, especially when it comes to our properties.
The idea that someone could have their home.
Landmarked without their consent.
Is to me, ridiculous.
And here's why.
When my family moved here in the 60s.
It wasn't because they were enamored of what was ever happening to them.
And the few places they were allowed to live.
So the idea that.
If my grandmother chose to subdivide her house or.
Add an additional feature to it.
And they're just so happened to be.
Some kind of.
Structure that a small group of people thought was going to be So the idea that if my grandmother chose to subdivide her house or.
Add an additional feature to it.
And they're just so happened to be some kind of.
Structure that a small group of people thought was meritorious.
She would.
Have her rights impeded.
After.
So.
Centuries of my family and during that to me.
It's so far.
A foul of who we are as a city and what we stand for.
And in closing.
Oh, yeah.
So I would support 400 signatures for the.
The properties.
The owner does not want it landmarked.
I would support 600.
And I'll say in closing.
I don't think anything.
That any of you or any of the folks who moved here.
Any of that, that you found appealing, I doubt would have ever occurred if Berkeley had been frozen in amber, how the time you had gotten here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm going to go to council member Bartlett.
It was online and then I'll, I'll come back here.
I just want to echo.
Council member.
On.
Council member Chaplin's comments.
You know, The.
Home land ownership is wealth in America.
And the world, it is the key to wealth.
And so, you know, far be it from any of us.
To prevent anyone from actualizing.
Their family's prosperity.
And so, and, and, and I hate to even bring this up because I, I really would like the landmarks preservation committee, the landmarks people, the landmark process, the landmark philosophy, the landmark landmark doctrine.
To move away.
From this concept of utilizing landmarking.
To, to, to, to impede economic growth, to impede housing, to impede.
You know, what you see as an affront to what the city is.
To stop missing middle, et cetera.
It really should be a cultural thing.
It really should be a celebration of culture.
Like you happen to know this place over here.
Where this amazing thing happened in 1920.
It should be a celebration of culture.
And bring that story out.
Because I'm into the museums.
I'm into this.
But that is a true, a true use of your energies and your powers.
And I think you lose your way when you're trying to prevent.
Missing middle or prevent housing production.
It's just, it's not appropriate.
Thank you.
On something that I've been, that I've heard brought up a lot.
And I think, I think it's important to talk about.
Of people bringing up the quote, ugly corporate buildings going up in Berkeley.
I want to emphasize that those new buildings are people's homes.
Like people actually live there.
And people's homes of all income levels as most of them have deep I think it kind of depends on the new building, but I want to point out that when you're saying that you were speaking really poorly on someone else's home and livelihood.
And we tend to think and talk about tenants homes as fundamentally different to homeowners homes.
And I think that that's really disgusting and I, it really comes out in some of these conversations.
Anyway, I also, I want to.
Emphasize that also that the landmarks preservation commission.
And.
At least in the past couple of years has, has.
Shifted politically.

Segment 7

Board of Supreme Courts Board of Congress s have been working on it also.
Anyway, I think these changes are really important and I want to thank Council Member Katsiwani for bringing this forward and allowing me to co-sponsor and for Council Member Trago for his very thoughtful step 2.
I support moving the process forward, kind of keeping the conversation going.
I will say a piece of this that Council Member Katsiwani brought up, I think Daryl Owens mentioned this in public comment and other people have noted, I too, especially as we're talking about more rezoning on San Pablo Ave in the corridors and thinking about some of these changes, this does feel like it is the time to kind of launch this historical resource survey to make sure that as we're moving forward we're also being strategic and smart about those locations that might be worthy of historic preservation.
But let's do it in a strategic way.
Let's do it as a community and looking more proactively than sort of reacting one at a time to individual properties because of the potential for development that might be happening.
I know we do have budget constraints, but I would really support trying to find some money soon in the budget cycle to support that kind of study, which would allow us again to be more proactive and thoughtful and strategic about those resources we do want to preserve while allowing us to continue building housing in as many places as we can.
That makes sense for us as a city.
So thanks again for authoring this and I will be supporting it.
Thank you.
Council Member O'Keefe.
Yes, I'm going to introduce a new argument.
Actually, it's not new.
I think it's captured in Council Member Tragoob's supplement, which is I actually do not believe we should differentiate between owner initiated and not.
I think that's the way to go.
Because if you kind of think about the philosophy, like what is the purpose? What is the purpose of a landmark designation? It's like it's owned.
It's the community recognizing a community value in a property.
It's like it's saying that I know this belongs to somebody, but it kind of belongs to all of us.
So we're going to restrict what you can do with it.
And if you think about it as the community identifying a community value, I actually don't think that the owner should get more of a vote than everyone else.
So that's that.
Actually, I liked the flattening of the owner not owner distinction.
However, I really appreciate Council Member Taplin's comments.
I think he painted a very clear picture of how this can go wrong.
So I also at the same time, I do completely agree that we need to raise the signature threshold and perhaps even more so.
Because, you know, if a property really is truly such a value to the community that we are going to impinge the property rights of the owner, it has to be really, really real.
It has to be really, really strongly felt by the community and that's represented through signatures.
So I would propose, I guess I'm fine with the motion because I think it's just kind of we're kind of kicking the can down the road a little bit on terms of numbers.
So that's fine.
We don't have to decide this now, but I'm just saying what I think.
But like if I was writing it, you know, you guys said, you know, right now, what are you going to do? I would say something like raising it, but flattening the owner, not an owner issue.
So that's what I would like to see, but I'll support the motion.
Thank you.
I really want to appreciate the removal of the radius.
I know we haven't talked about that yet, but I do think that that makes sense.
Someone brought up a comment at Council a while back.
I think it was here.
I don't know, but about apartment buildings, like it's hard to access them.
And so I think that that makes sense.
I really appreciate you taking that feedback and thinking about it.
And I really want to appreciate Councilmember Bartlett's comments about what gets landmarked as historic.
I think that's really important to bring that up, considering we have a very diverse community and it's oftentimes communities of color that have their histories erased.
So I really appreciate that.
And thank you also, Councilmember Taplin, for your comments in that vein.
I think it's really impossible to deny that some of the attempts to landmark were initiated in order to prevent housing from being built.
And of course, that's not all instances, but I think that that has happened.
And I really appreciate Councilmember Lenaparra's comments.
I want to uplift those about these are people's homes.
And when we say those buildings are really ugly, we're saying your home is ugly to people.
And I do support increasing the signatures.
I think 50 is way too low.
And also knowing that we aren't super intense about how we audit those signatures also, it was interesting to hear.
And so I do want to say and to your comments, Councilmember O'Keefe, something that came up for me literally as you were saying it, I see it less as there's sort of a difference between whether it's initiated by the homeowner or initiated by someone else, a member of the public.
I think the way that I'm framing it in my mind is actually that it's easier to landmark something as the homeowner.
So kind of flipping the way that you're looking at it a little bit that we're actually making it easier for the homeowner as opposed to what the higher threshold would be.
Does that make sense? No.
No.
All right.
It's getting late.
Let's just wrap this up.
Thank you all.
I appreciate it.
All right.
So we have a motion on the floor.
I think Councilmember Humbert was.
Okay.
So the motion is to for both the proposal from Councilmember Chris Cerwani in Step 1 and the proposal from Councilmember Tregev in Step 2 to be referred to the City Manager and the City Attorney.
On the motion, Councilmember Chris Cerwani? Yes.
Taplin? Yes.
Bartlett? He's not on anymore.
Yeah.
Councilmember Bartlett, on the motion.
Sorry.
I had to run and check on it.
Can you repeat the motion? The motion is to refer the proposal from Councilmember Tregev to the City Manager and City Attorney.
Yes.
Tregev? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackaby? Yes.
Munapara? Yes.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay.
Thank you all.
Thanks very much.
So moving on to public comment for items not listed on the agenda, do we have any public comment? Yes.
Okay.
We have a couple people walking over.
Go ahead.
I just want to build a little bit on what one of the items earlier about Sorry.
This is just for items not on the agenda.
Right.
Not on the agenda.
I wanted to say that living in the flatlands, I've noticed in the past couple years a high increase in the number of trees being cut down.
And my neighbors and other residents tell me that their insurance companies are demanding that they cut down trees on the clear property.
And I've heard people put up signs saying, I'm really sorry.
My tree was cut.
I had to cut down my tree.
I was ordered to.
And so when you're dealing with the one side of the coin is fire in the hills, but the other side is environment and greenery in the flatlands.
And you should be paying attention to this issue in the long term because Berkeley fought long and hard to get street trees and parks and everything in the flatlands.
And that's all sort of in question now because private parties, insurance companies in general are saying, and PG&E too is saying in the flatlands, get rid of trees.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Carl Hansen, 45 years in Berkeley.
I wanted to discuss the University Avenue West bus stops project, which is happening at Bone Arm University about a block away.
And I hope you'll take a look at it personally so you know what I'm talking about.
What they've done is removed six parking lots, six parking spots and put concrete on a long strip there where there was room to pull over and let people out or other things.
So there's only two lanes of traffic now.
And as I understand it, the bus stop will now be stopping in one of the two lanes of traffic, which before they could pull over into the parking lot.
So they've removed six parking spaces.
There's actually, you know, the bus stop had parking there so you could pull over.
That's been eliminated and six parking spaces have been eliminated.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
Feel free, if you've got other thoughts, feel free to send them to us.
Thank you.
I was talking to her husband and the call came in from her that she had just had a car accident.
So this is approaching San Pablo from Dwight Way and she a semi, a big semi was making a left turn and it moved her over.
She had to swerve because it was the biggest truck she'd ever seen.
And she had to swerve to the right to get out of the way and she hit a car, which there's no police report.
I just told her that she should report it to the city council because her car was damaged but the other car was just scraped.
So there was no police report.
She just reported it to insurance.
But I told her to write to you, just so you should know that it was in the early morning and that it was in the evening.
So there was no place for her to go.
Backed up truck.
Thank you.
One speaker online.
Two speakers online.
First is Kelly Hammergren.
I agree with the people who commented earlier about this about San Pablo and taking up to that project at 11 o'clock at night.
I think that they really do deserve a work session that's earlier in the day.
I'm also kind of concerned with the attitude that I hear from council about descriptions about housing.
It should not be that because someone is low income, they need to live in an unattractive design project.
Architects can design great livable and attractive multi-unit buildings.
They do it in Oakland.
They do it all over the world.
Why can't we have attractive multi-unit affordable housing here in Berkeley? Thank you.
Okay.
Thanks, Kelly.
Okay.
The final commenter is Theo Gordon.
Might as well give a general comment.
I actually wanted to echo what people were saying about San Pablo.
I think that this overall corridor project is being a little bit too myopic and it would be better if we did one big upzoning for every commercial corridor and treated them the same.
Thanks, Theo.
And that is it.
Okay.
Thank you all very much for your public comment.
Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved.
Second.
Okay.
Excuse me, folks.
We are still doing the city's business.
There is a second.
Okay.
There is a second from Councilmember O'Keefe.
Okay.
Okay.
We are adjourned.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
We are adjourned.
We are adjourned.
Thank you all.