Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2024-08-13 17:09:02 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_d5231cbe-3ef1-11ef-8c72-005056a89546.ogg

Segment 1

Recording in progress.
Yes, yes.
Good evening.
Thank you for waiting patiently.
We're about to begin tonight's Berkeley city council meeting.
Okay, good evening.
I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the Berkeley city council for Tuesday, July 9th, 2024.
The 1st order of business is roll call the city clerk and please call the roll.
Council member Kesarwani here.
Kaplan presence Bartlett here.
Very good present on present.
I'm going to call to order.
Council member Kesarwani here and I'm going to call to order.
Council member Kesarwani here.
Wengraff present.
Yes, here, and, and mayor Eric present.
Okay.
All members are present.
Thank you.
We'll proceed now to the land acknowledgement statement at the 1st city council meeting of the month.
We read the land acknowledgement statement publicly.
I'm going to call to order the land acknowledgement statement at the 1st city council meeting of the month.
We read the land acknowledgement statement on the territory of Huchun, the ancestral unseated land of the Chicheno speaking alone, the people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verna band of Alameda County.
I'm going to call to order the land acknowledgement statement at the 1st city council meeting of the month.
I'm going to call to order the land acknowledgement statement on the territory of Huchun, the ancestral unseated land of Alameda County.
As we begin our meeting tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley.
The documented 5000 year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley show them.
It's not only vital that we recognize the history of the slam, but we also recognize that the only people are present members of Berkeley and other East Bay communities.
Today, the city of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the John and other alone, the tribes and create meaningful actions to uphold the intention of the slam acknowledgement.
Thank you.
Before I proceed to ceremonial matters, just a few announcements.
I'd like to report out from the actions of city council took yesterday afternoon close session.
The city council met and closed session on July, 8, 2024 pursuant to government code section 54956.9 D2 and provide a direction to outset council and approved a stipulated settlement.
A permanent disability with an award of lifetime future medical care, or in the alternative by compromise and release with a release of future medical care as to the workers compensation matter.
W.
C.
A.
B.
case number ADJ.
17732423.
The city council also met in closed session and provided direction to outside council and approved a stipulated settlement of permanent disability with an award of lifetime future medical care, or in the alternative by compromise and release for future medical care as to the workers compensation matter.
W.
C.
B.
case numbers, 80 J15348795 and 80 J15456130.
The city council also provide a direction outside council and approved a stipulated settlement, a permanent disability with an award of future lifetime medical care, or in the alternative by compromise and release.
As to the workers compensation matter claim numbers, B.
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7, 1, 9, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 7, 0, 0, 1, 6, 4 and 2 to 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7.
So those are the actions the city council took yesterday afternoon in closed session and just a few introductory announcements as we begin our meeting tonight.
And let me pull up those comments.
Okay, and then after this, we will proceed to our.
Ceremony matters so.
I want to welcome everybody to this meeting of the Berkeley city council to allow for full participation by all members of the community and to ensure that important city business is able to be completed.
We ask that all attendees conduct themselves in an orderly manner and respect the rights of others participating in our meeting.
Please be aware that the city council's rules to decorum prohibit the disruption of the orderly conduct of the city council meeting.
A summary of these rules is available in the 1 page handout on the table in the rear of our boardroom disruptive behavior includes, but it's not limited to shouting, making disruptive noises, creating, or participating in a physical activity.
The city council's rules to decorum prohibit the disruption of the orderly conduct of the city council meeting.
Please be aware that the city council's rules to decorum prohibit the shouting, making disruptive noises, creating, or participating in a physical disturbance speaking out of turn or in violation of applicable rules preventing or attempting to burn others who have the floor from speaking.
Preventing others from observing the meeting entering into or remaining in an area of the meeting room that is not open to the public or approaching the council days without consent.
So, with that, we'll proceed to ceremonial matters and sadly, we'd like to recognize the contributions of a number of important community leaders who recently passed and I want to 1st, recognize council member Bartlett who's going to.
And then Council member Humbert after, but Council member Bartlett is going to recognize our former colleague, former City Council member Max Anderson, who sadly recently passed.
So Council member Bartlett.
Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
It's great sorrow to announce that on Friday, former Council member Max Anderson passed away.
Max was a dear friend.
To myself, my family is a mentor.
I mentored many other young people.
He was a stalwart champion.
He was, if you remember, you remember this diocese, he would use it as a place of exhortation the values.
And if you're here right now, he'd be apoplectic about a project 25 and the, and the Trump takeover that's happening with the, the new, the new version of the business plot they did in the 30s happening again, the times are very severe.
He warned about these days coming and he was, he was really profound.
He also had a signature a signature win that I know he's very proud of to regulate cell phones and have warnings about the radiation.
And, you know, he had a healthcare background and Max had seen people die from acute radiation tumors where cell phones go in your pockets.
And so he drove that forward and went all the way to the Supreme Court.
And years later, it won, he was a real South Berkeley champion for the people, a real amazing person and, you know, his passage is very sad, but his relief because he was sick for some time.
And we were better as a community, having had his service and yeah, thank you.
Thank you.
So I think we all join on expressing our deepest condolences to his wife and family and all of his friends and colleagues and we'll join our meeting in honor of our former colleague council member Max Anderson.
Thank you want to now turn the floor over to you.
Council member Humbert.
Thank you, Mr.
Mayor tonight's it's my solemn duty to announce that we'll be adjourning this meeting in memory of 2 additional members of our Berkeley community.
The 1st is a young man, a Buddhist priest named Kong Yuan.
He was from China, and he came here to attend the University of California and I think get a PhD in Buddhist studies.
He was killed by a driver while riding his bike on San Pablo Avenue and you ends mother Kong Lena described him as studious, devout and dedicated no parent should have to worry when they send their child to Berkeley that they'll be at risk on our streets to his mother.
She wins mother Lena.
I'm deeply sorry that you and was not safe here and that getting information about your son and the collision was such a struggle.
All traffic deaths are a tragedy, but it is especially tragic that this young man was killed only a few short months after becoming a member of our community.
Thank you.
I also want to mention that the 2nd person I want to mention, you and staff should be another wake up call to us that we need to take pedestrian and cyclist safety seriously.
There was no 5 minutes saved while driving no parking space that is worth a human life or life or a lifelong disability.
So sadly, we lost.
So, I want to mention Narsi David Narsi.
David was a pillar of not just the Berkeley community, but of our entire region.
Narsi got his start right here in Berkeley, where he attended Cal and worked at the potluck restaurant, which I don't think exists anymore.
And he's been an inspiration to so many people.
He's become a celebrated writer, radio host and philanthropist.
It's really hard to overstate Narsi's influence on the Bay Area wine and food scene, and he has been credited along with Alice waters for helping create and promote California cuisine having eaten a meal prepared by Narsi last year I can tell you, he was an incredible cook in addition to being a wonderful and charming human being.
Narsi has been a great mentor to Narsi, and he has contributed immensely to his community at all levels.
He eventually served as president of the Assyrian aid society.
We raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to support Syrian refugees from Iraq.
He also fundraise for locally focused organizations, helping raise money for Alameda County meals on wheels and other local nonprofits.
Just a few of these, which we were able to find out about is that he supported the bankroft library, the Berkeley student cooperative.
And importantly, he was a founder of that organization along with Dorothy Walker, who just died last year, the Berkeley public schools fund, the Berkeley repertory theater and many more.
But 1 donation from the David family that found that I found particularly notable was to the city of Berkeley.
And that was a statue of Queen Shamiram, who was ruler of the neo Assyrian empire around 800 before Christian era.
B.
C.
E.
it's slated to be installed next to old city hall.
I've seen images of the statue and it's beautiful.
All of this goes to show the ways both big and small that Narsi had such a profound and positive impact on Berkeley in the Bay Area at large.
He'll be greatly missed and we extend our condolences to his wife Venus and to his family and loved ones, including his son, Daniel.
Narsi lived on my block in the Elmwood and I personally will miss him deeply as well.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
We'll also adjourn our meeting tonight on those 2 individuals.
So, with that, we'll proceed to our next item on our agenda, which is city manager comments want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that this is the 1st meeting, which are a new interim city manager will be serving Latonya Bello.
So, I want to turn the floor over to miss Bell.
If you have any comments for the council, the public this evening.
Thank you mayor.
I do have just a few.
I would like to take a moment just to invite the community to a few of our upcoming events.
I think this will be a wonderful opportunity to connect the neighbors to enjoy some local activities and contribute to the spirit of togetherness that makes Berkeley so special.
So, on Friday, July 12th from 11am to 3, we'll have the Derby day at West campus pool.
So come out and enjoy the fun at West campus pool where a number of the camp participants will race their decorated cardboard boats.
On Friday evening from 835 to 1045, we'll have a movie in the park at strawberry Creek Park.
So, you can bring your blankets and chairs and immerse the family in the magic of the one of the all time favorite summer classic movies, which is the trolls band together on Saturday afternoon, the 13th from 2 to 5, there will be music in the park at a lonely parts softball feel so you can come sing along and enjoy soulful music from the cool operators so grab something to drink a bite from the vintage that will be there and they will also be a kids is on there.
And then lastly we'll have teen backpacking trip at echo Lake camp this week.
I'm swell this is where we'll have teens from 13 to 17 years old that will be spending their first of 4 nights in the wilderness and the city's first ever teen backpacking trip.
So hopefully the community will be able to come out and enjoy.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
So, I'd like to ask unanimous consent that we reorder the public comment to go 1st, the public comment from employee unions.
Is there any objection here? An objection of the action.
So, at the 1st meeting of the month, we have a special public comment period and as we proceed with our agenda, we can please have quiet in the chamber.
We have a special public comment period for designated representatives of city of Berkeley employee unions with 5 minutes allocated per union.
And so I'd like to ask are there any representatives as I see where represent from ask me local 1 and I see we have a representative from services unit.
Thank you.
Good evening interim city manager bellow mayor and council.
My name is Amanda Montez and I serve as a vice president for ask me local 1.
I'm proud employee of public works, and I'm lucky to be a resident of Berkeley tonight.
Council has a chance to vote for improved air quality and Berkeley's public buildings as part of item 21, many of our city buildings, like libraries, senior and recreation centers, and many of our community services units.
City hall and fire stations have ventilation systems that are out of date.
Almost every week.
We learn of new cases in city buildings.
This ordinance creates a state of the art ventilation, filtration and air disinfection safeguards in all city buildings.
The council should decide this tonight and not send it to the November ballot, freeing up precious space on an already crowded ballot.
City employees and the public are better protected with clean air good ventilation systems, and it, which lowered the risk of getting cobit flu and exposure to toxic pollutants and wildfire smoke.
1021 and asked me local 1 both worked hard to gather signatures for this important initiative after city management refused to implement the most basic air quality upgrades during cobit.
1 of the reasons I became active in my union was because of the poor air quality in the lactation spaces in the city's office space in 2180 and 1947 center street.
Lactating employees are forced to use.
Converted storage closets still.
These are far from state established standards.
The only reason I had an air purifier in.
In that space, post cobit was because my then division manager and HHS was kind enough to lend me the 1 from her office when HR never materialized 1 that was requested.
Those small spaces are all we have and are often and often had me sharing lactation time with 2 other employees simultaneously despite the willful lack of space privacy and air quality.
No, 1 should have to risk cobit to meet their child's nutritional needs.
Please invest in our city's infrastructure.
Staff should not have to go to the bargaining table to ensure basic workplace standards are met.
Unions should not be responsible for ensuring that a city's management staff can retain and hire staff.
We are being asked to bring salary studies to the table in negotiation because HR won't address them in the regular course of business.
This is why we can't hire a senior vision 0 planner to work on our traffic safety.
This is why we can't hire a parking services manager and why we contract out for mental health staff.
A parking services manager position.
I will remind council has been vacant for over a year.
And again, this is why we can't hire a senior vision 0 planner to work on our traffic safety measures.
This is why we can't hire a parking services manager and why we contract out for mental health staff.
A parking services manager position I will remind council has been vacant for over a year.
And again, I will remind council that this is a position that determines our bond readiness and the quality of our cities, internal finances for our bond ratings.
So, we're leaving them for the unions to negotiate, obviously, and we're leaving them for the unions to negotiate rather than having them move through traditional methods of HR negotiations and working with our department directors and department leadership to be able to establish realistic salary standards.
Help us retain staff.
Entire salaries to so that we don't have to continually come to the table asking for bare basics.
Our residents deserve consistent staffing to deliver vital services.
Your staff wants to be here.
Help us retain and attract a vibrant workforce or workforce that doesn't have to leave Berkeley.
As an employer to start their family, thank you for your time and for your advocacy on behalf of your employees.
Thank you very much.
So, before we go to you, Mr, Bukowski, this is a special public comment period for representatives of city of Berkeley employee unions.
We're not a public comment on agenda matters.
If you want to speak on agenda matters, submit a card so you could be considered.
And I'd like to hear the speakers as they speak.
So if we can, please not have any cross talking or interruptions while we are hearing the public comment speakers.
Yes, I'll turn over to you.
Hi, I'm Allison.
I'm a planner.
I work in the planning department, and I'm also on the bargaining team for the community services unit.
Part time recreation leaders association, or.
And I'm here because we're still trying to push for open bargaining, which means that our members can attend.
We can invite the public to attend.
But only the bargaining team lead speakers would be talking while we're negotiating our contract with the city.
And we also want to have coordinated bargaining with our another city union.
That's local 1.
And, you know, there's a lot of benefits for us to coordinate and there's benefits.
For our members to understand what's happening and what that way they don't hear us try to.
Replay what happened, they can be there to watch.
So, you know, about maybe 200 of us came out a couple of weeks ago on the 25th.
And this morning we sent another request to the HR director as he's the lead on the city's negotiation team.
And we're just trying our darndest to make this happen.
I don't know if there's anything more we can do other than keep coming out to council meetings.
We've spoken with several council members 1 on 1.
They've been supportive of open and coordinated bargaining.
You know, half the city's workforce is without a contract now and that's.
Really disappointing it's because our contract expired at the end of June.
But we've been trying to work with on negotiating our contracts since March.
But so far, the city's negotiation team led by the HR director has said no to open and coordinated bargaining.
So, we're here to ask for it 1 more time.
If you can work with your outside council, work with the city's negotiation team, work with the new interim city manager to support open and coordinated bargaining so that we can get our contracts negotiated.
And we can move on and you can get on to all your other city business and we can hire more people and we can also support the existing workers.
And I guess I'll pass it over to Jocelyn.
Oh, well, and then also.
We can talk about item 21, so that is related to a ballot initiative.
This that's going to be on the ballot this fall.
So it relates to indoor air quality.
That's what Amanda brought up.
And that's important for a lot of us in our aging.
We live in, we work in old buildings with poor air quality.
So, just like Amanda said, this will be a lot of a good benefit for the city and good for reducing.
Disease virus transmission among workers, so that'll be good for making sure there's enough workers to get things done.
I'm good Jocelyn.
Good evening mayor and council.
My name is Jocelyn Goldsmith, the Senate city worker in public health.
And I'm speaking about the position of our local, which represents 60,000, Northern California workers.
And, um.
You know, 9 months or so now we've used our union time to talk about Palestine every month.
Even though we have many other very urgent items to adjust, such as our own contracts.
Because it's very important, it's really essential to our values and identity as a union.
So, in May, we passed a resolution that called for ceasefire humanitarian aid and end to occupation of Palestine.
And SEIU International, which represents about 2 million diverse workers at our international convention in May, also passed a resolution that called for ceasefire humanitarian aid.
And we also passed a resolution that called for a ceasefire agreement with the United States to fund Israel's military assault on the people of Gaza.
And that, that you've heard me quote from the other resolution, but I want to share a little bit about the international resolution that says in this union, we raise our voices against violence, war and injustice across not just North America, but the whole world.
We cannot lose sight of our values.
If we fail to act now, we are complicit.
As North America's largest service and care union, we have a responsibility to use our collective power to confront violence and injustice everywhere.
End quote.
So, I am not asking for any action tonight, but I just want to use this time to keep this flame alive and let you know that our union is in this for the long haul and we want to keep Palestine on the agenda.
So, free Palestine.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Are there any other representatives of any other city employee unions here? Okay, we'll close that public comment for employee union public comment period, and we'll proceed now to public comment on non agenda matters.
Persons will be selected to address matters not on our city council agenda this evening.
Meaning, if you would like to address an item on the consent or action calendar, we'll take public comment later on.
We get to the consent or action calendar.
The city clerk will select 5 cards for 5 in person speakers randomly, and then we'll take the 1st 5 raise hands on zoom.
So I'll ask the clerk to please select 5 cards.
Okay, got 5 names here.
So, I'm going to go ahead and call the names.
I'm going to go ahead and call the names.
Negin Mossad Gordon Gilmore.
Ed Jessica Prado and Gianna.
Okay, so the order come up and.
So, any of those names are called please come forward in no particular order.
Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and call the names.
I'm here from district 5, and I have a business in district 4, which is something I want to speak about tonight.
Okay, so I'm here from district 5, and I have a business in district 4, which is something I want to speak about tonight.
I stand before you a health care worker.
We'll continue to work the whole entire pandemic healing my community, regardless of socioeconomic background or class status.
We have a lot of people in need of care, and we have a lot of people in need of care, and we have a lot of people in need of care, and different insurances can turn to, including and we have the lowest cash pay rate in the Bay area.
That's my commitment to this community.
Okay, so I'm here from district 5, and I have a business in district 4, which is something I want to speak about tonight.
I've been the.
Victim of repeated hate crimes in Berkeley.
There's been a ceasefire I just need an extra moment because this is very, very important.
I've been the target of hate crimes in Berkeley repeatedly at this clinic because of a single ceasefire sign in the window of this people's clinic, which I, I hold up that clinic as a sacrifice to the people of Berkeley because of my Berkeley values.
And because I believe health care is a human, right? My sign has been desecrated repeatedly by violent Zionist painted over and black more than once.
I've had people come in and tell me that I need to remove the sign because it makes certain people feel quote unquote unsafe.
This ridiculous rhetoric and dialogue has been allowed to continue because my council has ignored the mass murder of 40,000 innocent people in Gaza, the murder of 18,000 children, the desecration of a people's homeland history books.
Document all of this, and we'll show who was standing on the right side of history.
Our faith here in Berkeley, many of the people like myself is intertwined with the story of Palestine.
I hold every single 1 of you people in these chairs responsible for the future of my safety.
Those are my employees and the patients that come to the clinic, the future of that clinic and the God's work that we do here in Berkeley.
As you walk in the doors of my clinic next to our licenses, there's a proclamation that the city of Berkeley awarded me in 2019 for 30 years of continued.
Service to the people of Berkeley, thousands of people that we see on a yearly basis here.
These proclamations I hope are not just words, and that you stand by the things written in these pieces of paper and support your constituents instead of power structures and lobbyist groups that promise you.
Keys to higher offices and healthy, wealthy, prosperous futures.
I hope that you do not turn a blind eye to what's going on here.
These hate crimes and continue to ignore the genocide and the fate of your own constituents and the hate that is being continually turning around here in Berkeley because we fail to do the right thing to acknowledge this genocide.
Thank you.
So, before we proceed to the next speaker, Miss Prado, you can't put this here.
There's a reason this area is cordoned off.
So I apologize.
You're not allowed to put that there.
So, if you can please remove that.
So, John.
John.
Yes, I came here tonight to talk to talk about Max Anderson.
Thank you.
Ben Bartlett for talking about him.
I asked the city council to do something commemorative.
He was an icon for us all.
He meant a lot to us in a public way.
He was a pastor.
And he spoke often.
He always spoke the truth.
You know, and so I'm hoping that you have a plaque.
You'll have a statue.
You'll have a ceremony.
So I'm asking you to do that tonight because I think it's very important.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Can you hear me? All right.
My name is Gordon Gilmore, you know, familiar with me at this point.
And I wanted to speak to the urgent item that was brought to the table by council members Luna power.

Segment 2

Can you hear me at the moment? Thank you, Maria.
I want to speak to the urgent item that was brought to the table by Taplin and Lunaparra, saying it's a necessary measure in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding Johnson v.
Grants Pass 2022.
To prevent an unhoused person from sleeping in public spaces, the only space available to them in a city where the terrain is highly privatized, and when there's no shelter beds available to offer them, is indeed cruel and unnecessary.
It's important that the City of Berkeley retains respect for the dignity of all the members of our community, even though some would rather see treat as traffic obstructions.
Alrighty, Ethan Harrison, the folks living at the corner were given a notice today for a sweep tomorrow when they're supposed to be given 72 hours or 72 hours notice before so as to have time to prepare.
And the 9 square feet, which was recently, which had recently been changed to beyond their shelter at a homeless services panel of experts meeting had been changed back to 9 square feet for the entirety of their belongings, including their shelter, which is about the minimum space you need for a small dog kennel.
You can see that from what Jessica set up here and how the sleeping bank extends beyond that space.
We can't leave open the possibility that such dehumanization be permitted and regularly practice as the norm in our city.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm Jessica and I'm sending my minute to Andrea Henson.
Hi, I'm back.
My name is Andrea Henson and I'm the executive director and legal counsel for where do we go? I am very upset because this is egregious and cruel in light of the grants past ruling that these are being placed all over the city.
Threatening people, not just in the encampments, but along Shattuck and other places.
My clients are coming in terrified.
These are telling people that they have to remove the sidewalk obstructions.
This is the 9 square feet, which is 3 by 3 and so the issue here is that it says, once again, that the city prefers not to site or arrest.
These are punishable by infractions.
So, people across the city, homeless individuals who aren't in encampments, even though this was given to 8th and Harrison today on Shattuck around, I have 2 females.
Mama, 64 daughters, 35, they live in a tent.
Bigger than this to they're terrified in light of what happened with grants past.
It's a shame that someone at Berkeley is going around and not explaining this.
We don't have any outreach in Berkeley.
They'd have to go to backs or lifelong to get coordinated entry.
We're terrified.
Whoever made this decision to pat to put these notices around the city without explanation.
In light of the fact that the news is telling them, they're going to be criminalized.
Has really made a cruel and inhumane decision.
They can't leave their items because, as, you know, if you have a sleeping bag and you leave it and you don't take it with you.
You'll it'll be be confiscated shame on Berkeley for trying to threaten people during this week.
I'm a teeny tiny human being and just watch.
Smaller than almost everything.
Okay.
Thank you.
Let's go to our next speaker in the 3 by 3 space.
I can't sleep if I take.
My sleeping bag with me, I have to, or they'll confiscate it.
How am I supposed to care? Thank you.
We need to go to our next speaker.
All right, let's proceed.
Let's proceed with public comment without any interruptions.
I will have to take a recess.
Mr.
Abdullah.
First of all, good evening and talking about that.
Young bicycle man that was killed.
We really have to do something about traffic.
We do a lot of speakers.
We do a lot of crazy people and I was hit back or I should explain.
I was ended and that is bad because you get whiplash.
All right, so I did, I hope you enjoyed all of the emails that I send you.
Some of them are funny.
The 1 about Biden is not funny.
It is real Biden have to withdraw.
Otherwise, we're going to end up with a criminal running this country.
As far as the, the city of Berkeley, we need to have a safer city as it was the 1st, 2 years when I came to Cal, the only transportation I have was bicycle.
And I never had accident then, because the police man, everywhere.
Must be very hardly as far as the.
We should pray for base in Gaza.
What is happening in Ukraine? Biden have cause his reaction have not been very good in either 1.
beautiful country.
And now, which is shadow itself has destroyed according to institute over 200,000 in Gaza are killed with the 30,000, 40,000.
As far as our business, I spoke enough.
Time for you to act, you have to act.
What you have to act, I get about 100 calls a day.
We need to move forward.
Everyone's losing.
So he's losing customers.
Losing that's money is losing.
Our employees is losing managers losing.
And I'm doing it for free because I love this city and I love you all.
Thank you and what's your again? Okay.
Those are all the cards that were selected, so we'll take 5 speakers on zoom and we'll go 1st to Blair on non agenda matters.
Hi, thank you on non agenda matters calling from San Diego.
I've been living here the past couple of years.
I spent the previous 10 years in San Jose working in throughout the Bay Area about better tech accountability.
I just wanted to comment.
Thanks for the words from Councilperson Bartlett about Max Anderson.
I first started attending Berkeley City Council meetings when Councilperson Anderson was still there.
Nice words from Councilperson Bartlett.
Thank you.
I wanted to quickly offer that the work that we do here at the local level towards openness and accountability at this time are awesome examples.
How to work towards the concepts of open democracy and peace, not war.
It's a great way to work.
It gives great examples to the world at this time and they need it.
I hope we can really work on negotiation and dialogue for both Ukraine and Israel.
I think the questions to be answered through peace and dialogue a lot simpler and more practically than through continual war.
Good luck on those efforts from all of us and that we can give good examples here.
Yeah.
Okay, our next speaker is Kit Saginaw on non agenda matters.
Yes, yeah, that's fine.
I am serving as the chair of the, this is really horrible.
Let's see what I can do to turn this thing off.
I don't know.
I'll leave.
There we go.
Sorry.
I'm serving as the chair of the Fair Campaign Practices Commission and therefore also the Open Government Commission.
And I've come to you this evening to ask you to please fill the 3 vacancies that are on our commission.
1 of those vacancies has been open for some years.
1 has been open for a very short while.
I know 1 vacancy that was an attempt to fill it, but that person didn't work out after all.
We really have work to do.
And if you know people who are interested, I know that 1 person has applied.
And so I know there's an application in the queue.
If you want to look at that application, the work is not as technical as you might think.
We have wonderful support from the city attorney's office.
We have a wonderful support from the city attorney's office.
Sam Harvey is just great as our secretary and helpful to us.
And we're a, we're a compatible and a courteous group of people and we want to keep the campaigns fair and we would really appreciate if you would appoint those people that we need.
Thank you.
Okay, I will go to next to Whitney Sparks.
I would like to speak to the grants pass ruling and say, thanks to counselor Luna par for trying to protect our most vulnerable and most marginalized community members and for listening to her constituents, I would like to say, though, that reverting to the past policy of Berkeley, that is actually the same type of policy that is a slippery slope that emboldened and led to the grants pass ruling.
We have to be more compassionate.
We have to stop the sweeps, we have to decriminalize camping housing is a human right and Berkeley should act like it and shame on you, air green and shame on everyone for putting out notices that are scaring the daylights out of our community members and threatening to sweep them when they have nowhere to go.
In light of an obviously fascist Supreme Court ruling, and for the President said of violence by not calling for a ceasefire.
When it was asked for by our community, I just want to say, we can't keep going in this direction, we have to protect the most marginalized that protects all of us.
We all have a right to sleep under the stars to camp and to exist on this planet.
Everything else is not is not realistic, it's not practical it's not compassionate.
It's not our values, it doesn't reflect the values of the city of Berkeley.
Thank you.
We'll go next to Debbie media.
Hello.
Yes.
Can you hear me.
We can.
Yes.
I'm sorry I'm here today because I'm coming before you because I'm being harassed by the management of my complex.
And many of you are familiar with the Berkeley balcony collapse in 2015 right.
So I wrote an article about that.
I have been experiencing water and chooses in my own home, since 2011.
I'm sorry I'm nervous.
Hello Gwen I hope I'm pronouncing your name right love.
I hope I am.
But you wrote me a letter.
After I wrote a article regarding my living experiences.
Today those living experience that become worse because I'm being harassed to the point where I was given a eviction notice.
Although my rent has always been paid.
I got a credit because of the water intrusions.
The worst thing that's happened to me is people coming into my home, even while I'm there.
Once while I was in the shower, only to say excuse me, my, my animals are not even immune from the, the harassment.
To at least give my voice to know, or to put you on notice that this is happening.
Every says FBI management have taken over our building.
And I know you heard of them before, because they've been.
You've been put on notice before about them.
In regards to Harriet Tubman apartments.
So that's what I wanted to say I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
And it's a long list of the things I've experienced because of the harassment.
And that's disturbing and most disturbing one of my pets ended up poison.
So, thank you.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate it.
And I appreciate the importance of someone coming into my home.
I found a black fingernail in my home after coming from a lawyer dealing with the bogus eviction notice.
Again, all my rent is paid at least 7 times over.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for your time.
I appreciate your service and happy to follow up with you.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
For hearing me, you have a nice day.
Okay.
Bye.
Bye.
We'll go next to Janice Schroeder.
Thank you.
I'm going to speak actually on item 21, the healthy buildings initiative.
I understand, but I'm providing mutual aid caregiving to somebody in hospice, and I start at eight o'clock so I'm asking, I will allow you to speak to that item now.
As a health educator environmentalist and Berkeley resident for the past 45 years.
I urge you to approve the healthy building initiative ordinance tonight.
Do not delay.
The employees and residents deserve to breathe clean air.
The protections provided by state of the art ventilation filtration and air disinfection safeguards upgrades are vitally needed in all city buildings.
Let's learn from the pandemic and take effective health protective upgrades action now.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Given that person spoke to a action item, we'll take one more speaker on.
Non agenda matters, we said.
Good evening council.
I'd like to speak to the grants past issue.
I would like to emphasize that the concern of people on the street is really real about the consequences of that decision.
People are very frightened they're reaching out, trying to figure out if they're going to be swept next.
And the, the question of the notices for the sweep at eighth and Harrison, which without even 72 hours notice.
However, it was noted by someone else.
The vast difference in the notice that was given in June for a community cleanup.
It was a cheerful green font at the top, and a discussion of the things that people would not lose.
The notice that was given today starts out notice of violation.
No discussion of community cleanup no discussion of community care.
This seems ominous to all of us who have seen this difference.
We urge you to consider compassionate decisions regarding moving forward and stopping sweeps and eliminating the three by three rule.
That's just not even possible.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Okay.
That completes this round of public comment on non agenda matters.
We'll have an additional public comment period on non agenda matters at the conclusion of our agenda.
We welcome your comments on the consent and action calendar.
So, when I proceed to the consent calendar, and first received a item that has been submitted on the urgent item provisions of the government code.
I'll turn it over to you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm going to read the consent calendar.
The consent calendar, which includes cruel and unusual punishment clause does not prohibit cities from criminalizing outdoor sleeping when there is no alternative.
This decision overturns the prior 9th Circuit decision, Martin B.
Boise, which established a requirement across the entire 9th Circuit that prohibited governments from criminalizing on house residents for sleeping outside if they lacked access to alternative shelter.
I am suggesting tonight that we take action to reaffirm our longstanding commitment to not criminalize sleeping when there is no alternative.
The Supreme Court decision must be taken seriously.
Many on house residents have may have already learned of the decision and are rightfully terrified about what it means practically for their lives.
We ought to provide certainty tonight that nothing will change unless the council decides to modify its policy through the normal policy making process.
I and many constituents agree with Justice Sotomayor in her dissent that sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime, and that the court wrongly concludes that the 8th Amendment permits ordinances that effectively criminalize being homeless.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court decision is narrow so that cities can decline to criminalize sleeping when there is no alternative.
This means that cities like Berkeley have discretion to follow the Martin precedent, regardless of the Supreme Court decision.
My urgency resolution simply affirms the right of people within the city of Berkeley against criminalization for their on house status and will support these rights by 1 directing the city manager to ensure that there will be no additional restrictions enacted that effectively prohibits sleeping a biological necessity by an unhoused individual if there is no shelter space available in the jurisdiction for the unhoused individual to sleep to reaffirming that the Constitution does not allow the government to punish people for the status of being unhoused.
And that the city will not effectively punish the status of being unhoused by imposing criminal penalties for sleeping in public spaces without first making an offer of shelter and 3 committing to constructing repurposing and offering whenever possible non congregate shelter options, which have doubled Berkeley shelter acceptance rate to 79% and permanent supportive housing.
So, the items on the agenda.
So, in order for it to be considered, it needs to be there needs to be a motion to add it to the agenda under the provisions of the government code.
So you're recognized to like to make a motion.
I would like to make the motion to add it to the agenda second.
Okay, so this is a procedural motion to the question before the council's whether to add this item to the agenda under the provisions of government code section 549 to 5, 4, 0.2 B2, which finds that let's say, the city manager is unhoused and will not be allowed to sleep in public spaces without first making an offer of shelter.
So, in order for it to be considered, it needs to be there needs to be a motion to add it to the agenda under the provisions of the government code.
So, you're recognized to like to make a motion.
I would like to make the motion to add it to the agenda.
So, in order for it to be considered, it needs to be there needs to be a motion to add it to the agenda under the provisions of government code section 549 to 5, 4, 0.2 B2, which finds that let's say the body can take action if there isn't a need to take immediate action and the need to take action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda for this meeting being posted.
So, I would like to make the motion to add it to the agenda under the provisions of government code section 549 to 5, 4, 0, 2 B2, which finds that let's say the body can take action if there isn't a need to take immediate action and the need to take action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda for this meeting being posted.
So, I would like to make the motion to add it to the agenda under the provisions of government code section 549 to 5, 4, 0, 2 B, which finds that let's say the body can take action if there isn't a need to take immediate action and the need to take immediate action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda for this meeting being posted.
So, I would like to make the motion to add it to the agenda under the provisions of government code section 549 to 5, 4, 0, 2 B, which finds that let's say the body can take action if there isn't a need to take immediate action and the need to take immediate action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda for this meeting being posted.
Thank you.
I'd like to record is voting no on item 13.
I'd like to record is voting no on item 13.
This is the initiative ordinance to adopt a special tax on natural gas consumption and buildings.
A 15,000 square foot or larger item 20 initiative petition an ordinance creating a parcel tax the purpose of funding.
This is the initiative ordinance to adopt a special tax on natural gas consumption and buildings.
A 15,000 square foot or larger item 20 initiative petition an ordinance creating a parcel tax the purpose of funding.
A 15,000 square foot or larger item 20 initiative petition an ordinance creating a parcel tax the purpose of funding.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'd like to make a motion to adopt or present election code section 9 to 12 about these various proposals.
I personally think it would be beneficial for us to have that information before we take action to put these measures on the ballot.
Thank you.
I'd like to make a motion to adopt or present election code section 9 to 12 as we're taking action to either adopt the, the.
Well, to to, to put the measures on the ballot, so I'd like to suggest that we move item 19, 20.
21 and 22 to consent for the purposes of adding this to our special meeting agenda on.
July 30th.
So, I'd like to suggest to the council.
If we can move 19, 20, 21, 22 to consent.
And calendar for action on July 30th.
At which time we'll have the 90 to 12 reports and we can vote to put them on the ballot.
I'm asking if there's consent to that.
Thank you.
So, to my understanding, we have to put this on the ballot a month after it was after the signatures were approved.
I could be wrong, but I think there's a deadline and I'm not sure if this meets that deadline.
Clerk or madam city attorney.
That's a valid question.
Yeah.
The date that the mayor is suggesting still falls within the.
Deadline period, so I think we are safe.
Thank you.
Sure.
We have to put them on the ballot and we will put them on the ballot, but I believe it would be beneficial for us.
And I think for the public as well to have that information before we take action on putting the measures on the ballot.
So, if you want to speak to 19, 20, 21 or 22, we will take your comments during the consent calendar, but we will take those up.
By adoption, the consent counter on July 30th.
Um, there's all my comments.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mr.
Mayor.
I'd like to be recorded as a no on item number 13 related to the dark skies.
Thank you.
Okay, counselor Humber.
Yes, thank you.
Mr.
Mayor.
We've got a few comments on.
Consent item 1, which was the zoning ordinance amendments regarding demolition and dwelling unit controls.
I want to vote no on that.
I'd like to be recorded as a no on item number 13 related to the dark skies.
Thank you.
I've got a few comments on.
Consent item 1, which was the zoning ordinance amendments regarding demolition and dwelling unit controls.
I want to vote no on that item.
2nd, reading on the consent calendar.
I'd like to be recorded as a no on item number 13 related to the dark skies.
Thank you.
I would follow.
Council member and vote no on that.
Thank you.
And I'd like to spend 250 dollars from my office account on the item sponsored by council member on having to do with the port Chicago.
And I'd like to spend 250 dollars from my office account on the item sponsored by council member on having to do with the port Chicago.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Council member.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, council member.
Thank you.
Like to be recorded.
No.
On the 2nd, reading of number 1.
I'd like to spend 250 dollars from my office account on the item sponsored by council member on having to do with the port Chicago.
I'd like to spend 250 dollars to the port Chicago.
A weekend that's number 14.
And I'd like to be recorded as no on number 13.
The dark skies ordinance.
I believe that's it.
Thank you.
And I'd like to spend 250 dollars from my discretionary.
T14 account towards item 14.
Relinquishment of council office budget funds to the general fund and granted such funds to the port Chicago alliance and official co sponsorship of port Chicago weekend 2024.
Thank you.
Okay, we'll go next to Councilman Han.
Thank you.
I'm wondering if with this.
Dark skies ordinance.
Item 13, if there's a way to.
Make the 2nd part into just a request to consider the moratorium rather than.
I'm wondering if we could.
Send this to the planning commission.
I'm wondering if we could slightly amend the.
The recommendation here.
Okay, well, but it to pull to action, I would need.
Okay, so I'm going to move this.
You miss Davila, please don't interrupt the meeting.
So I'm suggesting that we amend part B to refer to the city manager to consider.
Implementing a moratorium on installation of street lighting and building lighting, exceeding 3000 Kelvin.
Okay.
Well, I mean, I, I don't support the recommendation, which is why I recorded a no vote.
Right.
And if you would like for there to be a discussion, then you would need to pull this from the consent from this consent calendar for discussion.
Otherwise, it will remain on consent.
Okay, then I will register an abstention on that.
Okay, so I'm going to move this.
And if 2 others agree with me, then we'll talk about it on consent.
And if it is not pulled.
I'm going to talk about it on action.
If it is not pulled, then I'd like to be.
Okay, so I'm going to move on to the next item on the agenda.
And that is regarding the port Chicago item and just remind us and the public port.
The port Chicago disaster was a deadly munitions explosion that incurred at the port Chicago Naval magazine during World War 2.
The port Chicago Naval magazine.
The port Chicago Naval magazine front exploded the nearby town of port Chicago and Contra Costa was severely damaged.
And the explosion was felt as far away as Nevada.

Segment 3

that night were killed instantly, almost two-thirds of them African American.
The single night amounted to 15% of all black American military deaths during World War II.
Despite there being no changes in leadership procedures, conditions or safety practices, surviving black sailors were expected to clean up the remnants and remains of the disaster and return to work while their white counterparts were granted leave.
Under threat of death by firing squad and an act and in an act of nonviolent civil disobedience, 50 sailors, now known as the Port Chicago 50, refused to continue loading munitions until the Navy changed their policies and practices.
For their brave act of defiance, they were charged and wrongfully convicted of mutiny.
Port Chicago Weekend aims to educate the public and spotlight the history and impact of the Chicago 50 on World War II and our nation's fight for civil rights.
Thanks to organizations like the Port Chicago Alliance, the legacies of the Port Chicago 50 and the brave fallen soldiers of the Port Chicago Naval Magazine live on.
Port Chicago Weekend is a four-day event of educational initiatives designed to engage the community through music, art, food, theater, exhibits and entertainment across various Bay Area cities.
And I want to thank my colleagues for their support and encourage everyone to look at attending the weekend which is July 18 through 21st.
So thank you very much and thank you to my colleagues for their support.
Other than that, I believe that was all I had.
Thank you.
Okay, Councilor Lunaparra.
Thank you.
First I'd like to speak on item six.
I want to thank Kariana Arredondo and the City Manager's Office for identifying this grant application leveraging city funds to maximize federal grants and I recognize that body-worn cameras for our police force are critical in this current iteration of policing and I also hope that at some point we can phase out the need for expensive equipment as band-aids for the fundamental and systemic issues with policing.
I would also like to be put down as an abstention on item 13.
On item 14, I'd like to contribute $300 to the Port Chicago Alliance for my discretionary funds.
Thank you Councilmember Hahn for putting that forward.
On item 15, which removes the Dwight and Telegraph intersection from the list of locations to consider for camera installation, I'd like to thank the Agenda Committee for placing this item on the consent calendar and I'd like to be very clear about how, if passed, this would operate.
This item simply removes the Dwight and Telegraph intersection from the list of locations to be considered for installing surveillance technology so these locations have not been considered yet, let alone funded for potential surveillance technology.
This ensures that District 7 and specifically the site of a recent increase in policing and surveillance that they will not have a city-operated camera.
And lastly, I'd like to congratulate the workers at Pete's Union on 4th Street for filing their petition to hold a union election with the National Labor Relations Board.
In 2023, workers at three locations, including in Southside, voted to unionize and I'm happy to see the labor movement in Berkeley continue to grow.
My office was proud to be there in solidarity with the workers yesterday and I urge Pete's Management to voluntarily recognize the union.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Item, oh, Councilor Humbert? Yes, I'm sorry, Your Honor.
One more thing I wanted, Your Honor, Mr.
Mayor.
I'm sorry, I'm a lawyer, I'm used to, I'm used to saying that.
Embarrassing.
I wanted to, since I think this is the appropriate time, Your Honor, to, during consent, to move item 23, which is the short-term rentals item authored by former Councilmember Harrison, to consent for purposes of sending it to the City Attorney for review.
Yeah, I would, I would respectfully suggest that there are legal issues involved with this, recent cases, legal precedent.
I'd like to understand, I'd like to understand what we're able to do legally in Berkeley around regulating short-term rentals before we dispose of this proposal.
I think there are good concepts that are worthy of consideration and so I would urge my colleagues to support sending item 23 to consent for the purposes of referring it to the City Attorney to give us a legal opinion and then once we have that opinion, bring it back, I'm assuming in the fall, for us to take action on that proposal.
Is there any objection from the Council to take that action on consent? Okay, hearing an objection, that would be the action.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember.
Councilor Bartlett.
Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
I'd like to also contribute $250 to the Port Chicago weekend exhibit.
I'm a co-sponsor of this really tragic event in history that's really enlightening.
Thank you for bringing it forward, Councilmember Hahn.
And regarding the item 13, the Dark Skies Ordinance, you know, if it loses the bench, I'm just curious to see, like, if the Health Commission is here, I'd love to hear their thoughts on it.
I'm just curious about it.
I know they usually do good work, so I'm wondering what the thought is here.
No one is here, I take it.
From the Health Commission? Yeah.
So it goes.
Okay, Councilmember Traga.
Thank you.
I would be supportive of an action to move item 14 to the action calendar.
Okay, so that's number two.
All right, anything else? Okay, Councilmember, okay, Councilor Traga.
Councilor Taplin.
Yes, on the Port Chicago item.
I'd like to contribute $500.
Councilmember Hahn.
Well, first of all, thank you to my colleagues for the additional contributions for the Port Chicago item.
I'm just wondering if item 24 could be put on consent and then Councilmembers could register their votes on the consent calendar.
Item 24 is condemning UC's anti-labor actions and legal tactics.
Yeah, I'll just say for myself, I would be abstaining on it on consent, but I'm just wondering if we could put it on consent and have people just register whether they want to move it forward on consent, or vote no, or abstain, but through the consent calendar.
Do you have to move it to consent with an action? I'd simply move it to consent and then I would record my own vote and everyone can push their button and record whatever vote they want.
So if it goes to consent, it will pass unless there are five members who do not vote in the, do not vote yes, correct? Yes, correct.
I'm just saying, I don't know if, I think people may have thoughts about it, but I think people can express them through the consent process.
All right, so you're asking, can we move item 24 to the consent and what do people think? Otherwise it stays on action while we're discussion.
I mean, if we're gonna have a discussion about it, then it seems it needs to stay on action.
I don't need to have a discussion, that's why I'm suggesting it goes on consent.
So we just, we move it to consent and then everybody, we go down the row and everybody says yes.
Anybody who wants to push their, yes, well don't necessarily have to go down the row, people can press their buttons.
It's yes unless you say, if we're gonna have discussion on it and it doesn't have unanimous consent, I don't see why it should go on the consent calendar.
Let's keep it on action.
All right, there we go.
And then I guess my other question was the, I'm curious if the one, which number is it? Yeah, the item 18, right, that's still on action? Yes, that is.
Can that be moved to consent for purposes of placing it on the ballot? I mean, I had, I had some questions about it personally.
Okay.
That I want to ask staff, but we have to put on the ballot, so.
Really just looking to move things along tonight, but happy to keep it on, on action.
That's why I'm just asking my colleagues thoughts.
Questions, I think it's important for us to get as much information about these ballot measures as possible, because it may influence.
So let's keep it on action.
We have lightened the action calendar.
Yes, we have, we have.
Looking to further lighten it.
All right, thank you.
Councilor Lunapar, again? Okay.
Okay, any other comments on consent or any votes want to be recorded on consent? Okay, let me summarize the amendments to the consent calendar before we take public comment.
So the consent calendar is as published with the following changes.
We added the urgent item from Councilor Lunapar on adopting resolution affirming the City of Berkeley's commitments to enact no additional restrictions to effectively prohibit sleeping.
That's on the action calendar, but we will take that up tonight.
And items 19, the special tax on natural gas consumption.
Item 20, the fix the streets and sidewalks measure.
Item 21, initiative ordinance requiring the adoption of minimum indoor air quality standards.
And item 22, the safe streets measure.
Those are, all those four items are on the consent calendar for the purpose of adding them to the special City Council meeting agenda at 3 p.m.
on Tuesday, July 30th, at which time we will take action to put them on the ballot.
But we did request these reports.
We'd like to get those reports and consider that before we take action.
But we welcome any comments on items 19, 20, 21, or 22 at this time.
Item 23 has been moved to consent and refer to the City Attorney for a legal analysis.
You would like to speak on item 23 now be the time as well.
And those are all the changes.
So we'll take, we'll start with any speakers in person on the consent calendar.
Ms.
Mosvick.
First, I'm pleased to see on item 6 that the City Manager's Office is exploring Department of Justice grants.
There are also these types of grants for CIT training and for crisis response systems.
Second, on Port Chicago, glad to see this.
It would be good if we could incorporate Port Chicago into it being honored other than just on a weekend.
Third, in terms of the dark skies ordinance, I'm perplexed by it because I'd like to see a bright skies ordinance.
I live in South Berkeley and lighting is important for safety.
I understand this is a theoretical type of issue.
And we in South Berkeley, it's very, very dark at night as it is in other areas of Berkeley.
We need better lighting for safety.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Nancy Rader.
I'm with Berkleyans for Better Planning, the sponsors of the Fix the Streets and Sidewalks Initiative.
Over 80 volunteers volunteered to join this campaign to collect over 4,300 signatures from all quarters of the city to qualify this measure for the ballot.
The measure qualified upon initial review by the registrar with well over the required number of signatures.
While collecting those signatures, we heard loud and clear from voters that they simply want Berkeley's dangerous streets and sidewalks to be fixed so they are safe for cyclists and pedestrians to use, and that they are willing to support a modest parcel tax that is carefully crafted to do that job without any extra padding as long as the city keeps its 2022 commitment to increase funding for street maintenance and with the oversight of an independent commission.
We're confident the voters will approve this measure because it will accomplish that job.
Thank you in advance for placing it on the November ballot.
Good evening, Mayor, City Council members.
I am sincerely grateful for your tremendous support tonight to elevate the history of Port Chicago of the Port Chicago disaster and the peaceful defiance of the Port Chicago sailors that led to the desegregation of the Navy.
Our goal is to ensure the history of Port Chicago, California, and to ensure that it endures and flourishes to serve as a reminder that systems of racial oppression and inequality are destined to fail.
These historic events are fundamental to our identity in the Bay Area, and I want to thank the City of Berkeley for their unprecedented support in elevating this important history.
This support dates back, of course, for many years, so I appreciate that.
We'd like to thank Councilmember Sophie Hahn, whom we have worked with to uplift the history, and all the Council members and staff who supported this cause today and over the years.
Please check out Port Chicago Weekend.
It's right around the quarter, July 18th through the 21st, and you can go to PortChicagoWeekend.org.
I would like to add that we are recognizing Port Chicago history on more than just a weekend, so we highly recommend that our members of the public come check out our website at PortChicago50.com for the historical work that we're doing.
Thank you so much.
Take care.
Thank you very much.
Good evening.
My name is George Lipman.
I am representing the Berkeley People's Alliance, which is an alliance of both community and labor organizations in the City of Berkeley.
I'm going to speak to two items, 19 and 21.
These are two initiatives that I am actually named proponent on.
I'm disappointed to see this being put off.
I understand the pledge that and the legal requirements that they will be put on the ballot by this body.
I don't understand why they can't be put on now.
That would have the benefit of giving the community more time, more ability, more time to be making the debate public.
So this kind of like just shrinks that that window.
And in particular on item 21, indoor air quality standards, I just think it's, we need to show more courage in these are really things that should have been done by the Council and the staff in past years.
Really we would like to see the Council adopt this one, not the other one because it's a tax item.
This is not a tax item.
This will just, you know, open up the doors, the windows, put in the HEPA filters.
You owe it to your staff as was expressed by the union representatives earlier.
And if you want, if you don't want people to be dying and honestly, literally dying of COVID and other airborne illnesses, just find a way to do it.
Please do it now or do it at the end of the month, but that's what we really need.
Just like save us all the trouble of going through the ballot fight when you can just put it into effect.
Thanks.
Hello.
Good evening, Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council.
My name is Rebecca Mirvish and I'm here tonight on behalf of Berkeley Citizens for Safe Streets.
We're a coalition of Berkeley neighbors, community groups, and former commissioners and elected officials.
We're here tonight thanks to the hard work of over a hundred volunteers who collected thousands of signatures from Berkeley voters so that we could all have the opportunity to vote for this measure in November.
The Safe Streets Initiative is a big step forward in tackling Berkeley's deteriorated and dangerous streets.
Our measure will add over a hundred million dollars to the existing street paving budget, ensuring that we can meet the funding levels outlined in the City Auditor's Report.
The measure also includes 70 million dollars for safety improvements supporting safe routes to school, emergency response times, and our Vision Zero goals.
An additional 50 million dollars is directed for sidewalks and pedestrian paths, street trees, green infrastructure, bus shelters, and other critical improvements to the pedestrian environment.
We're honored to have your support in placing this measure on the ballot.
We believe that Berkeley voters deserve smooth, safe, and welcoming streets and we look forward to working with you to make that a reality in November.
Thank you.
Should I just start whenever? Hello, my name is Brandon Young and I'm here tonight with Berkeley Citizens for Safe Streets.
The issues of degrading street and sidewalk infrastructure and unsafe streets are incredibly important issues to Berkeleians.
That's why we were able to recruit over 100 volunteers who gathered more than 3,800 signatures and qualified our measure, our Safe Streets measure, for the ballot.
Our coalition includes engineers with decades of experience who have estimated, using city data and previous paving reports, that our measure will bring the city's streets to an overall pavement quality of 70 or good, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
The measure also helps our city make major strides towards implementing safety infrastructure like raised crosswalks, lighting, and safe routes to schools.
These improvements will help us accomplish our goal of Vision Zero, which is zero fatal or severe traffic collisions in the city.
We're also confident that this measure will help Berkeley attract top talent, establish Berkeley as a forward-thinking transportation leader, and rebuild our Public Works Department.
We're looking forward to seeing the report and thank you proactively for putting this on the ballot.
Thank you.
So, yes, Max Anderson left us this past Friday and it's sad that only two people, only one person really, had anything to say about him.
Seems like Wayne Graf and others should have weighed in because he was around for many, many years and he deserves more than that.
But you kind of dissed him on that, I feel, as well as you did Gus Newport when he passed away.
And thankfully you took the stamp out of the corner and are showing the actual people now.
Thank you for that.
And indoor air quality, yes, like why do they even have to come here and beg for that? That's really pathetic and sad.
And people working without contracts and then the fact that you have no humility or recognition when they're showing you what the three-by-three looks like and the enforcement.
How can you have that item on the action calendar and freaking start enforcing yesterday or today whenever those notices went out? You know and you say 45% reduction, that's a freaking lie that you all are capitalizing on.
You can roll your freaking eyes all you want, Mr.
Mayor, but it's still a lie.
And that's your disrespect for your constituents and your former colleague, which you always had.
And so it's interesting that you're talking about the Chicago 50, poor Chicago 50, when all y'all are racist and don't give a crap about black people.
Your time is up.
You're going beyond the consent calendar at this point.
Jesse? Okay, next speaker, please.
Hi, I'm speaking on behalf of myself as a community member, not on behalf of the city or my union.
I want to speak in support of item 24, condemning UC actions against UAW 4811 workers.
I strongly support this.
We're not there yet.
We're not there yet? Okay, don't worry.
I got another.
She's got 21.
21.
I really want to urge you.
So can I have the time back? Let's reset the clock, please.
Thank you so much.
As someone who came straight here from working in a hot, sweaty, stinky, sorry to say, city building, I really urge and thank you to work quickly and efficiently.
Again, not speaking on behalf of the city or my union, but with this record heat, the climate change, this risk of wildfires is still happening now.
We had red alerts in the hills and continuously getting COVID notifications every week within the city for city workers.
I really think anything we can do to make our air safer in the city buildings is really critical.
My workplace is frequented by people who are pregnant, postpartum, and with little tiny newborns who are too young to get vaccinated and have very vulnerable lungs.
And so I'm not just thinking for myself, but I'm really thinking about our community members are very vulnerable, little as tiniest community members that come into those buildings.
Thank you.
Before I start, can I clarify that the body worn cameras is on consent? Thank you, Mayor, Mr.
Mayor, and I have a person conceding their minute.
I'll have to, Andrew Hensley.
Thank you.
Okay, so I just speak very briefly in my personal capacity as a resident of Berkeley, as a Cal alum, and not where I work, having nothing to do with it, nothing whatsoever, just to be absolutely clear.
I am in support of the grant for body worn cameras and also a new council member may not be aware, and others as well, that there's a case called Bra versus City of Berkeley.
It's a federal case that required body worn cameras as part of the settlement.
So I assume they already have them and maybe they're upgrading or replacing them.
They also need to fulfill all the policies that were promised.
I also really appreciate if you in your budget, item number three, continue to highlight and support as a priority housing vouchers for hotel rooms for women and families have nowhere to go.
Outside where I'm going to go out and get someone dinner is a woman who I used to see where she worked, now homeless with her adult son.
So I'm getting her dinner, but she has nowhere to go for sleep at night, night by night.
She's been in Berkeley for a number of years, she and her son.
We need more housing vouchers and please support that.
And the community members, thank you to the thread that we're helping our neighbors as we see them on the street, but we also appreciate the city funding.
Secondly, under SCU, this is a number I want everyone to write down, please, because they don't have a number that people know.
I've called it a couple of times, they've been very helpful.
The Berkeley Community Safety Coalition, which I helped co-found started or helped to start and launch was supported also by Council Member Bartlett and others.
The specialized care unit number 510-948-0075.
We need an easier number to remember, but 948-0075.
They're now open Sunday through Wednesday, 24 hours a day, Thursday through Saturday.
I've referred people who are in crisis a number of times and they've come to their aid.
Finally, I'd like to urge the HR to help facilitate the prompt hiring of the EMT for that team, because there are medical needs on the street.
And finally, number six, yeah, I already told you about the body-worn camera.
No, no, no, safe buildings, please.
People are getting sick, more COVID cases today than yesterday.
Thank you.
Hi there, my name is Sin Macias-Gomez.
I am currently the Berkeley Student Cooperatives President, and I'm here to speak on item number 15.
The BSC in 2020 signed on slash created a policy called the Anti-Police Safety and Security Proposal.
We have been long committed to the decarceration and the de-policing of our community.
We've been here for 90 years.
We serve the lowest income students in your communities, and we are here providing the services that you aren't.
So please keep us safe.
You have these flags in your city council.
We are the students of color.
We are the black students in your community.
We are the queer and trans students in your community, and you keep policing us.
I don't understand why you are here to provide a service, and folks at Rochdale, folks at Fenwick, folks on Southside, we see the cops every day, and we are policed every day.
It's exhausting.
It's exhausting.
So please, you take away our park.
Give us this tiny piece of land, please.
Hi, my name is Donna Dedamar, and I'm here speaking for the Fix the Streets and Sidewalks Initiative, number 2020 on the calendar, and I am really impressed by the great show of youth here, plus Ray, able to come tonight.
I'm so glad to be here.
I'm so glad to be here.
I'm so glad to be here.
I'm so glad to be here.
I'm so glad to be here.
Plus Ray, able to come tonight in support of the Safe Streets measure.
A lot of our supporters were worried that this meeting would go too late and be past their bedtimes, so our measure is very simple.
It fixes streets and sidewalks.
It doesn't preclude the city from, on its own, funding any of the other kinds of things that are in the Safe Streets Initiative.
And we are looking forward to getting the measures on the ballot so that we can get the letter, so that we can all begin in earnest doing our campaigning for our measures.
We appreciate that you had your reasons for moving it, but hopefully you'll get this done soon so that we will be able to start our work.
Thank you so much.

Segment 4

Hello, my name is Jessica and I'm an RV resident from a student Harrison streets.
So I'm here to address item number 2.
I see that you guys are funding fire protection and emergency response for the fire department.
I would like to let, you know, that at least 40% of the fires that the Berkeley fire department is responding to are related to homelessness.
Yet there is no fire preparedness that is actually happening on the streets.
So, basically, the fire department is just being dispatched many times over and over again.
And we're not actually addressing the problem.
We're just asking for more money to essentially do nothing just to pay their salaries.
You have grassroots organizations that consider the homeless and where do we go actually distributing fire extinguishers fire blankets to people to stay safe.
But what is the city doing? You guys are just asking for more money to not actually put it back into the community.
So, we actually want to have a better fire protection and emergency response.
We need to start distributing and to our house communities and make sure that they're also safe.
Thank you.
Hi, good evening mayor and council.
Mr.
Yep has graciously yielded a minute.
I thought that could be added to the clock.
Andy Katz representing the community health commission tonight and addressing item number 13 1st I want to stress that the surgeon general has recognized that sleep hygiene is a really pressing public health issue.
It affects many parts of the body, and we've increasingly seen the body of science that the American Medical Association has issued a statement on based on peer reviewed literature.
That's in the commission memo that directly connects light at night, particularly those cool wavelengths that look bluish to these health effects.
So there's a real health problem.
The question now, what do we do about it? So, I think what council member Han identified for part B of the recommendation to is completely in line with what the commission was requesting to consider it.
And just to ask, that's literally what the recommendation says to see if it's possible.
See what's happening.
Our understanding is that the cost of the light bulbs is the same.
It's just a question of judgment and making sure that we're procuring the right things and making sure that we're protecting our residents by using the right light bulbs that don't disrupt sleep patterns.
And have other environmental effects that the environmental commission has talked about the memo with regard to part a also talks about the restraint and some of the, the issues that could go along with building regulating too much.
So, we definitely, we're not trying to be the planning commission.
We recognize that this ordinance has been at the planning commission for several years, and we're not saying to change that priority status based on everything they have to do.
It's really a question of giving them the knowledge base of what the health science is saying so that when they get to it, according to what the council is prioritizing that they have the information and they can consider what to do maybe a 3rd, or a 4th, or a 5th, or a 6th, or a 7th, or a 10th, or a 12th, or a 13th, or a 14th, or a 15th, or a 16th, or a 17th, or a 18th, or a 19th, or a 20th, or a 21st, or a 22nd, or a 23rd, or a 24th, or a 25th, or a 26th, or a 27th, or a 28th, or a 29th, or a 30th, or a 30th, or a 31st, or a 32nd or a 31st.
And it's just guidelines.
Maybe it's only in certain areas.
So I would say, if you have concerns, have this on action or refer it back to the commission with some of those considerations.
We were looking to be informative and not prescriptive.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
Katz.
I just had a question.
I mean, I think for myself, the concern that I had about this is that the way the second bullet point, the B, is written, it says refer to the city manager a request to ask the public works department to implement.
And it sounds like we're telling them to do this.
I'm not sure what the intent of the second bullet point was.
My I would like to refer it for them to consider.
But I don't I don't know anything about what implementation of this would take.
And I'd like to leave that up to the discretion of the city manager.
I'm not sure what the intent of the second bullet point was.
And I'd like to leave that up to the discretion of the city manager.
I think the intent was to have consideration and we were expecting that there would be some kind of companion report or cost information presented at the time that it showed up on the agenda.
So, I would just say that the intent of the second bullet point was to have consideration and we were expecting that there would be some kind of companion report or cost information presented at the time that it showed up on the agenda.
And I think that's practical and consistent with the commission's intent.
Okay, but it's not what it was written right? But sometimes when the motion gets made and proceeds and passes, that's what has to appear on your agenda.
So got it.
You're correct.
That's the motion that was made.
And I'm not sure that's what the intent of the second bullet point was.
Is it just a recommendation to you to look at this right? You know, the our system of commission inclusion doesn't allow one commission to talk to another commission.
We have to go through the council.
So, we're, we can't just go and ask Public Works to go handle this.
We can't go to the planning commission directly.
We send this to the city council, and then the city council can refer it out to a commission or the city manager.
So, I don't know if that's what the intent of the second bullet point was, but I think that's what the commission was recommending.
Okay.
I appreciate that.
Thank you, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So, you know.
You know, this is a.
This is a pretty flashy camera.
I mean, I don't know if you visited at this point, but the community's kind of come together to build it into a beautiful space with artwork.
Symbolizing peace and love with artwork, symbolizing peace and love.
And, you know, it's.
You know, the majority of people's park in Palestine.
And it's.
It's flourishing and it should be a community space.
And it's not typical that you see.
You know, security cameras in the middle of a park.
So, thank you for taking that off.
Thank you next speaker, please.
Thank you.
I'm going to move on to item 13.
The definition of.
Specifically on part B.
A request to ask the Department of public works.
For consent.
And by definition, the asking the Department of public works, not telling them.
Okay, we'll go to speakers on zoom Blair Beekman.
Please unmute yourself if you wish to speak on consent.
Hi, I would like to speak to.
I would like to speak to the definition of public safety.
And I think that's a really important initiative thing.
In the importance of vision zero and working towards good public safety measures.
We also have to really be balancing that with questions of responsible practices, openness and accountability with technology.
It's an important balance.
We have to learn to talk about more.
Absolutely.
And with respect to the public safety center issues and emergency preparedness, The Barry and Berkeley has done an incredible job with those issues.
Certain programs are doing well.
It's a real community.
Lift.
Those practices.
So, thank you.
And with that, I hope it's a lift.
Thank you that you've.
Ended.
The surveillance camera.
And the fact that.
The amount of cameras can be reduced.
Not put in.
I hope you can be considering that.
And really work towards openness and accountability in a full community process.
Thanks.
Our next speaker is Rebecca Frankie.
Followed by Daniel Tahara.
Okay.
Okay.
While we're waiting, we'll go to Daniel Tahara.
Hi council.
I'm a resident district commissioner on the environment and climate commission, but speaking today, my personal capacity.
I want to express my support for both the healthy city buildings measure and the large buildings.
As a result, the city is committed to reducing its emissions by 60.5% over 2018 levels.
As of the most recent data reported from staff and accounting for expected reductions from the switch to a hundred percent renewable energy from Ava.
We need an additional 50% reduction to meet that goal.
In addition documents rules, nine, four, nine, six.
We'll effectively prohibit installing new gas, water, and space heaters and homes starting in 2027 and 2029.
Unfortunately document itself can't provide funding to ease the transition for homeowners and building owners.
And the financial burden has a potential to be particularly acute in Berkeley.
But it's aging building stock and large number of single family homes by those on fixed income.
It's incumbent on the city to take immediate action, not only to reduce our emissions, but to provide a wide scale funding to the communities that can reap the benefits of our all electric future.
I believe that the measure is pragmatic approach and a worthy replacement for Berkeley's now gas ban.
I urge your support for the measure in the fall.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
We'll go back to Rebecca.
Okay.
We'll go back to Rebecca.
You should not be able to speak.
Followed by Kelly.
Rebecca, if you wish to speak on the consent calendar, please do so now.
Now, can you hear me? We can.
Yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm speaking for item 19.
My name is Rebecca Frankie and I reside in district one.
I'm also co-chair of the Sierra club, San Francisco bay chapters, energy and climate committee.
The chapter strongly supports the large buildings, fossil fuel emissions tax.
Last year, I completed the electrification of my home, I was able to reduce my emissions and I could afford to do so.
Not everybody can.
That has to change.
If we as a city are to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045.
We need to increase the incentives to reduce emissions in our buildings.
And we need to have a funding stream, which ensures that electrification.
Can be scaled.
To reach all of Berkeley's communities equitably over the next 20 years.
This includes aiding residents to comply with regulations of the Bay area air quality management district.
Which phase out natural gas furnishes versus and water heaters beginning in 2027.
So there's no two ways about it.
Electrifying Berkeley's existing buildings will be a challenge.
But the large buildings.
Fossil fuel emissions tax starts to move us forward.
I urge the council to support it for the November ballot.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We'll go next to Kelly hammer.
Good.
Thank you.
I'd like to speak to dark skies.
Can you hear me? Okay.
Yes, we can.
Okay.
I think there's a misconception about dark skies and I encourage you to look at dark skies international or dark sky.
Or.
Dark sky does not mean there is no lighting or that we have to have dark streets that we can't.
See where we go, where we're going.
Dark skies means.
Directing lighting downward to where it's needed.
And this is really incredibly important in terms of not just our own health, but also the health of our environment.
And so.
Many, many insects and the small wildlife.
Are really threatened by the bright lighting and the inappropriate lighting that we do.
And so I would encourage you all, every one of you that said you're voting no on this to take.
I would encourage you to go to the dark sky website.
And the international dark sky website.
And dark sky.
Or.
And also think about when you go to the Oakland airport, next time there's a bright lighting driving into the airport.
But all those lights are directed downward to where they're needed.
So they don't interrupt air.
Air traffic.
And they don't stop the light pollution.
And they don't stop the light pollution.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I haven't seen the other raised hands, wishing to speak on the consent calendar.
So bring it back to the city council and move adoption.
The consent calendar is amended.
Second.
Okay.
Colleagues, any additional comments? If not, please call the roll on the consent calendar.
Council member.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
The consent count is approved.
I've been informed that we need to take a break for our remote captioners.
Lance live transcribing our meetings.
So we back in 10 minutes.
And then we'll proceed to the action 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.
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.
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.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.

Segment 5

Okay, if council members can please take their seats, we'd like to reconvene.
Okay, we are back in session.
We'll proceed to the recording in progress.
And the 1st item on the action calendar is a presentation.
From staff on a gap analysis of Berkeley's homeless system of care.
And so I'd like to turn it over to our interim city manager to open on the side.
Thank you, Mr.
mayor, and I will turn it over to our assistant to the city manager and our division manager for the neighborhood services.
Peter.
And it looks, I see Josh Jacobs as well in support.
Thank you.
Thank you.
As we proceed with the rest of our agenda, if we can turn our attention to the presenters, and I'll turn it over to Mr.
Thank you, Mr.
mayor and and thank you city manager.
Good evening.
Council.
My name is Peter.
I do neighborhood services manager.
And we're very pleased to be presenting these comprehensive homeless system analysis to you this evening, which are responsive to a council referral from 2021 to analyze our homeless system against the recommendations laid out in the all home, regional action plan, which was adopted by the city council as our strategic plan to address homelessness in July 2021.
We're not recommending any specific action of you this evening, but we wanted to take this opportunity to present our findings to you and of course, leave room for questions and discussion afterwards.
I have on the line with us, our consultant from the Goldman school, public policy.
So, we clean them who has extensive experience in homeless services and perform these analyses for us.
And she will be getting the staff presentation this evening and will be available for questions afterwards.
Also on the line is Josh Jacobs, our homeless services coordinator who worked closely with this on this project and is available for any questions afterwards as well.
So, thank you very much.
And without further ado, I'd like to introduce and turn the floor over to Zoe.
Great.
Thank you so much, Peter.
And I'm going to try to share my screen.
Can everyone see that? Yes, but we see your notes.
It's in a presentation mode.
Then I will do.
Okay.
Great.
Well, thank you so much, Peter.
And thank you.
Mayor Eric and council members.
So, my name is Zoe Clingman.
Until recently, I was with the Goldman school of public policy up in UC, Berkeley, and I'll be presenting this homelessness system gap analysis.
I completed for the city manager's office in the spring.
So, just to give a little bit of background about this report, city council, the impetus was really city council signing on to the all home regional action plan or wrap, which had this ambitious goal of reducing unsheltered homelessness across the Bay Area by 75%.
And the core concept of the wrap is this idea of system flow.
So, in order to reduce the number of people who are living on the street, you know, in addition to providing shelter, we also need to ensure that they can leave homelessness and get into permanent housing.
And we also need to ensure that we're preventing people from falling into homelessness in the first place.
So, I drew on data for city of Berkeley services, as well as a point in time count, talk to service providers, and also work very closely with city staff.
I'd like to thank both Peter and Josh Jacobs in the city manager's office, as well as Jennifer Vasquez and her team and housing and human services for all their help with this report.
So, I'm going to walk through just a short distilled version of this presentation, the report, since I know you have a busy schedule this evening.
I'll talk through some background about Berkeley's current system of care, the services available, and then some of the major system needs that I see based on the data.
So, starting with some background about Berkeley's current system of care, the real big takeaway here is that there has been a lot of change over the last couple of years in homelessness services across the state.
So, starting with some background about Berkeley's current system of care, the real big takeaway here is that there has been a lot of change over the last couple of years in homelessness services in Berkeley.
Now, partially that's been due to COVID-19, which came along and really changed priorities for a lot of service providers, but it's also partially due to new funding sources that allowed service providers in the city to really expand the services available to homeless people across the state.
So, partially that's been due to new funding sources that allowed service providers in the city to really expand the services available to homeless people across the state.
So, for instance, Berkeley has added about 100 new beds of permanent supportive housing.
That's very resource intensive housing for people with needs that do not allow them to live without support, just over the last couple of years, which is an increase of about 20%.
And at the same time, the city has actually more than tripled the number of non-congregate shelter beds available, which means that more people have been staying in a private space, rather than a sort of dorm style shelter.
This is a much less common kind of model before the pandemic, but we've long heard from people experiencing homelessness and from service providers that many people have needs that are just not well met in congregate shelters, whether that's health problems or safety concerns.
There's lots of reasons that make people feel uncertain about staying in this type of shared space, whereas there's really not the same concern about non-congregate shelters.
So that's something I really saw born out in the data.
Non-congregate shelters consistently had higher utilization rates.
This is just during the first three months of the year.
So on a given night, around 95% of non-congregate beds were full, while congregate shelter beds, it hovered closer to about 75%.
And we should remember that because of the way that turnover works and people moving in and out, 95% is functionally 100%.
So really the story is that Berkeley is building non-congregate shelter beds and people are moving into them.
And more anecdotally, we also have heard from shelter providers that they've been able to shelter and house people who have been outside on the streets for years and hadn't previously moved inside.
So this is overall a very positive story about Berkeley being very responsive to needs.
So there have been indications that these types of new resources have really led to some progress and some success in reducing the number of unsheltered people.
The 2024.10 count, as I'm sure Council has heard about, showed about a 20% reduction in the number of people experiencing homelessness, an even larger reduction in the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness compared to 2022.
Now that data came out after I completed this report, but it's also something that I saw in my reporting.
So for instance, I saw more people accessing shelter in Berkeley over the years as more shelter beds have opened up.
And when people exit Berkeley services, they're more likely to exit to permanent housing and less likely to exit to homelessness compared to pre-pandemic.
So those are all signs that progress is being made.
But we know that there are still needs and very serious needs.
So this next section is going to talk about some of the biggest gaps that I saw in the data.
And I wanted to start with just a sense of the scale of this problem.
So according to the PIT count, about 1000 people experienced homelessness on a given night in 2022.
But we know that more people experience homelessness over the course of the year because people move in and out of homelessness over time.
So looking at service access data, which I deduplicated, I found that over 2000 people access services in Berkeley over the course of 2022 while experiencing homelessness.
So if we use that as a sort of proxy for how many people experienced homelessness, that's about 2% of Berkeley's population who experienced homelessness at some point over the course.
And so looking at the number of people accessing services over the last few years, we can see that there's an increase of the number of people.
And again, this is deduplicated individual people who access shelter, which kind of aligns with that point in time count finding that fewer people are in shelter and more people are accessing shelter.
We do see an increase of about 10% of the people accessing services total from 2022 to 23, which is a slight contradiction with this point in time count numbers, which showed fewer people being homeless.
There's a couple of reasons this could be.
One is that Berkeley simply has more services, and it's reaching more people with, for instance, street outreach.
So that might mean that they're reaching people who previously had been counted in the pit but weren't showing up in service data before.
So that would be a positive story because it would mean that more people are actually accessing services.
There was also a change in the point in time count methodology from 2022 to 2024, so that could also be playing into this.
So when we think about where more pressure on services comes from, why don't we see the number of people experiencing homelessness reduce faster? It really comes down to entries and exits, entries into homelessness and exits from homelessness.
In a functioning system, people might fall into homelessness for a variety of reasons, but the system is able to respond and get them back on their feet and back into housing in a reasonable amount of time.
But in the Bay Area, across California, there have simply been more people entering than exiting over the last many years.
So the number of people staying on the street has increased or at least stayed the same.
And so this diagram just shows very broad estimates of what that kind of turn might look like in Berkeley over the course of 2023.
And again, these are very broad estimates.
It's very difficult to really estimate this data precisely, but it gives a sense of the kind of flow in and out.
So thinking about entries into homelessness, so when people fall into homelessness for the first time, we know from the point in time count that most people who are becoming homeless fall into homelessness after staying with friends and relatives.
So about 60 percent of people who are homeless in Berkeley reported that.
Most people are not becoming homeless after being in a home that they rent or own.
So it's likely they didn't have any sort of formal lease or those types of legal protections that you might go for.
So Berkeley has some robust rental assistance programs that expanded during the pandemic.
But those programs generally don't target homelessness per se.
They're also thinking about anti-displacement issues and they're largely targeted to people who have that kind of formal landlord relationship.
So this might be something for Berkeley to consider.
Other cities in the area use evidence based prioritization that targets people who are most likely to become homeless.
And it's often based on, you know, if you've been homeless before and other risk factors to becoming homeless again.
And if you look at the other side of the equation on exits from homelessness, there's simply a lack of supply of housing that people can exit to.
I think it's not very surprising.
So people in Berkeley and across the Bay Area are connected to housing programs through the coordinated entry housing queue, which is a way that the county triages housing resources for people.
So I looked at the queue in North County, which includes Berkeley, and found that people are simply waiting a really long time for housing, which is what you'd expect given our lack of housing.
So about nine months from the time someone entered the queue until the time that they were referred to the program.
And just about two in ten were housed after being on the queue for a full year.
And this problem was actually more acute among people who are more vulnerable.
So the chart shows this chart shows the waiting times for people with lower vulnerability scores and higher vulnerability scores.
And what's happening here with the orange bars being higher is that people are functionally waiting in line for two different types of services.
People with those higher vulnerability scores above 80 are eligible for permanent supportive housing, and they're waiting longer because there's simply a gap in the permanent supportive housing available for them.
I should mention that there's one other thing that might be driving this pattern is paperwork barriers.
HUD requires pretty significant documentation for people who are entering many federally funded programs, and we might expect that that would affect vulnerable people more.
You know, someone who's unsheltered may have a mental illness, may have a harder time getting together that type of documentation.
But the overall takeaway is that, you know, despite this progress, there's still a ways to go to having enough capacity to house people who need this type of assistance.
So homelessness is a problem that affects people of color at a far higher rate than white people due to historical discrimination and economic hardship.
And this is also something we see in Berkeley.
About six in 10 of the people who experienced homelessness during 2023 were identified as black or African-American and less than 10 percent of Berkeley residents were black or African-American.
Similar levels of disproportionality among indigenous and Native American people.
I mean, this aligns with what we know about people who are vulnerable to homelessness.
People with low incomes and high rent burdens are disproportionately black and people of color in the Bay Area.
But there are also demographic differences within the group of people who were experiencing homelessness.
That may impact how we think about tackling these inequities.
So people of color were especially overrepresented among people homeless for shorter periods.
So you can see in this graph that when you look at the median number of years homeless, white people have a higher number of median years that they have spent homeless and people of color have lower, lower numbers.
So white people, if they are homeless, are more likely to be homeless for a very long time.
And I also saw indications that they were more likely to be long-term unsheltered and to have higher needs like mental health issues or addiction.
You might think about why, what is the reason for this pattern? You know, people of color are overrepresented in homelessness and in the homeless population because they're less likely than white people to have a safety net.
So they may be less likely to have a family member with an extra room where they could stay or a nest egg that they could fall back on if they lose their job.
And so on average, white people who do become homeless might have some of these more severe challenges.
And even if they had these safety nets, might have broken through them.
So this is a complicated, kind of difficult to parse topic.
But I think the takeaway is that when we're thinking about racial equity, it's not always about simply serving the people with the greatest vulnerabilities.
There's this other dimension of who's not likely to have that type of family support.
Help right at the start of their journey into homelessness is something that we should be thinking about.
So this last section is going to talk about projected system needs.
I used a model that was developed by All Home to estimate the types of investments Berkeley would need in order to achieve that 75% reduction in unsheltered homelessness.
And there's a lot going on in this chart, but the takeaway here is that while the city is moving in the right direction, there's still a net need in order to meet these goals.
So it shows different inputs into Berkeley's system of care, whether it's shelter beds or units of housing or slots of prevention funding.
The approximate current capacity is in gray, and then the bars that are in blue show the additional capacity that would be needed in order to achieve this 75% reduction and maintain it over 10 years.
So if we cost this all out, this adds up to about $750 million over 10 years, or $75 million per year.
And to give kind of a sense of the scale of what type of investment that would be, if the city were to take that on by itself, that would be, it wouldn't necessarily take it on by itself, but that would be approximately tripling the amount the city spent last year, every year.
So, one thing that I'll point out specific to these services is the amount of additional targeted prevention per year in this graph.
And that's a really key piece of this, because when you have targeted prevention, it limits the amount of shelter and permanent housing support that you have to provide.
So if people aren't entering homelessness in the first place, you don't need to build an additional shelter bed, you don't need to build an additional unit of affordable housing for them, which tends to be significant.
It's significantly cheaper.
So, you know, this analysis is not intended to predict the future, but the purpose is a thought exercise to understand the scale of investment and where some of those major gaps would be.
But as we're looking into the future, there is a kind of bigger source of urgency for Council to think about, which is that Berkeley really risks losing some of the resources that have driven some of the momentum over the last several years.
So that progress has really depended on sort of three pillars, fiscally, one being federally during the pandemic, through the CARES Act, the American Rescue Plan, another being more state investments than ever before, through HAP and income and resolution grants.
And then also some really robust Measure P revenues, especially in fiscal year 22.
And so all three of these pillars are kind of in doubt at this point.
You know, federal money is largely spent down, state funding is not guaranteed in the future, given the troubles that the state is having with their revenues.
And we know that Measure P can be a fairly volatile revenue source and also sunsets in the next few years.
So, you know, the purpose of this report was to think about prioritizing and where we should invest our money.
Prioritizing is important, but it's not enough.
And this also needs to be about scale and having the amount of resources we need to make progress on this issue.
So I'll wrap up with just a quick overview of recommendations.
There's more in the report.
Top is that Council look for ways to maintain and increase funding for these programs.
And then on specific recommendations, I'm recommending doubling down on non-congregate shelter and interim housing, continuing to fund permanent supportive housing, fill in those gaps.
And then also investing in more targeted homelessness prevention and ensuring that resources are going to people who are most likely to become homeless as a smart strategy.
That is it for me, so I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Okay, I'll turn it back over to Mr.
Odu, anything else you'd like to add on presenting on this item? No, Mr.
Mayor, thank you very much for the opportunity to come before you.
And I know there's a lot in this report, so if you have any specific questions, we are here to help parse through these findings with you.
Thank you.
Well, I really appreciate this report and presentation, but before we get into that, Mr.
I'm wondering if you can address.
That was talked about it by a few speakers in public comment around notices that were posted on Harrison Street.
Did you I'm not aware of.
First, I've heard of it tonight.
I wonder if you can address what what what the city actually did.
And maybe, you know, what is our, what is our policy in light of the grants pass decision? Yeah, thank you mayor.
I appreciate that and certainly heard those comments and concerns from members of the public earlier this evening.
Just to clarify notices were posted.
Today in anticipation of a response team garbage run tomorrow.
These notices are the same notices that we have been posting routinely.
For the past 3 plus years, they are not closure notices.
They are just courtesy notices.
About what our municipal codes are specifically chapter 1448, which governs use of streets and sidewalks.
And we routinely post these, especially in advance of garbage runs.
To to advise people about what the rules are and to let folks know that if their belongings are unattended, that they may be stored personally.
To city policy, all of which is laid out in those notices.
Our operation tomorrow is not a closure.
It's not anything different than we've been doing for the past several years.
It is a voluntary garbage run, which we do with regularity sometimes as frequently as once a week, where we will go to our known encampment sites around the city.
And we will meet with people and see if they have stuff that they want to give to us and try to lessen the footprint and the impact.
That that their encampment is having on our streets and sidewalks.
There's no enforcement action that will be taken.
There are no arrest or type citations that are going to be given in connection to this.
In short, Mr.
Mayor, there's no change from our status quo whatsoever.
We have not made any changes to our operations or policies after grants pass as we really need to hear from our city attorney.
So, this is really just the status quo that we've been doing for the past several years, and I apologize for any confusion to the public.
These notices, again, have been in use for the past several years.
Thank you, Mr.
do for providing that information.
So I'll just say that, you know, we have not made any changes to our operations or policies.
So, this is really just the status quo that we've been doing for the past several years.
These notices, again, have been in use for the past several years.
Thank you, Mr.
do for providing that information.
So, I'll just say on this report.
So, this is just the status quo that we've been doing for the past several years, and I apologize for any confusion to the public.
These notices, again, have been in use for the past several years.
So, this is just the status quo that we've been doing for the past several years.
Thank you, Mr.
do for providing that information.
So, I'll just say on this report.
This is just the status quo that we've been doing for the past several years.
Thank you, Mr.
do for providing that information.
So, I'll just say on this report.
This is just the status quo that we've been doing for the past several years.
Thank you, Mr.
do for providing that information.
So, I'll just say on this report.
This notice is listed in our operations anthology anywhere between 8 to 10 million a year that we've been able to allocate for a variety of programs permits supportive, housing, congregation shelter public health, mental health.
So, I think that's a good example of how we've been able to allocate for a variety of programs and services.
That's not just for people experiencing homelessness.
And it is making an impact.
But I think that the key conclusion that's noted on the 2nd, the last slide is that Berkeley faces a fiscal clip 66% of the revenue that we allocate.
And that's a good example of how we've been able to allocate since measure piece adopted at 66% of the money that goes towards our response to homelessness in Berkeley is from measure.
P measure P is going to expire in the future if we do not extend it.

Segment 6

And I just want to point out that our measure P budget is facing an operational deficit in 2026 fiscal 2026 the budget we approved just last week, projects a 1Million dollar deficit that deficit is going to keep increasing year after year if we don't add revenue to the to measure P so and then moreover, clearly what this report clearly demonstrates is that we have to increase our investment if we're going to achieve our are the important investment that we're going to be able to achieve in the next year.
So, if we don't do that, we're not going to be able to achieve the important goal of significantly reducing homelessness in Berkeley.
So, I just really want to put this in context that how we've been able to be so effective these past 5 years has been because of the significant investment of measure and measure P measure.
We've financed 1000 deed, restricted, affordable units, the 100 units of permanent supportive housing.
That's been a direct result.
The measure own measure P.
So, we've been able to do that.
And so, in order to continue this progress, we have to find a sustainable source of revenue, especially while the state is pulling back on this investment in helping counties and cities address homelessness.
So, I know we'll talk about that on July 30th, but I think the support really does demonstrate the importance.
Adopting measure P, taxing the highest value properties to give us the resources to expand our local response to homelessness and I hope that we'll be able to continue this work and increase the resources to measure P.
So we can make even more progress in the years to come council member.
Thank you very much.
Mr.
mayor and thank you.
Ms.
Klingman for your presentation.
I wanted to go to the slide with the projected capacity to achieve 75% reduction in unsheltered homelessness and obviously, that is a significant price tag of so 750,000,000 over 10 years is that for just the additional in blue or is that the increase in the number of units that are going to be built in the next 5 years? So, I'm wondering if you could tell me.
The entire chart, including the gray.
What we're already funding.
So, the 750,000,000 dollars would be just the blue so both needed over 5 years.
It needed over 10 years.
That's okay.
And when you developed this, were you following the all home ratio for prevention? Or how did you come up with this? Yeah, so it's a little more complicated than that.
And I want to defer to a methodology section in the report itself, rather than try to stumble through how to get there.
Essentially, the methodology follows that as a sort of principle, but isn't tied to specifically that ratio.
Because you kind of have to acknowledge that in different places, you might have a different need for shelter versus permanent housing across the Bay Area.
So, I'd say the 1-2-4 concept is much more of a guiding principle rather than a specific recipe.
Okay, so I will have to go and take a look at your methodology section.
Because I think that's, even if we don't have 750,000,000 available, what I appreciated about the presentation is this concept of system flow.
And I have talked about that in our budget committee, I think.
Ideally, when I've looked at other jurisdictions, they tend to be actually lower cost places where there is the hope that somebody in permanent supportive housing can become self-sufficient and move into a market rate unit.
Because the market rate units aren't as expensive.
So, that's my vision and hope, that somebody could go through this system, and that permanent supportive housing unit that they might be in could turn over, and that somebody else could use that unit.
I don't know how realistic that is in our community, because the market rate rents are so much higher than these other options for folks.
And we know the need is so great.
But I do think the prevention slots or interventions, I feel that that's something we don't talk enough about.
I'm wondering, Mr.
Radu or Mr.
Jacobs, can you go into more detail about what we are doing with prevention? We have on the chart, it's showing we're doing more than 500 prevention interventions for households per year.
So, what does that look like for us? Yeah, I can talk a little bit about that.
So, we have been funding a lot of that prevention work through Mobile Peak.
And we are going to be losing some of that funding because we've stepped away from our response from COVID.
And so, we're going to see a little bit of a reduction in those prevention slots.
But generally, they've been run through the Eviction Defense Center and are targeted towards households that we are able to prove that they're going to be losing their housing.
And I think what Zoe brought up in her report is a really good point that we want to be looking at maybe other forms of prevention services.
So, like looking at households that maybe are doubled up or being able to identify folks that are not with a lease or maybe some kind of unconventional types of housing.
And being able to target those households.
That's where we're seeing a lot of people come into homelessness.
Yeah.
Okay, I'm sorry.
Were you about to say something else? I was going to say if Peter wants to add anything, feel free.
No, I agree.
This idea that eviction prevention equals homeless prevention is not always true.
And I think that's a key takeaway from this report.
It's very, very, very important to provide eviction defense so that folks who are stably housed have those legal protections and have that recourse should they be facing legal challenges.
But our data repeatedly bear out both here in Berkeley as well as in many other communities that there is another rung of the ladder between holding a lease and being literally homeless.
And that is that level of informal housing where you are with friends or relatives or doubled up or couch surfing or something of that nature.
And not many communities.
That is sort of the new frontier, if you will, for homeless prevention and figuring out how to target resources to those individuals.
And that's an opportunity for the city of Brooklyn as we move forward.
Okay, thank you for that, because I did want to suggest that I would be interested in in our city looking at what more can we do to prevent homelessness aside from eviction defense as important as that is because I think you did note the, as you just said, Mr.
Yeah, doing the couch surfing and they're sort of hard to reach because the address isn't even there.
So I think we have to think more about how we can reach that population.
And that's very high risk and and look at what are other jurisdictions doing to support those people and individuals to remain in that situation or become more stably housed.
Ideally, thank you.
Thank you for your presentation.
Councilman, thank you very much.
And first of all, I really want to thank Zoe and Peter and Josh and everybody who contributed to this report.
I think Mr.
I do remembers that for quite a while, my office was sort of trying to convene these every 6 month meetings with all the key players and in homeless services to kind of do an informal gap analysis where we were sort of, you know, what should we do next? What are the things that that we're missing, but we never had the benefit of something as deeply researched and detailed and incredibly helpful as this report.
And I'm really, really excited to have it.
And I think it's going to be helpful to inform things we do in the future.
And I will just say that I would love to have the opportunity to meet one on one with whoever the right people are, because I have like, a lot of questions and comments and too many for this meeting.
But I really want to thank you.
This is extraordinary.
And I think we have developed a suite of homeless services and policies that have been proving to be effective.
And we are always striving to be more effective and humane in the way that we, we try to resolve this terrible homelessness crisis in Berkeley.
So, those are my kudos a couple of comments and a couple of questions.
First of all, the report weaves in the question of disability, but I think maybe somewhat inconsistently in that.
That is the largest marker of of of homelessness, even more extreme than than the, you know, outrageous marker of of of being African American or person of color and disproportionately experiencing homelessness.
But the disability piece is really kind of screams at me throughout this this report and as a city that has so many experts and so many organizations that work on disability issues.
I really think that we should add to our priorities to really better understand the disability piece and and how we are addressing that as a city and what it is that makes it that people with disabilities are the ones who end up homeless.
So, I'm just going to bring that up as something that I think we should put a bigger emphasis on when we're thinking about how to resolve homelessness.
I also, I mean, housing first is something that I think we all support and I certainly have championed that, but housing first suggests there's something that comes after.
And I think this the information about people who are falling back out of housing after they've been housed and the discussion of the need for support for people and for supportive housing.
And I think potentially other types of maybe writer and medium touch support for people after they've been housed.
Maybe there's some room for Berkeley to innovate and find some cost effective models for people who may not qualify for the deepest level of support, but housing first suggests or something next.
And I think that we all understand the housing first need, and we're working towards that.
And I'd like us to think a little bit about what what's what comes second.
And I also was interested in the paperwork ready concept and I'd be very interested in, you know, at a future time, seeing a proposal from staff.
Is there a way for us to, I don't know, do the.
Have appointments with people out out in the field and, you know, work intensively with people in different ways so that they are paperwork ready when when they finally are in a position to be offered housing.
And then the last kind of overarching comment that that I think is important for people to remember is that many people have expressed an interest in being house and are actually in the queue.
And they are languishing on the streets because the supply and availability of appropriate housing.
The supply and availability of appropriate housing.
Just simply isn't there and.
I guess just sometimes there's a public misconception about who is actually on our streets and that somehow people don't want housing and that they haven't, you know, they're not accepting offers when in fact.
And so.
I think.
A large number of them are in our queue.
And our queue is just too slow.
So I just wanted to kind of shine a light on that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So, in terms of new findings, Berkeley will need more funding to keep up momentum.
And obviously, the mayor has mentioned measure P and I am passionate about that as one of the co authors of that and really work hard to get that passed.
So, I think, you know, we really need to think about this and we need a runway for reauthorization measure P and.
But also, one of the measures that is that was brought forward by, you know, through the petition process would limit what we can do with our you want funds.
So, I think, you know, we really need to think about that.
And that you run funds are the primary source or one of the primary sources of our funding for for housing retention.
So, I think, you know, we really need to think about that.
And I think, you know, with respect to what we can use those monies for, that's also a way that we can lose access to resources that we need for programs that are state of the art.
And I just want to raise that.
I just want to raise that.
And I think that's a way that we can lose access to resources that we need for programs that are state of the art.
And I think that's a way that we can lose access to resources that we need for programs that are state of the art.
A couple other things and not too many.
I already mentioned the disability number 80% of people.
Are disabled 59% are African American.
So, I think, you know, that's a way that we can lose access to resources that we need for programs that are state of the art.
And I think really speaks to the fact that if you don't have a family safety net.
And you don't have the safety net of of appropriate services for whatever disability you have.
Our country really just doesn't have anything for you.
And you may not be able to work.
And you may not be able to find.
Potentially family to to fall back on or a second income in your household.
And, and you may not be able to work.
So it's really it's about our very cruel.
Capitalist system that just does not have a safety net and doesn't care for people.
And it's pretty heartbreaking.
Thank you.
I was interested by the statistic that a lot of people are accessing day shelter.
And I'm wondering what are we providing through day shelter programs and is that a place.
Where we could expand or enhance since almost 40% of people.
Are homeless.
So, how does that impact our enrichment expansion? Different suite of services.
Yeah, I think 1 of the main functions of day shelters is providing food resources.
And so a lot of the folks, it's hard to kind of determine who actually is homeless.
And it's actually accessing those services.
You're absolutely right.
I think there's, there's a lot of ways for us to be able to capitalize on the involvement that folks are having with those organizations and to be able to build those relationships.
And to kind of piggyback on what you were saying before about the efforts that we can do to address folks who are on the streets.
Now, I'm getting them document ready and making sure that they are at the.
At the right place to get matched to housing.
1 of the things that we're working on currently with the county is trying to get our homeless response team certified to become a limited access point, meaning that we can go out and do assessments and do document collection and be able to put that on the system.
So that folks are having a easier runway into housing and they currently have.
And so we're trying to build that up now and I think adding that on to the relationship that people already have with the day center would be would be a great idea.
And I do want to stress that if I may council member I think 1 thing that's very important for the public to understand so much of the coordinated entry.
And the issues around documentation and the issues around the housing queue and how long it takes to get matched to housing.
That all has to do with the county's coordinated entry system.
The city has very little direct oversight and influence on those but to Josh's point.
He, especially in the team have been working very, very hard with the county to bring more of that directly to the city's homeless response team so that when we are out in the streets, and we are connected with somebody and have that opportunity to talk to them.
We can do an assessment with them right then and there we can start on that documentation process with them right then and there, and we don't have to make a referral to another service provider, which sometimes it will take a day or two for them to come out and meet that person and now you've lost that person.
And so that that is to your to your earlier points around, you know, a staff proposal around how we could fix some of these documentation issues that is already underway and I'm personally very excited about that.
Well, I think one of the things that we see the strongest is the ability to build relationships with our clients, and to be able to pass it off and have to give a referral to someone we're not seeing the same type of responses to the assessment questions that we would I think that's part of the reason why we're missing out on a big opportunity.
And I think that our staff is able to ask those questions because they have that relationship.
And I think this work is so relationship driven, you lose that focus for, we're missing out on a big opportunity.
Yeah, I mean, I'm wondering if even something like that is a fairly simple solution.
I know I, when I'm done with a, with one of my phones, I donate it to a women's shelter.
And, you know, could we actually provide phones to people so that we can continue our contact and close the loop on things? So, anyway, that's brainstorming for another time, but I'm very interested in.
Um, how we can better serve people in the day how we can better connect with them access to computers access to phones and kind of tighten up the system that is leaky.
It's a very leaky system, but it's a very, very important part of what we're trying to do.
And I think it's a it's a it's a very important part of what we're trying to do.
Um, how we can better serve people in the day how we can better connect with them.
Um, you know, access to computers access to phones.
Um, how we can better serve people in the day how we can better connect with them access to computers access to phones and kind of tighten up the system that is leaky.
It's a very, very important part of what we're trying to do.
Um, how we can better serve people in the day how we can better connect with people that we don't stay in contact and necessarily serve them all the way through the cycle.
And I think I actually think that's probably something that is less difficult to do then.
Um, okay, a couple more.
Just this question of people that that being evicted is not necessarily the precursor to being homeless.
I'll just say that I think that the way you end up couch surfing.
So I do think that loss of a unit is probably somewhere in this chain.
It just not might not be the last link before you ended up on the streets.
Um, but that having been said, given that we know that a lot of people end up being hosted by friends and family before they end up homeless.
I think we should think about how could we actually support those households that are hosting people.
And who would otherwise be homeless and maybe we can support those households in a way that allows them to keep their guests a little longer and provide the services while they're still housed.
So that's just like another place that I think we should explore, but I also don't want to confuse this statistic.
Okay.
Thank you.
So I'm going to go back to your statistic.
Your statistic is where were you last housed.
Right.
So I'm going to go back to your statistic.
Where were you last housed.
Right.
So I'm going to go back to your statistic.
Just a few more things.
I know.
Okay.
So I think we need to have a specific.
Study of that and some plans and some ideas around both prevention and serving that subset of our homeless.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for tonight and that and I will reach out tomorrow to see if we can set a time to talk about some of these things more in depth.
But thank you so much and I look forward to all the improvements that we can make to our programs by using this important report.
Council member Humber.
Thank you to my colleagues and my colleagues in the homeless advocacy office for their work on this this really interesting report.
And I also want to thank staff who are on the ground actually connecting homeless individuals with shelter and services from top to bottom neighborhood services goes above and beyond and I deeply appreciate your work.
And I also want to thank the city of Berkeley for her efforts to secure funding for the non congregate shelter.
Her efforts to secure funding and sites for motel conversions have been instrumental in Berkeley reducing its unsheltered homeless population.
And I want to thank all the people at HHCS who helped make that happen as helpful as this report is to understanding our current situation and potential next steps.
And I also want to thank the city of Berkeley for its support of housing.
It has taken over 4 years to accomplish its goals.
Maybe more.
It will likely be more than that since permanent supportive housing is an ongoing cost.
Plus, our homeless crisis is a regional 1 that will continue to bleed into Berkeley to some degree.
Even if we house everyone who's currently here.
And I also want to thank the city of Berkeley for its support of housing.
Housing is one of the most affordable ways to generate and mixed income housing moving forward in this city.
New buildings are 1 of the most effective ways we get new affordable units and or funding for city run permanent supportive housing.
And this comes at no cost to the taxpayer new housing actually tends to be a net positive for our revenue since it generates additional taxes and economic activity.
So, the fact that the city of California have lower rates of homelessness than Berkeley is not that they are more progressive.
They're certainly not or generous places or that capitalism isn't in effect there.
It's that these places have more housing relative to their population than we do here in Berkeley in the Bay Area.
That's because we're 50 years behind the curve and building housing.
So, I hope that the city of California is able to expand and receive additional regional and state funding to address homelessness.
I think this report offers an excellent roadmap for further reducing homelessness, especially unsheltered homelessness.
So, I hope that the city of California is able to expand and receive additional regional and state funding to address homelessness.
I think this report offers an excellent roadmap for further reducing homelessness.
I think this report offers an excellent roadmap for further reducing homelessness.
I hope that we continue to be very aggressive with our efforts to build more homes, including in the coming weeks when we take up missing middle housing.
Thank you.
Thank you, Peter, HHCS staff, Zoe, Josh, the entire team.
I have a few questions.
Apologies in advance.
This is my first time digging into this from up here, so I do have a few questions.
Please bear with me.
Can you talk about maybe just how data tracking happens or challenging to quantify populations like populations that engage in couchsurfing? Yeah, certainly.
This is a huge challenge for us.
One of the main data sources that we rely on is the Homeless Management Information System.
It's a client service driven database.
So, it's really based on if clients are coming in and accessing services.
And exactly like you said, if someone's couchsurfing or not identifying as homeless and not coming in for services, we're not able to track them and we're not able to see where those folks are.
The other piece of data that we get every two years, we get the point in time count.
As Zoe said, we had some changes to the methodology in the last report, but we are actually getting more solid data from that.
We're actually moving away from just observing folks on the street and actually going up to folks and surveying them and actually getting real information from the people and being able to get more robust data.
We should be seeing more of that information coming out later in the summer.
And hopefully we'll get some more robust information about who's experiencing homelessness on the streets.
Those are the two main data sources that we're able to track.
Some of the providers are also having some databases that they are able to utilize and can share some of that information with us as well.
Thank you so much.
Can you also speak to just this whole quandary around barriers to access housing? For instance, someone who is in an RV, who is just for whatever reason, unable to park with their RV.
And I know the city has tried to find permanent stations for that.
We found a temporary space, but it was always temporary.
Or, you know, someone who has a pet and, you know, trying to find a place to live.

Segment 7

to access shelter that has a no pets policy.
Can you speak to what the city endeavors to do to minimize barriers to entry? Yeah, absolutely.
So we have definitely pushed our shelters to be as low barrier as possible.
The pet issue is definitely a big one.
I mean, pets are a part of the family and a part of the household.
That being said, there's also limitations to some of our shelter spaces.
Just the way that they're configured, they can accommodate large animals where we can accommodate them.
And when we can, we do.
And we really try to make sure that we're following those with pets to those shelters and making sure that they're getting a referral to a place that makes sense for them.
The issue that you brought up before about about folks in trailers and being able to depart from those is a very big issue as well.
And you're exactly right.
You hit it right on the head.
We used to have space to be able to do that.
We were very successful when we had that space.
We saw a lot of people participate.
We saw a lot of people very excited about being able to keep their home and take it into a space that was sanctioned and safe for them.
The issue is that we don't have that space anymore.
And we've been unable to identify a place that's viable for folks.
But and often when folks are going into shelter, they're having to give up that home because it's you know, it's subject to any of the other rules and regulations that would pertain to any other vehicle on the street.
And just to add to that, Council Member, I think that the issues about RV homelessness, this explosion in RV homelessness in Berkeley and across the West Coast is a relatively recent phenomenon.
And and as a result is relatively understudied as a as a phenomenon.
There's there's relatively little hard data as to sort of what this population is experiencing, what their needs are and what the solutions are for them.
Fortunately, we do have here is in the Bay Area, UCSF, the Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative and Dr.
Margot Cushel and her team.
In my opinion, the the best and strongest research team on homelessness in the country, if not the world, is right here.
And they recently performed a study of RV homelessness in Oakland and found that for the most part, folks living in RVs are not willing to part with their RV for anything less than a permanent intervention, i.e.
permanently subsidized housing.
And this makes good sense, because if they're being asked to part with their shelter, with their RV, which is a source of privacy and a source of, you know, some degree of permanency when it comes to shelter to go into an interim housing with with there's no guarantee for, you know, housing on the back end.
It is very understandable that they may be reluctant to make that trade off.
The problem is is exactly what Zoe highlighted in the report is just that huge gap in the availability of permanent supportive housing.
And the RV population especially, I think, is acutely impacted by that.
Thank you.
I'm going to try to combine some of my questions to save time.
Can you comment on the regional landscape of this situation? I know Berkeley has done a great job relative to the rest of the county in many respects.
And how.
With these counts, are these statistics for Berkeley or on page 25? There was reference to northern Alameda.
So what would be the boundaries of that? How are we approaching this issue on a regional basis? Because I'm also concerned about and I I have direct experience with this.
There was someone sheltering in the Madeleine Shirek building, and I was trying to help her find housing.
And there was no housing available in Berkeley or northern Alameda County.
And I ended up working directly with a supervisor in Hayward and then ultimately took a GoFundMe campaign to base.
So it was basically became an off book situation where she was able to raise money to be housed.
But I am concerned about, well, one, that outflow that one hundred people a year that are, you know, were left the system.
And how are we making sure that the region does its fair share as well to address these challenges? I can speak to the data part of this and then might need to show over to Josh or Peter for the more policy related pieces.
So when I'm saying people homeless in Berkeley, I'm referring to people who are enrolled in services that are located in Berkeley.
So it's definitely true that some of those people likely live in Emeryville or live in Albany and come into Berkeley and use the services.
Similarly, there's probably people in Berkeley who are crossing the border over to North Oakland to use those services.
So, you know, none of these numbers are going to be precisely exact.
But that is that is something to keep in mind.
And also say that that sort of regional approach is kind of by design.
That is the idea behind the continuum of care that we have at the county level to allow all the different cities and service providers to really coordinate and take advantage of the economy of scale and really be able to to provide people these services on a regional level, because we know that people don't just live in Berkeley.
They live they live in the region, you know.
So I'll just I'll add that when we talk for the purpose of the Pitt County, when we're talking about like the region of North County, North Alameda, we're talking about Albany, Emeryville and Berkeley.
That's the kind of trifecta for the North County area.
And then as far as the regional component, we are we work with the COC pretty extensively.
We all I'm on a lot of the committees and working with on the agency, which is home based to kind of coordinates with all of the other cities and jurisdictions to make sure that we have a coordinated response to homelessness in our in our COC or our county.
And I'll pass it over to Peter to see if there's other reason.
I've seen and there's other regional efforts as well beyond that for how to tackle homelessness.
It's very challenging.
We've been talking about regional solutions to homelessness for for a very long time, but it's very challenging to pull that off for two reasons.
The as Zoe mentioned, federal funding is parsed out at the continuum of care level, which is defined by the federal government and in the Bay Area is essentially co-terminal with with county boundaries.
And so those funding sources go to the Alameda County continuum of care, the Contra Costa County continuum of care at the state level, welfare state in California is administered at the county level.
And so all of the resources that are needed to serve somebody who has high needs with benefits and medical care and food stamps, et cetera, et cetera.
Those are all administered at the county level.
And yet we know that, for example, Richmond is another city that is a ten minute part right away, 15 minute part right away from Berkeley that is experiencing a lot of displacement and street homelessness.
And there is a lot of travel between Berkeley and Richmond.
And yet from an administrative standpoint, those are two entirely different systems of care, both for federal and state funding.
And so there is not really an administrative mechanism in place.
Between the county and COC level and the state and federal level to address this as a Bay Area problem.
And that's been a major barrier.
And I know that the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority, for example, is trying to contend with that.
And so there are efforts underway to address that.
But historically, council member, that's been a huge barrier.
There's just not that sort of super county sub state regional administrative mechanism in place to truly tackle this as a regional problem.
Thank you.
I have two more questions and three very brief comments.
Can you speak to.
The need for this availability for mental services, a graph, what.
Is there a particular demographic that keeps showing up for the types of folks that are refusing service and kind of wanting to better get a picture of who they might be and the reasons why they may be refusing service.
I've never done an analysis on who is refusing and actually looking into those details.
I think that's a really good idea.
We have seen like who, you know, who's been entrenched in these encampments and they're very predominantly experiencing mental health, physical health and substance abuse.
And so those those issues are prevalent in the encampments.
Thank you.
But then this is.
Maybe a little tangential, but I thought of it as you were talking about how long someone ends up on a wait list.
In the past, there was some discussion around developing a coordinated point of entry to inclusionary housing in market rate projects.
And can you just brief? Maybe it's just me, but maybe for the benefit of others as well.
If if that is something that is under consideration or in discussion where it would essentially be a one stop shop where folks can go to apply for housing.
I'm not sure on that one.
Yeah, council member, that's a very good question.
If it's OK with you, let me let me get back to you on that one.
I don't have an answer for you right now, but but I very much appreciate the question.
I'll take it to my colleagues.
Absolutely.
And we'll be setting up a meeting with you anyway, in short order.
My three brief comments, I wanted to associate myself with the comments of the mayor and council members on around the importance of reauthorizing measure piece sooner rather than later and doing so at a level that will be self-sustaining in the both the immediate and the longer term future.
I want to make sure that our policies continue to support anti displacement measures.
It does cost less, as has been demonstrated time and time again, to keep a person housed in Berkeley than investing in services to get them rehoused.
And lastly, I would like to you know, see what is already under consideration.
I don't wish to reinvent the wheel, but I would like to support efforts around other opportunities, including access to universal basic income pilot program and or other measures that may provide a modicum of stability, which would be that difference between, you know, having a paycheck to be able to make that rent payment on time to remain housed in Berkeley.
Thank you.
Councilor Bartlett.
Thank you, Mr.
Miriam.
And thank you, Mr.
Radu.
And thank you, Ms.
Klingman and Mr.
Jacobs for your presentation.
Wonderful work.
Very, very terrifying.
Very sobering.
And I can't seem to get away from the the number of the 750 million dollar price tag over 10 years.
You know, this speaks to the scale of the issue.
This this this idea that we are now at the very bottom of a fire hose attempting to make up for 50 years of inaction in housing production, disinvestment in health care and mental health care.
And, you know, never, never accepting the economic rebound that we got after the oil crisis 50 years ago and the stagflation.
We since went on and became the richest place in the history of the world.
California, I mean, and we never reinvested in this human infrastructure.
And now we are with, you know, hundreds of thousands of people in the streets.
And, you know, we're we're having to make use of old motels and and in the cost of producing one below market unit is a million dollars.
And, you know, none of this adds up.
None of it does.
We're going to need to absolutely get at the core issues around mental health care and and redouble our efforts to have our partners in the federal government and the state take the lead and other regional approaches to to redevelop mental health care facilities in the state and and really get into treatment for people and produce housing everywhere.
And just make sure that, you know, we can approach begin to approach this this really human collapse.
And we're coming down.
There's another pressure coming with a tidal wave of the elderly coming our way where people are living longer and becoming poorer.
So there we have the tenant protections and the missing middle reforms to allow the reduction in space and scale for people trapped in large houses who are elderly and alone so we can increase the capacity there.
It's an all above the approach.
And ultimately, our compassion is huge, but we must engage the wider community of the region, the state to address this.
OK, thank you.
We'll take public comment now on item 16 gap analysis of Berkeley's Homelessness System of Care.
OK, thank you.
I have three additional minutes, one from Paul Keola Blake, one from Charlie in the red shirt and read that's in the audience here.
OK, first, I want to address that people of color, especially overrepresented people homeless for shorter periods.
It could be that people of color, black persons are going into shelters.
The question is, how stably are they being housed? Are they just being going through the homeless services system and being sheltered and then being somewhere else temporarily? And also, it's very, you know, so this thing about white persons being more likely to be addiction and mental health, that could be because the black population is often misdiagnosed and inappropriately served in mental health.
And also also overly represented in the criminal justice system being directed.
Now that white persons are more likely to have mental health and addiction, according to this, the studies or the stats.
What does that say about maybe we're not providing the proper mental health care and substance use care in a supportive manner? Because people do better if they have it in a supportive manner.
And I'm going to return to what I've mentioned before is there is this option wellness and camp and monies we received from the state and the amount of two point eight million.
Those proposals were scored a year ago.
We went to council on September 19th.
That's two point eight million over four to five years that we have to do in capital wellness.
What better time than after this is a money than after the grants passed decision to get this going so that people can be linked up so that they can receive the proper mental health wellness services.
And where is the contract? It's been a year since it came to council.
I'm worried that we're going to lose this money from the state because that's happened a few years ago where it took the city a year and a half to use any money for crisis triage.
And then we only were able to use one and a half of the three years.
So I really hope that can be moving ahead, that someone does something to get that moving.
Second, in terms of money, we'll be down one third this year.
Fifty one fifty transports.
That's one point three million.
Not a fortune, but it was 20 percent of our money this time that was available to pay revenue.
Can we please look towards the county settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and DRC to see if they the county transports can be returned to them because they have an obligation under that settlement agreement to be directing people into peer respites through the county.
So it seems like we could be that could be picked up.
And in addition to the option wellness contract, we have all these other things that have come before council.
The body thing.
We know the care courts are coming up in December.
How is that going to be defined? Is Berkeley working with the county to make sure it's for the care courts or for, say, the most violent persons that are on the streets? How are we putting this whole network together? Last, in terms of grants passed.
I don't know if this is just speculation on my part.
I'm concerned that on a federal level that because the country's nearest to the right that our homeless housing may end up being tied into into conditions.
That would relate to grants pass.
I mean, homeless housing was a bipartisan joint effort previously.
And now what's going to happen with this decision? Because the country is going so far, right? Thank you.
But.
OK, I'm Andrea Henson, where do we go? I'm responding to Peter.
It is the same notice, however, people are smart since grants passed.
And so they know when it says arrest, they're scared they're going to get arrested.
And I could talk about since I've come back where people have been moved to.
I'm finding people in Oakland and Hayward stuck there, not document ready who came from the sea breeze right now.
That's what I'm dealing with.
But in terms of solutions, I would say oversight over these providers, I would say putting recommendations in the RFQs that you all put out, demanding that they that they give you accountability for services.
And most importantly, if you want to save money, create a homeless protection board.
You have money in them protecting everyone, the tenants, you know, eviction defense center protecting their rights.
There's like me and Bridget at ABCLC protecting the homeless in Berkeley who have been given the wrong vouchers, who've been placed in uninhabitable apartments.
Have someone provide oversight for the monies that you all are providing who can protect them as they start to move into housing and shelters.
Because when I step in, the providers do their job and then we can help people.
If you want to save money, build that in the same way you built the protections and for tenants.
And you'll see a huge change here in Berkeley.
Thank you.
We somehow or another, we're still awake.
This is remarkable.
So thank you very much each and every one of you.
My name is Maria and I just want to speak, especially with regard to so many things that Sophie brought up.
We're alive, we're human, we're in bodies.
And there before the grace of God, though, I never expected to be disabled.
I've been taking care of homeless people and feeding hungry my entire life, shelter programs, et cetera.
And then I ended up there and it's like we're in this together.
And if we would waste less and prevent harm, if we will remember that each of us have value.
I can't tell you how many people on the street I deal with that are so broken by how we think of them and treat them.
I've raised children, we support them, we nurture them, we cultivate them.
We remember that we have hearts and that we need to care and share.
We waste so much available space.
Now, it could be occupied.
We waste the resources and gifts that people have.
The community that some people are formulating, utilizing their gifts and being appreciated is transforming a lot naturally.
It's from the bottom up because it's not trickling down, which brings me to my plaintive plea that many of you have heard and I know I'm going on a little bit.
But this is fundamental.
If you don't talk to the people that you are serving.
You don't know what they need and they can't receive it.
We need to have more communication and cooperation, so I look forward to all that we can do because we must.
We must, because again, there, but for the grace of God, go any of us.
I really care.
I know each of you do and we can do much better.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm Jessica and I have an extra minute from going Gilmer.
Yeah, so I just want to address a few things that Peter had listed in his presentation.
1 of them is being like, kind of like a blame and lie that actually, like, we could clean up that even Harrison actually stopped last year in September when we file proud of this is the city of Berkeley.
So, for him to say that the thing is actually coming weekly to clean up the encampment that is a blame and lie.
They just started showing up just recently in the last 2 weeks.
And without reason, basically, it's just because now you guys have the liberty to just come and sleep us and this is why they're coming back again.
Another thing I wanted to address is just basically.
Just the fact that, you know, that is really smart and he knows what people need, what kind of shelter they need.
I live in my RV and yet, even though he just said to you guys that people that live in our bees need a permanent solution.
He kept offering me temporary shelter in order just to say that I'm denying shelter, but the truth is, I'm not denying any help.
I do want help, but you guys are just choosing to just throw whatever options just to say that you actually did something for the people.
And most importantly, like, I told them who were the people that he needed to prioritize, which were my neighbors that were literally dying on the streets.
There was 2 people from my camp that died last year.
And that's because he chose not to prioritize them.
So what is this really about that? The people that want to go into shelter in Berkeley, I'm not even getting that opportunity.
Why? Because the gatekeepers are the city staff.
They're the people that actually get to choose who goes inside and who doesn't, you know, and that really is not fair for the people because they really want to get inside, you know, and also we wouldn't have such a big price on getting people into shelter if we all had just a place where we can all be safe.
No, we got golden gate deals.
Why not make that actually like a sanction encampment? So we can actually be safe and then transition into housing from this spot instead of a little scrambling us in the street over and over again.
So, I just hope that, you know, you take into account that, you know, people really do want to go get back inside, but that's not really happening.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We'll go to speakers on zoom.
Matthew Lewis.
So, are we sorry, are we talking about the grants pass item now as well, or just the we're not there yet? Okay, that thank you.
Blair Beekman, hi, thanks for this item.
Thanks for the conversation.
Thank you to Councilperson Bartlett for describing kind of like, we've kind of put ourselves in a hole in how to address better address these sort of issues.
In his words, prop 13 has been on my mind lately and works very nicely into what he's saying what prop 13 gutted from our social system and networks in 78 is immeasurable.
It's it's about as bad as what cobit is doing.
Probably.
It has done the young people these days.
It's the same kind of effect.
There's a socialization process.
It's really been lost and good luck on what you're working on.
Yeah, I mean, to address from both Richmond to Oakland to be including those concepts in, you know, the city of Berkeley.
Good luck.
How to be working towards that.
And it's a lot to be considering and thanks for this item.
We're going to form a counselor.
Thank you and I want to thank Andrea Henson for her amazing comments and also Jessica Prado for her amazing comments and speaking the truth that Peter do is lying when it comes to the things that she quoted.
He was lying about and I saw for a fact that he didn't care about the unhoused community.
When I saw the enforcement 1 time on 8th and Harrison and also outside of a senior, the senior center in North Berkeley years ago.
He just walked by, so y'all have to bring humanity back into the freaking equation.
Bring it back, bring empathy and compassion.
And don't enforce.
Tomorrow on 8th and Harrison, thank you.
Okay, Whitney sparks our next speaker followed by Alana.
Thank you.
I just want to speak to this.
I have experienced on houselessness in Berkeley as a black woman, and I do appreciate the presentation.
I even more appreciate the comments and the compassion from Andrea Henson and Jessica Prado and former counselor Davila.
We need to, I want to say, first of all, there's black people can unfortunately also be disabled.
Those are not two separate demographics to Sophie.
Yes, to UBI and if there's going to be an issue with funding protection of unhoused people, that's all the more important to pass greater protections in the light of grants passed to stop all sweeps.
Definitely don't sweep tomorrow and also to defund and.

Segment 8

, and I'm going to turn it over to you, to talk about how you can abolish Berkeley police so that you can fund housing for the community.
Thank you.
Ilana Auerbach.
Good evening.
Thank you for that report.
I have been, you know, working with people on the street, as you all know, and the solution in the hotels is, motels is extremely expensive.
There's a lot of issues there.
The treatment for a lot of the formerly unhoused people who are living there, there are a lot of complaints from the staff as far as, it's not trauma-informed care.
In fact, there's a lot of trauma-inducing care that is happening at these non-congregate motels.
It's also extremely expensive.
Food has to be brought in.
And I know that the roadway, University Inn, it's now being called, is being turned into permanent housing.
And then they're going to be continued providing food.
What is the solution there? It's just a very expensive option.
And there are other options that we can do and be creative about it and not just continue to build more market rate.
Because more market rate, which we've been building, has not been solving the problem because it's not available for unhoused people.
So, in Oakland, there's a man here whose name I'm forgetting, but he designed these container housing.
And Oakland has put an order in for all of them.
There are tiny homes.
There are lots of different things that we can do if we are really committed to permanently housing these people.
And we need to do that because the heat, it's inhumane what's happening to people on the street here.
So we can do a lot better.
I'll just note we have the same, Berkeley adopted the same regulations to allow for tiny homes to be built.
So we can do a lot better in terms of interim housing.
So, thank you staff for the excellent report and presentation.
Clearly, there's a lot more work to do because the humanitarian crisis still continues despite the work we've done.
I just want to say there are a number of people that made comments about Mr.
Radu.
He is not our representative.
He's not a member of the committee.
He's not a member of the commission.
And I think he does an incredible job with a great deal of compassion and sensitivity with really the goal of trying to help people.
And I just want to express my appreciation to him and his whole team and thank the presenters tonight on this item.
So we'll move now very briefly to item 18.
I move adoption of the resolution submitting the measure without alteration to a vote of the people at the November 5, 2024 municipal election.
And part two, I'd like to designate myself and Council Member Lunapara to file arguments.
That's my motion.
Is there a second? Second.
Okay.
And then I do have a question.
Our finance director has been waiting to be able to address my question about this.
So, kind of following up on the previous item, we talked about our homelessness prevention system and the resources we currently have through Measure P and Measure U1 to fund our housing retention program, shallow subsidies, vouchers for people to help get them immediately off the street to prevent them from becoming homeless.
And we've done that using the proceeds from the Measure U1 tax on large properties.
So, I'm wondering if this measure would prohibit us from having any flexibility on spending most of the Measure U1 money and instead would create a new program where the city, it says the Department of Finance, would provide direct payments to property owners, who would be eligible for it.
Non-profits, including the Eviction Defense Center, currently administer our housing retention program, they would be prohibited from actually being able to implement our housing retention program.
So, instead, the Department of Finance would have to implement this program.
There's no guidelines, there's no means testing, there's no prioritization.
So, I guess my question for finance is, if finance has looked at this, if the city attorneys looked at this, and how would we implement this? How would finance implement? Finance doesn't implement housing programs.
That was, Council Member Henry, you're coming in financially.
That was some of our concern that we had, but the big picture is, it's saying that they want us to use part of the U1 money, 20% of that or 30% of that, to create this fund.
We can do that, if we need to do, we can do that.
Then the question then becomes, how do we spend and what is the criteria in order for us to be able to expense this fund that we put in there? If it's 20%, we're talking about $1.5 million, maybe $1.2 depending on how much revenues we get.
For 25, we're assuming it's $6.5 million.
So, if it's 20% of that $6.5, we're talking about $1.2 to $1.5 million.
So, that could be done.
That's easy.
The question then becomes, what is the criteria? But when I was reading this, it showed that there was supposed to be a committee or a commission that's going to be telling us, writing the rules about who is going to be eligible, that kind of thing, the eligible list and all that.
So, we have concern over that.
But when I read it, it seems like that committee or the composition of that committee is going to be the one that's going to do the heavy lifting in terms of telling us who we should send, if that is my understanding, just from reading it.
Yeah.
I mean, $1 million is not a lot of money.
So, I don't know how many renters are actually going to be helped by that amount of money.
Let's be realistic here.
And so, to kind of tie our hands about how we're currently using our money, and nobody said that we're not using the money correctly or that we're not having impact.
In fact, the very report we just got shows that we are having impact and actually helping reduce homelessness.
So, obviously, this will be something a conversation we'll have in the coming months.
But I just really want to understand from finance's perspective, like, how would we implement this? We can't subcontract this out to a nonprofit, which is what we currently do, because that's expressly prohibited in this measure.
And so, finance, who doesn't administer housing programs, would have to do this and come up with criteria.
Is a tenant who makes $1 million, are they on the verge of homelessness? Are they on the verge of being homeless? Are they on the verge of not having the money? Or are we talking about people that actually need it who are on the verge of homelessness? Not a lot of detail here.
It's kind of hard to parse out how this actually would work.
And if this is obviously approved by the voters, we'll have to figure it out.
So, that was my question.
I appreciate you, Mr.
Oikami, staying on to be able to answer it.
So, that's my motion.
I would like to see whether the voters can decide whether to approve this.
And that's my motion.
Any other questions or comments? Okay.
The council members in the back, can you please come back so we can vote? Okay.
We'll take public comment on this item.
Is there any public comment on this item? Okay.
Hi.
I'm not going to be long.
If this has in any way, as our mayor has said, affects the Eviction Defense Center, I worked there and I watched Anna Moura and her staff during COVID single-handedly and responsibly keep people housed in Berkeley.
It was really phenomenal that such a small organization does such tremendous work to keep people housed.
And I would say that if this is going to affect non-profit funding to organizations like Eviction Defense Center, then I would vote against it because I watched them.
I was there.
It was incredible what we did every single day under her leadership to help the tenants of Berkeley and also what she did to keep people housed in Oakland.
So, I would vote against it if it goes against funding them because they're extraordinary.
Thank you.
Any other in-person speakers? We'll go to Zoom speakers.
Alana Auerbach on item 18.
Please unmute yourself.
I just forgot to lower my hand.
Okay.
Former Councilor Dablow.
I'm for the next item.
Laird Beekman.
I know you want to speak on this item.
Yeah.
Hi.
Thank you, Laird Beekman.
Yeah.
This is of interest to myself.
Thank you.
I think Mayor Erguin, from the previous item, I was reminded that Mayor Erguin has done some interesting work with housing initiatives for the state of California.
Some of his best work, I think, actually.
So, good luck in how you're going to work on this item.
I cannot remember a new Councilperson Igor's last name.
I know him as Igor, so I'll just say Councilperson Igor.
He offered also on the previous item that he wants to be working on income for people.
And this seems like an item I guess that's trying to work towards that in the future.
The well-roundedness of this item, I guess that Mayor Erguin and others are going to be working on.
So, thank you for your efforts and wanting to improve upon it.
Thank you.
Good luck.
Okay.
Matthew Lewis.
I apologize.
I was on a phone call.
What item is this public comment for? Item 18, the initiative ordinance establishing direct rental payments and amending the zoning ordinance.
Okay, thank you.
I did hear that correctly then.
I'll just note two things.
One is I'm kind of confused.
I thought that everything was being referred.
I thought all the ballot measures were being referred to the meeting on July 30th.
So, I'm confused why this one's being taken up.
I just also want to note for the record that the only reason that the Berkeley Property Owners Association was through lies, manipulation, and, in fact, threats of violence.
They put out information falsely misleading tenants into believing this was a ballot measure to expand rent control.
Berkeley side, I believe reporter Supriya, apologies if I'm mixing up which reporter it was, and also if I mispronounced her name, posted on Twitter showing what I just mentioned about how they were framing this as an expansion falsely framing this as an expansion of rent control.
When, in fact, it rolls back rent control and increases the maximum allowed rent hikes every year.
When people try to warn students when a student tried to warn people that this was a trick from the Berkeley Property Owners Association, the signature gatherers hired by the Berkeley Property Owners Association challenged the person warning people.
It challenged them to a fight, threatened to assault them, and at one point referred to them as the homophobic slur that starts with an F and is used to describe cigarettes in Britain.
I will not be repeating the word given that it's an extremely ugly word.
Not even the Berkeley Property Owners Association has used violence as we saw last year with their threats, with their violence at their yay evictions party.
Thank you.
This may not be enough to prevent them from going on the ballot, but it's despicable and typical of them.
Okay.
Councilor Trejo.
Thank you.
Well, since my name was referenced by a previous commenter, my reading of the measure is it has nothing to do with universal basic income.
And in reference to another public commenter, that is my reading of the measure as well under 9.04.197 on page 4 of 27.
Yeah.
If this were to pass, nonprofits like the Grant Center and the East Bay Community Law Center would be precluded from being able to assist tenants in any way.
I'm a little partial.
I spent eight years on the grant board previously.
We contracted with both of these organizations who did incredible work and often were really the last resort to keep renters housed who were being evicted often through no fault of their own.
That is absolutely this is one of the many things that I'm concerned about in the boarding of this ballot measure, but we have no choice but to put it to the voters.
I am intending to do so.
The motion is to adopt item 18B to adopt resolution submitting the measure without alteration to the November 5, 2024 general municipal election with the ballot question in the resolution and to designate myself and Councilman Luna Parr to file arguments.
Do you have a second to that? Second by Luna Parr.
Unless there's any further discussion, please call the roll.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
That motion carries.
Item 24 condemning the University of California's anti-labor actions and the allegations that the University of California has committed serious unfair labor practices and utilized anti-labor tactics over the last several months.
The University of California allegedly unilaterally changed the working conditions of thousands of academic workers by instituting new policies regarding speech and protest in the workplace.
The UC did not meet and confer with the union before implementing these drastic changes.
Students and academic workers at UCLA were violently attacked by armed right-wing agitators while campus police allegedly stood by and watched.
The next day, the unarmed protesters were arrested, with many students and workers being hospitalized.
UC San Diego, UC Irvine, and UC Santa Cruz workers were also arrested and had their jobs threatened as a result.
In response to these changes, UAW 4811, a union of 48,000 academic workers at UC, filed an unfair labor practice charges against the UC's unilateral policy changes and suppression of free speech rights.
When the UC failed to resolve the unfair labor practices, UAW members voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike in accordance with labor law, which establishes the rights of workers to strike over serious unfair labor practices.
When campuses began striking, UC filed twice with the Public Employment Relations Board, or PIRB, the state body with an exclusive initial jurisdiction over public sector labor disputes, seeking to end the strike.
When the board denied UC's requests, finding that there was no legal basis to halt the strike, UC instead moved to circumvent the board's jurisdiction and filed suit before a superior court judge in Orange County, seeking a more favorable outcome for itself.
By evading the established legal processes, UC sought to undermine the public sector labor law that hundreds of thousands of California's employees' collective bargaining rights depend on.
By employing these anti-union tactics, the UC has stood against the working people of Berkeley and with large corporations like Amazon and Starbucks, who have employed similar anti-union tactics to attack their employees.
Given the city council's support for organized labor and the risk posed to the thousands of public sector workers in Berkeley, this resolution would decry UC's anti-union tactics, affirm the support for the workers affected, and urge the UC to engage in the board's resolution process.
The UC is not above the basic principles of workplace safety, nor are they above state labor law.
They cannot be permitted to go to the courts for a do-over because they didn't like what PIRB decided.
Passing this resolution would send a powerful message to all employers in the state of California, including those that operate in the city of Berkeley, that the right-wing playbook of appealing to Republican-appointed judges to take away the rights of workers will not fly in our city.
We have communicated with the city attorney's office, and they do not foresee any legal issues with passing this resolution supporting UC workers.
We owe it to our constituents to hold this institution accountable.
I am not afraid to stand with workers and speak out against the wrongdoings of massive institutions, including the largest employer and owner of Berkeley, and I hope you all join me.
Thank you.
Colleagues, I'm going to suggest we take public comment, and then we'll bring it back for questions and discussion.
So I will now open public comment on item 24.
If there's any members of the public here in person who would like to speak on this item, please line up on this side of the room.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And if you'd like to begin, thank you.
Hello? Hi.
My name is Iris.
I'm an academic worker at UC Berkeley, and the Academic Student Employee Unit Chair of UOW 4811 there.
So I just want to say we really support this resolution.
UC's unfair labor practices are really egregious, and me and a number of my colleagues were made to feel unsafe at our workplace based on the egregious unilateral changes to our working conditions at the other UC campuses and our concern that it might happen at Berkeley.
But what's even more egregious, in my view, is the appeal to a right-wing external judge that undermines the bedrock of California public sector labor law, with employers feeling like they have the ability to take these kinds of actions.
No collective bargaining relationship between a union and a public sector employer is safe.
PIRB essentially is totally undermined by these things, by these types of actions, and we believe that the supremacy or the initial jurisdiction of PIRB is extremely important, and the fact that it was undermined is really egregious, and we'd like to see it condemned.
Thanks.
Hi.
I'm Charlie.
I work at UC Berkeley District 4, and I'm an academic worker at UC Berkeley.
Several months ago, we saw our coworkers across the University of California system beaten, maced, very violently arrested.
People damaged their hands and their nerves from being cuffed and in zip ties for hours and hours from police that the University of California called in when they were discussing political views.
After these serious wrongdoings, the UC doubled down.
They're attacking the union rights of all California public sector workers now by trying to circumvent PIRB.
I think this is totally unacceptable, and I'm really eager to see the Berkeley City Council stand with us on this and tell the University that this is just a completely unacceptable way to treat workers.
Thank you.
Hi.
My name is Gabrielle Canning.
I'm an academic student worker at UC Berkeley, and I'm also a head steward in UAW 4811.
Our union went on strike against the unfair labor practices of the UC.
Some things that were brought up earlier, as Charlie mentioned, students were handcuffed and zip-tied, and there were students who had permanent nerve damage and fractured wrists from the brutality of how tightly they were zip-tied.
Our union decided to go on strike against some of these unfair labor practices.
On June 7th, we were issued a temporary restraining order.
As Iris mentioned, the UC went around PIRB after being denied an injunction twice and sought TRO from a conservative judge in Orange County.
I'm really worried about, like, this is completely unprecedented, and universities kind of showed it's willing to stop our strike by all means, and how that's going to affect our ability to leverage power in the future as well as now.
Thank you.
Hi, everyone.
My name is Tanzil Shodhury.
I live in District 4.
I'm also an academic worker at UC Berkeley.
I also serve on the executive board for UAW 4811.
I want to second all the comments from my colleagues so far, and what I want to focus in on is just how egregious it is that the university has chosen to ignore the Public Employment Relations Board's initial jurisdiction over matters regarding unfair labor practices by going to a conservative court in Orange County.
It basically sets the precedent that when the university gets a decision that it doesn't like from the Public Employment Relations Board, which again, under California law, is supposed to have initial jurisdiction over these matters and settle these questions that they can run to any court that they choose and use that to push the unions that, you know, do the labor at those universities.
I know that the Council has been supportive of our union in the past.
I remember working with Mayor Arreguin on, you know, when the university was stalling in negotiations over the EECS and data science departments, and I hope to see that support continue.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Gabe.
I'm a resident of District 4 and an undergrad TA in the Computer Science Department at UC Berkeley, and I'm also a proud member of UAW Local 4811.
You know, the right to speak in protest is really fundamental to our ability to have a union and every worker's ability to have a union, and that's what makes these unfair labor practices and also the UC's efforts to circumvent the labor law so concerning.
It's a lot like when a child gets told no by their mom twice and then goes to their dad, but in this case, the mom is the Public Employment Relations Board and the dad is a Republican-appointed judge in Orange County.
It's really similar to efforts by Amazon and Starbucks to undermine the NLRB.
We're not going to let this stand as workers, and I hope this council stands with us and every California worker tonight in saying that this is nonsense.
Hi, my name is Ahmed Abdullah.
I'm a graduate student researcher in the Physics Department here at Berkeley.
I just want to take a second to talk about what the consequences are for students, like just physical people, when it comes to the actions taken by the university.
As a steward in my union, I spend a lot of my time talking with people, talking with my fellow coworkers, my fellow students, in the same way that you probably do with your constituents, and I saw the change week to week to week as the university went from first not protecting its students and letting counterprotesters violently attack them, to themselves employing police to violently attack them, and then to doing these actions and violating the PERP order.
I saw my fellow students go from feeling like they had the ability for the first time in a long time to talk about an issue that really mattered to them, to feeling afraid to talk about that in our own offices, in our daily conversations, and then all of a sudden feeling too afraid to talk about it even on the phone.
People are genuinely fearing their ability to engage in free speech in academic universities, and so when we ask you to condemn the actions being taken by the UC, it's about the fundamental mission of our universities.
These are places where we're supposed to be able to learn and talk and really express ourselves fairly, and the actions taken by UC fundamentally violate that right.
So please, now is the time to really take such strong action.
Hi, I'm Jocelyn speaking for myself, not for my union or my employer at City of Berkeley.
I'm in support of Item 24, and Berkeley really has a strong history of supporting union workers and a legacy of free speech, and we really need to protect these core values and make it clear that UC overturning permanent venue shopping to bus unions is not aligned with our Berkeley values.
As we commemorate the Chicago 50 taking a courageous stand against brutal racism, I couldn't help but think about the Longshoremen's Union, ILWU Local 10, who courageously refused to unload goods shipped from South Africa in 1984, and that really inspired growing numbers of Bay Area folks to join the fight and contributed to the anti-apartheid movement.
Back here to Berkeley, in our historic divestment from apartheid South Africa, and Nelson Mandela spoke to a pact at the Coliseum, and dedicated a good part of his speech to the ILWU Local 10 who were standing in solidarity with Black workers in South Africa.
Just bringing that back to our legacy in Berkeley that we feel so proud of and want to uphold, I think we really know the right thing to do is to support this tonight.
Thank you.
Sam Greenberg, Berkeley resident, not a UAW member, but here in solidarity.
I just want to contextualize this.
Right now, the UC is using the same tactics that private corporations are using to destroy unions in this country, a country where unionized workers make up a tiny percentage of all workers.
Not only that, by appealing to conservative judges for legal rulings, the university is basically falling under the same trend.
This is the same trend as our rights being taken away by the Supreme Court, by right-wing justices.
We can't separate those things.
This is the same strategy, is appealing to a right-wing judiciary.
We need to stand strongly in solidarity with our UAW community in Berkeley.
The UAW community in Berkeley needs to stand up for their rights, and we need to stand up to anti-labor practices.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm Reed.
I'm a UAW member.
I'm a graduate student researcher at UC Berkeley in the material science department.
I want to echo what everyone has said so far.
It's, frankly, scary to see the university trying so hard to get what they want.
If they succeed in doing this, they erode the fantastic protections that public sector unions have in the state of California.
We are so lucky compared to public sector workers in other states.
For them to succeed in venue shopping and choosing this judge that really shouldn't have jurisdiction in a question like this erodes public safety.
Thank you.

Segment 9

quickly city workers and it's it's scary and we're bargaining in 9 months and this is going to scare workers as we go into another contract campaign.
Thank you.
Some people are so tall, I'm so short.
Anyway, it's me again, because my daughter went to Cal, and I'm so proud of these kids and I'm so grateful that I'm old enough to remember what it was like in the 60s when Berkeley was it.
It was it.
So, we have a university treasure chest of ideas and discussions, much like we have to continue to do to solve any of these issues.
So I really stand for the union because it's only through the union and the people bottom up coming together and being open to discuss rather than fight with might and this power control over this is where our freedom is.
Please embrace the kids and our hearts and our community.
Thank you.
Thank you next speaker place.
I'm a union worker myself for the Berkeley school district, and I agree with everything that the members of the here have said these actions.
Are an attack on organized labor on the working class on free speech and on California labor law.
I ask that the.
City council unanimously passes condemnation of the actions in trying to.
Bypass the curb by shopping around for a right wing judge.
To push through their anti labor agenda.
Thank you.
Are there any other in person speakers.
Okay, if not, we'll go to speakers on zoom Blair.
Bob, by our let.
Hi, thank you.
To better clarify myself from the previous item, I guess the council person trade group is going to have to work.
Yeah, things are so awful with the previous item that he's going to have to work really hard to bring his basic income ideas.
So, universal income ideas, a lot of work.
Sorry about that.
But this item, just, I have not yet weighed in on.
I think you see Berkeley region's decision about people's park issue was so freaked out.
I, it's just incredibly abhorrent what they've done that the people on this item here now, I mean, they're talking about the same thing that they're leaving up.
The regions are leaving a process shell shock and just people are, they're stunning people.
I can't believe their behavior and they really have to be held accountable to the court process that they totally blew with the people's park issue.
They have some real problems and we got to learn to really work together to address their problems.
That is our next speaker followed by former council member.
Hi, can you hear me? Yes.
Hi, my name's I let I am a Berkeley alum and I'm a unionized worker with 1021.
I agree with what everything that has been said, especially by the workers themselves.
I think those voices should be prioritized and heard because I'm sure they are residents and workers in the city of Berkeley.
I also want to just point out that per council member Luna presentation, there are no foreseeable legal issues with this resolution.
Therefore, voting yes, on this resolution would show that Berkeley has a conscience in reference to workers to labor and in general to the right to free speech, considering that.
So many of our council members have aligned themselves with labor.
The resolution to me seems like a no brainer.
So the least that the city of Berkeley can do is show up and vote unanimously on this resolution.
Thank you.
Thank you former counselor Davila followed by Benjamin zinc.
Thank you and thank you to all the workers that are that were here speaking this evening.
So eloquently, and it's really egregious.
What you see Berkeley is getting away with in this manner and people's park.
And, um, you know, why were these students.
And and faculty and staff speaking up.
Why, because of Palestine, they have free speech.
And we must realize that Zionism.
Is impacting everything, including you seize decision.
What's the difference between I mean, who's getting paid here? Is that judge getting paid by? You see, it's interesting that they would even go there, but it sounds like corruption and collusion and you cannot go along with that.
You have to listen to the, your workers and Berkeley.
You need to do better as well because the workers tonight, we're not happy.
Especially with the air quality, and we're still in coven, but please honor this, the unions and.
And free speech.
Yeah, this this is a terrible thing and also.
Golden gate fields is a perfect spot to have a sanction encampment.
Consider that please too.
I forgot to say that in my last comment.
Benjamin followed by Matthew Lewis.
Hi, yeah, Benjamin, I'm a former Berkeley resident and I'm a public sector union member.
I'm a member of local 21.
Um, stand strongly in solidarity with the workers.
It's incredibly concerning for.
All those public sector workers to see the way that.
You see, uh, the largest public sector employer in California, the largest employer in California, I believe, um, really skirting the state laws and going around the public employee relations board.
So, I really hope that the city council will vote unanimously in support of this resolution.
Thank you.
Thank you Matthew Lewis followed by Christian roads.
Hello, Matthew Lewis, a member of democratic socialists of America, not also known as not speaking on behalf of DSA, though DSA is in strong support of this item.
And thanks our city council member council member Luna para for introducing this crucial item.
The vote against this, or to abstain on this would be to.
Not stand with labor the right to go on an unfair labor practices strike, regardless of whether or not you have a current contract is.
1 of the core rights of workers, um, I took a class on collective bargaining at San Francisco State University last semester and that was.
Um, 1 of the key things that has to be understood, um, it is a fundamental, right? Because if the.
Lawyer violates your rights by doing unilateral changes, or you have, you must be able to respond with a strike.
Please vote yes on this again, but abstention or a vote no says that you don't care when it's a strike that you don't like.
Thank you and Christian roads followed by Whitney sparks.
Hi, yeah, my name's Christian roads.
I'm a graduate worker at UC Berkeley and 1 of the head stewards for the unit, and also a resident in district 2.
Um, a lot of what I wanted to say, it's kind of been covered, so I don't want to spend too much time on how egregious the actions are, but I do want to underline a point that was made a little bit ago, which is that.
The University of California is 1 of the largest employers in the state, um, and, you know, these issues impact workers in all different kinds of unions, not only our own at UAW, which was at the center of the strike.
But ours is not the only unfair labor practice that has been filed as a result of the incidents down at LA and Irvine and other campuses.
Um, and if the UC is able to just get away with sort of implementing policies unilaterally, and then having people arrested for violating those policies, and then ultimately disregarding the decisions of the public relations board or public employee relations board to bypass, like, our own ability to protest, you know, their decisions, then, you know, that really establishes a major threat for, like, long standard labor practices in the state.
Thank you very much.
We're next to Whitney Sparks, followed by Eric Cavallari.
Hello, I'm going to try to keep this comment brief.
I'm going to repeat what Councilor Lunaparra said, which is that we owe it to constituents to hold this institution accountable.
The UC, and thanks to everyone, all the workers and students and alumni who have been speaking out, I hope you pay attention to your constituents on this and vote yes.
The UC is not only one of the largest employers, it's also the largest landlord in the city of Berkeley.
And when you make Berkeley a safe space for developers and allow, like, the destruction of People's Park, that's what leads to the absurd item 18, whereby landlords like UC Berkeley could get paid rent twice, once under the guise of rent control.
That's accumulation of wealth, greed, and that's only going to exacerbate the issues that we've been talking about in the city tonight.
That's absolutely absurd.
This is an easy, this should be an easy yes for y'all to stand on the side of labor, on the side of Palestinians, on the side of the unhoused, on the side of People's Park, on the side of justice, on the side of this community, and again, our values.
Eric Cavallari.
Eric Cavallari, you should not be able to speak.
And that's the last raised hand.
Eric, I'm gonna move on mute.
I'm sorry.
Thank you, City Council.
I'd just like to express my solidarity with the workers at University of California.
I'm a carpenter, mostly working in downtown Berkeley area.
I've had this problem before, but I wanted to express to the council that in my industry, wage theft is so rampant and so pervasive that it would really benefit the city overall and its residents for the permit service center to broaden its scope, take the blinders off and have, within its purview, the authority to inquire as to wage theft.
And I'm kind of concerned as to what the ripple effects and unintended consequences of that may be on the undocumented community.
And I just, it really does worry me to start to regulate the employer-employer relationship.
But I'm just seeing it so pervasive.
It's not just me.
It seems to be a lot of people who work in any sort of, a majority of the industry seems to be in a state of casualty and just chaos.
And it's just, it's all, almost the whole brunt of it is borne on the worker with that.
Thank you.
Okay, that completes public comment on this item.
Councilor Taplin.
You did not.
Yes, thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
It seems to me that it pertains.
Mostly, and perhaps even exclusively almost actions concerning other UC campuses, not UC Berkeley here in Berkeley.
I'm extremely hesitant to throw a wrench into that based upon what happened elsewhere.
Second, my understanding is that this issue is complex with there being questions about the legality of these particular mid contract labor stoppages.
I understand that the PIRB declined to take action, but that decision is not necessarily a reflection of the law ensuring that government boards and agencies are following the law and protecting everyone.
The law is supposed to protect as a function of the courts.
You see, pursuing this matter in court to ensure that universities and things like their medical centers can function and students could continue to receive their education is squarely within their mission.
I'm not going to defend every action that universities, including various UC campuses, thinking specifically of UCLA have taken in response to campus protests.
But again, I want to keep our focus local and here in Berkeley.
I think we had a largely peaceful and constructive dialogue.
Finally, my final point is that this process, as I understand it, is ongoing and I don't think we have enough expertise or influence to justify our involvement, let alone this very one sided position.
So, again, I'm going to respectfully vote no on this item.
Thank you.
Council Member Trager.
Thank you.
Yeah, I wrestled mightily with this question, and I still am.
And I look forward to hearing more from my colleagues on the dais.
However, I think when you, when you get down to the foundation of these issues, irrespective of where I might personally stand on the alleged legality or lack thereof of specific actions that were taken.
This is at the end of the day to me about free speech.
And I think I would not want to do anything personally, other than stand on the side of supporting free speech.
I do want to ask the author, if she would be amenable to making a change to the first two resolved clauses, striking them and replacing them with a single resolved clause that states, be it resolved that the city of Berkeley expresses its concern about allegations of the UC's ULPs, as if substantiated, such legal tactics would undermine and then continue with the undermine and what follows undermine and the second resolved clause.
And that is given that my understanding and please correct me if I am missing something that these are allegations that have yet to be resolved by either the.
Either the curb or the appropriate court of law.
So, is that.
There's no motion on the floor, but that's a question to the author about.
It is a question to the author.
Thank you.
I do have an.
I do have a motion.
A slightly amended version if I'm able to share my screen.
Yes, are you on the.
Yes, I am.
These are the changes that we are willing to make.
And with that, I will.
So, back to counselor trigger.
I think this.
Address is, I think what you are intending to accomplish.
I think this is a very reasonable amendment, but back to you, you have the floor.
So.
This comes closer for sure to my proposal.
I still wonder about the lack of the word alleged have.
Okay.
Is it.
Is it determinative that illegal actions have occurred? Has anyone definitively ruled that that has happened? And I ask because I believe in the.
Body of the report.
There was specific reference to allegations and I don't see it.
In the actual resolution.
If I may.
Okay.
So.
It says opposes any illegal actions or by you see against its employees at this resolution wouldn't be.
Deciding whether or not what the was illegal.
It is more recognizing that that is what that is what the union is arguing.
I'd like to hear more discussion.
Councilor Luna par you're next in the queue.
Okay.
I'll join the discussion.
So, what I saw at UCLA, Santa Cruz and other campuses was completely unacceptable.
People have the right to peacefully assemble and to and to speak out.
And engage in protected constitutional activity, and I'm very glad that you see Berkeley and I urge Chancellor Christ and the administration at UC Berkeley to not respond in the way that we saw at other campuses.
Because I think that is completely contrary to our community and our commitment to freedom of speech.
We are the birthplace of the free speech movement.
Mind you.
So, what we saw was completely unacceptable.
People have a right to protest and solidly with Palestine or in solidarity for any cause.
And I think it was really, it was really terrible.
And so workers, whether they're an official capacity or informal capacity, have the right to participate in protected constitutional activity free from harassment and free from harm.
And so, I will be supporting this today.
I am deeply concerned about what we saw.
I'm grateful to UC Berkeley for not responding in a heavy handed, heavy handed police response.
I think we learned a lot from 2011.
I remember 2011 when we had the Occupy demonstrations on Sproul Plaza.
And because we didn't actually approve our mutual aid agreement, we weren't there to support UC in their response.
And the campus actually did a lot of work after that to look at improving their crowd control policies and their response to First Amendment activity.
So, I think we learned from what we saw at that time was a very heavy handed militaristic response to peaceful protests.
And I stand with people who want to engage in peaceful protests for any issue, and I will be supporting the resolution.
Thank you very much.
Council Member Luna Park, could you put that back up? I want to make sure I understood all of it.
Because I do, I do think Council Member Tregev's point is well taken that, obviously, we would condemn something that is illegal or that is a violation.
But I'm not sure we want to be the fact finders to decide that.
You know, it looks bad, but there are forums where these things are decided.
I'm not sure this is the forum.
I'm not sure this is the forum.
So, I think opposes any illegal actions or unfair labor practices doesn't assert that any particular practice or action is illegal.
It just says if there are illegal actions or unfair labor practices, then we would oppose them.
So, I'm comfortable with that.
And I think, Council Member Tregev, I think it captures what you were trying to get at, that we are not going to decide what is illegal or what is an unfair labor practice, that there's another forum for that.
Is that? Well, I was trained as an engineer, so I'm going to defer to the lawyers here.
Well, this one, this lawyer is satisfied with it.
And, you know, registering opposition to legal tactics that may undermine labor rights, again, we're not stating which tactics are those, but we certainly, I certainly oppose legal tactics that undermine labor rights.
I mean, I think everyone should oppose that.
I mean, I think everyone should oppose that.
I mean, I think everyone should oppose that.
Let's see.
Can we just scroll it up just a little bit? I want to make sure I see everything the other way.
Sorry.
Okay, yeah, no, I'm comfortable with the rest of them as well.
And I want to join myself to the comments of the mayor that this is, I mean, I think.
I think that UC Berkeley and UC Berkeley have more experience with protests than some of the other communities where UC has campuses.
I don't know, maybe I'm dreaming, but I do think that here in Berkeley.
And, you know, certainly what happened at UCLA was absolutely shocking on many, many different levels and the violence on a campus.
Some of which came from the Malay and other that that actually seemed like a very, very, as the mayor said, very heavy handed, potentially overly violent response by the police is something that I certainly cannot condone.
So, I appreciate the changes that you've introduced.
I think they're great.
And I'm, I'm ready to support this and thank you very much for making changes.
Okay, next to counselor taplin is 1052.
We need to vote.
Thank you very much.
I just wanted to register my unequivocal support for the resolution and the motion.
And I also heard about.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The motion is to approve the resolution as amended.
Please call the roll.
Councilmember, yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
It's 1053.
And we do there is the urgent item from counselor Luna Parra.
So, unless we extend the meeting, I will go to the agenda and rules and I'll be scheduled.
Council member, yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Motion.
Okay.
So that item is before us.
Would you like to make any introductory comments? I would like to make a comment.
Through the city's enforcement policy.
Thank you.
I made my comments earlier and.
Would defer to them.
Thank you.
So, on this, before we go to public comment.
When we got the decision last week, two weeks ago.
We were in the process of getting a legal opinion.
To understand what it means for Berkeley.
And so we are in the process of getting a legal opinion.
Not only to look at the decision.
And how it would affect our.
Our policies and laws.
So, we have information that we can consider when we're going to be making any decision on any policy perspectively until that time.
So, I would like to make a comment on the decision.
Which is we offer shelter to people or permanent housing before any enforcement happens.
And I think there's maybe 1 instance in the, in the years.
That our homeless response team has done outreach and has done either a nuisance abatement or any sort of enforcement.
That anyone actually was cited for the most part.
And I don't want us to deviate from that.
And we're not deviating from that.
Even if we don't take action today, that's still going to be our policy.
I do, however, think that it is important in situations where there are legitimate.
Health and safety issues where people are living in extremely dangerous situations.
That we should have the ability to do to intervene.
But only when we offer housing or shelter to those people.
And I think that that policy, that principle needs to continue.
So, I personally would like the benefit of this legal analysis.
I think this would benefit from, but some discussion, our policy committee.
And and then, but.
We're not going to crack down and do sweeps.
We are going to continue to take the very thoughtful.
Approach that we take in, which, which focuses on outreach and intervention and building trust and connected people services and and providing shelter and housing first.
Before we do any sort of enforcement, clearly, there's been some misinformation about what's going on this week.
We often do coordinate with people around doing cleaning and removal to ensure that.
These locations are safe and clean for people that are sheltering the public right away.
The reality is that the sad reality.
Is that homelessness street homelessness, unsheltered homelessness exists and will continue to exist due to our broken economic system and the significant shortage of affordable housing here in Berkeley in the United States.
And so we need to continue to recognize that and to treat people with respect.
We don't have those resources while we're working with them to connect them to permanent housing that should and will continue to be the city's policy.
But I would like, frankly, and I appreciate this, but I would like more information about what are what is the legal landscape before I make a decision about.
Any policy changes, I frankly don't think we should make any policy changes.
That's my perspective, but I think we need more information.
So I'm going to make a motion to.

Segment 10

I'm going to make a motion to adopt the resolution as written.
I'm going to refer this to the health and life enrichment committee second.
And substitute motions are in order as well.
So.
Do you want to make a substantive motion? Yes, I will make a substantive motion to adopt the resolution as written.
2nd, all right.
Let's take public comment 1 minute per person, and then we'll come back for discussion.
1st grants pass allows us to make our own local decisions.
Uh, and to a council member, Lunaparra, council members, Lunaparra and Taplin.
I actually think, believe you should expand this to beyond criminal penalties to civil penalties and displacement.
Because that's the policy we've been following is persons weren't displaced.
Unless they were offered housing, alternate housing or shelter.
Martin versus Boise was working.
I mean, we don't have enough housing that that's definitely the case, but it was working.
There have been people who have been housed, such as the persons that we're camping by the freeway that.
Nobody ever thought they would accept housing and they've been a house now and.
Project home key is working the encampment resolution monies have been working again.
It's just insufficient, but let's look at this from a just very practical.
Perspective, do we want to spend the resources doing this? Let's say their law enforcement resources, would you rather have law enforcement spend time on.
Recent events, such as the half a 1Million dollar heist at the Bombay jewelry company and the father who they founded a loaded assault rifle in his home.
And who socked his daughter in the face and threatened to shoot his 2 daughters.
That's where law enforcement resources should be on crime.
But let's say it's not law enforcement resources that it's lay person resources.
We'd rather use those resources for that.
So we can have people on house.
People move from 1 area of Berkeley to another area of Berkeley, because in practicality, that's you.
That's that's not going to happen.
Your time is up.
We'd rather use the option, et cetera for.
Hi, again.
I want to, I don't know, I appreciate the comments by the mayor.
Like, we've been around this so many years, 10 years ago, we were working on the same stuff.
But I want to, I just feel there's a disconnect between what stated as a policy and what.
Is experienced by people on the street.
So, looking at looking at the.
Flyer that was passed out whether that's the same one as before.
I don't know the city prefers not to cite or arrest in order to gain your compliance with this notice.
However.
Absent voluntary compliance failure to comply may result in citations and or arrest.
Now, this is related to, but not the same as the issue of grants pass.
I won't pretend it's exactly the same thing to me.
This letter is a clear threat of arrest.
And I think it's.
Am I out of time already the requirement of the city is.
Thank you.
Requirement of the city is that folks have no belongs that don't fit in this 9 square feet 3 by 3 by 3.
Turning to the, to the terrible grants past decision city staff and members of the of the.
Council was saying what you said that the city won't make any moves to use their new freedom to arrest homeless people, even when there's no sufficient shelter, but staff on the ground are not only passing up these flyers.
They're also saying the city will be more strict with the sidewalk policies going forward.
It's obvious that people are going to feel intimidated that they're going to look at this and say, oh, guess what happened last week? The Supreme Court said you can do what you want.
And it's really bad timing and although Berkeley can legally crack down on the homeless.
And it's not going to happen.
If you have a homeless person, and you have a homeless person that's roused in sight and arrest them, you're not obligated to do so.
You can find a better way and you really need to be hearing what people are feeling on the street and speaking to them and saying.
This is not going to happen.
Thank you.
Whether they say it or not.
Thanks.
Sam Greenberg.
So I, I want to respectfully disagree with the mayor that I don't think this is a matter that should be like punted to a committee I think there are many things that deserve more discussion at the committee level.
I don't think this is one of those things.
This is the moment this resolution is needed in.
I don't know if you've seen, but all across the state.
There are mayors and elected officials, like, watering at the mouth ready to unleash as many sweeps as they can.
With no restrictions, and that's really scary.
And I understand we try to do things differently here.
And also respect the comments regarding conditions and has people face here as well, but we, this is our moments to stand up for our, our values as a city.
Well, many mayors across the state, many city councils across the state are saying that they're going to be doing the complete opposite.
We know that housing solves homelessness, you just have to spend the money.
This is a bandaid that does not solve homelessness, we know that, and we should speak up now.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I see the minute to me as well.
My name is Andrea Hanson.
I disagree with you, Mr.
Mayor.
We did have citations before, because ocean Newman, without asking anyone would go through because there's the quality of life citations that occur.
So, I'm going to take a moment at least to put this.
Up for everyone to vote on to help people feel encouraged.
Because we don't have many warriors anymore.
This place used to look very different.
Barbara breast was here.
Mike Lee Clark.
Elliot Halpern a lot of people were here standing up for the people on the street.
I'm out in the streets every day.
I have so many lawsuits now.
So many cases helping people with vouchers stay house get back house.
Lots of things.
So, I ask all of you.
We do have to watch more.
She would always on a weekly basis go through the quality of life citations that the homeless would get and fight them without their knowledge.
So they wouldn't be fined.
And so, today, I just thank each and every one of you for standing.
And for encouraging people on the street, just to let them know.
Because there are very few of us anymore who are going to stand for them.
It costs a lot of money.
There's a lot of disabilities.
A lot of mental health issues.
This is very hard, even in Russia's district because everybody's over there.
And we have to help her as well.
We have to stand with her and do what's right because it's right.
Thank you and you did what was right.
Thank you.
And I'm coming up here again to thank you because it really matters that you care.
It really does.
And I'm really grateful for everything that has been done.
And the folks that we're dealing with here cannot be punished or blamed anymore.
They must be supported.
They just must be.
And we can.
They can if they're given an opportunity.
So, to punish poverty or again, just.
I had no expectancy that I would become disabled.
It's like, who knew? And it's like, okay, so how can we deal with what's real without considering it to be a problem that we're just going to be trying to kick down the road? I understand it's unpleasant and I loved Berkeley's initial.
We want to balance the needs of the homeless and the community.
I do too.
I can to everyone deserves to be well, and we can so again.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And get some sleep.
Oh, yeah, home safely first.
Hi, I'm Jessica brother and I'm just here to, like, to basically say that the city of Berkeley actually does not offer shelter to every resident that they asked to move and this is true because actually our camp was prioritized last year and there was more than 80 people on our encampment and there was only 23 hotel rooms.
So, obviously, do the math yourself, like, not everybody got shelter and this is why most of us are all still outside.
And also, I would say that the hotel also did not have mental health services to actually help my neighbors thrive in that shelter system.
So most of them have actually been kicked out.
So, a lot of the people that are in this hotel room now that you opened up last year, I'm not even from a street anymore.
There's only a handful of them that are there.
So, I do want you to see and realize that this is what you're asking them to consolidate their belongings to every time you issue those public notices.
That is very clear.
Can you all live in this small footprint? Can you actually have all your life and pack it all in this footprint? Because there's actually photos on Berkeley site where I show you shows you that only a wheelchair can fit in this square.
So, you're basically saying that a disabled, unhoused person is only able to keep their wheelchair with the current policies that we have in place.
So, I would just ask you to actually offer shelter to people because they are trying to get off the street.
Thank you.
We'll take Zoom speakers.
Former Councilor Davila followed by Blair Beekman.
Yes, please stop punishing poverty and homelessness.
We've been dealing with COVID.
Now, we're dealing with a genocide.
That you all choose to ignore, but none of us are ignoring it and it is.
Putting a toll on us on top of the toll.
Of everything else and our unhoused community are out there suffering under the heat.
Not what they don't have water.
They don't have garbage pickup and then you enforce on them.
It's not fair.
They've already been cited when you say you're not being going to enforce.
So, which 1 is it going to do? Are you going to state tonight that there's not going to be an enforcement tomorrow at 8th and Harrison.
Or anywhere in Berkeley, that's what you need to say mayor.
Because folks are really suffering from the anguish of the enforcement.
Okay, Blair Beekman followed by Matthew Lewis followed by Whitney Sparks.
Hi, Blair Beekman.
In living in San Diego at this time, UC San Diego regions have been going through a lot of difficulties with their students before pre Palestine issue.
Thank you for the work that young people that were speaking on the previous item are doing they are making the effort to address our UC regions.
Thank you for their efforts and you're voting tonight.
I wanted to quickly offer that with all the new federal funding dollars coming in for stormwater and creek issues for local California cities.
That's a part of this grant thing that's happening here.
I hope you're addressing San Jose is taking a really hard line.
They want to keep their creeks really clean.
And that means they're kicking out their homeless, they offering the nice words that Mayor air green is just offered that they really want to work with services and provide shelter and work with the homeless, but that is happening now.
And we have to be aware of that I hope you can improve upon whatever San Jose is doing the same with San Diego where I'm living, I hope they can improve upon initial San Jose ideas.
Watch out.
Matthew Lewis followed by Whitney Sparks.
In the absence of a policy, specifying that something may not be done or must be done.
It falls in, it falls to the discretion of city staff to decide what to do.
see doesn't say no doing x that they can do x.
The chances that we had a essentially a trigger policy in place, specifying that if Boise was overturned by the Supreme Court, that staff that city would not go and start doing any of this stuff that would violate Boise is essentially zero.
So, it is not correct as the mayor has asserted that the status quo of city policy with without Council action is that will continue how it's been before Boise was overturned by the Supreme Court.
If we want to maintain the status quo of free grants past where the Boise protections are in place, then we must pass this resolution.
Thank you to Councilmember Luna para for introducing us.
We've heard today how these violations are occurring we must pass this now to remedy it we cannot wait.
When the sparks followed by Lisa Teague.
Yes, I'm the mayor sees no problem with the status quo, I would like to join the majority and saying that that is a problem.
The status quo even Boise is what let and the idea that a letter that includes a threat of arrest does not count as a threat is the slippery slope that allowed grants pass to pass, even though it is unconstitutional and wildly unethical.
The time is now no committee is needed.
The time is now to be proactive counselor Han spoke to during the presentation about on house conditions in Berkeley, about able ISM, and it's true able ISM is a big, big factor Did you know everyone.
If you're lucky to live long enough will become disabled in some way.
So it is important that we protect our community from this type of systemic able ISM by passing a resolution, passing this resolution now to protect what we had before and going to decriminalize camping to stop sweeps altogether and I completely agree with counselor Davila, who said you need to say tonight that you are not going to sweep tomorrow that is the only ethical thing to do.
We said T followed by Kelly.
Um, I, I, I echo, um, especially a what Andrea Henson, and others have said, um, one of.
One of the reasons this is so important is that it will alleviate.
People have at this point, because when you're on house, you don't know when the other shoe is going to drop.
Anyway, and now, with a real threat, not just perceived but active that the city has bolstered by using, you know, language like notice of violation.
Um, people are upset and nervous, and that just makes things harder.
I urge you to pass this as a comfort.
Thank you community.
Thank you.
Kelly followed by Eric Cavallari.
Hello, I support Luna para of things go to committees and they languish.
And please call the question and vote before we run out of time and no vote can be taken.
So I ask everyone to lower their hands and call the questions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Under the request of the last speaker, I'll lower my hand and try to bring my comment to the next meeting on the 20th.
Thank you.
Council.
Thank you.
Carla with the number 211.
Please press star six to unmute your line.
I see your hand raise I muted you.
If you want to speak, press star six.
Hi, I just thought to bring one point.
Everybody ignores the private private equity and foreign money from Russia, India, and China is the reason we have this horrible housing problem we had for the last 20 years.
Nobody pay attention to that and it's going to get worse and to get much worse.
We need to face it.
We need to have roles that govern this private equity for firms and foreign money have to be.
Why is it coming to buy our houses walk in Berkeley Hills Oakland Hill, and you will see what I'm talking about.
We have to bring America back to Americans.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Okay, those are all the raised hands.
So, back to the council.
After further consideration, I would like to amend my motion to instead of referring it to the health and life enrichment committee to refer it to the city attorney to provide a confidential legal analysis.
And then to allow the council to discuss that in closed session, and then that will allow us to come back and take any action in public.
If we feel it's necessary to reaffirm or to modify our policy.
So, I'm amending my motion to say that.
2nd.
Okay, well, the 2nd, or was.
Thank you.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Council member.
Yes, thank you.
Mr.
Mayor.
Now, I mean, I have to resist calling you your honor.
I think we need to stand up against.
It's extremism.
Personally, I believe that blanket citywide bands on camping are wrong and effectively criminalized homelessness, which is unacceptable.
At the same time, I don't fully agree with lower court decisions, which have found that cities can only address encampments when each and every person in the encampment can be offered housing or shelter bed.
I think that local governments need tools and flexibility to mitigate circumstances.
When encampments become a threat to public safety and health for the neighbors and for the residents of the encampments, and even in some cases where they simply obstruct people safe passage, or use the public spaces like our public parks, which should be safe, clean and accessible for everybody.
Ensuring clear clear sidewalks, for example, also is and fair access to public spaces is is an equity issue.
To be honest, I've had not had time to fully review the urgency item and neither have our staff or the public and that's why I'm happy that the mayor's amended motion would refer this to the city attorney.
In this case, I think we need to be careful and deliberate as we adjust our local policies or not.
I don't adjust them.
And approaches to account for the grants past decision, and maybe we rejected wholesale.
But I think we don't necessarily want to tie our hands and take a position that would impede our ability to address dangerous conditions that we know actually do occur in our encampments.
Unfortunately.
And so, for these reasons, I, I'm not going to support the, the original motion, but I will support the mayor's alternative motion as amended.
Thank you.
Councilor.
Yes, thank you.
I just want to say I, I supported putting this on the agenda because I do think it's an urgent matter.
But I am not ready to make new policy.
This quickly and if this had been just a straight up condemnation, which I just state for the record that I absolutely condemn.
I absolutely condemn the decision of the Supreme Court.
And, and if it was posture, just as condemning that and potentially supporting, you know, I think it was just as such a mayor's dissent that was so eloquent and stating our opposition to this incredibly.
You know.
Hostile, brutal, inhuman.
Thank you.
I don't want to do it like quickly right now, but I, I actually really do want to hear from the city attorney and I want to better understand.
I'm going to be supporting the mayor's motion, but I really do want to register very, very strongly and very publicly my absolute disgust at this decision, my condemnation of that decision.
And my, my personal commitment that we will always continue to act humanely and and certainly we will not be, I will never be supporting what I think is is implied by sweeps of people who are struggling with unshelteredness on our streets.
So, thank you.
Councilor trigger.
Thank you.
I appreciate the author and co sponsor for bringing forward this item.
Just in the interest of time, the going to go to the one question I had.
I would be inclined to support the amended motion.
There is an urgency to this, so we've heard from the public, you know, they, they, they need certainty.
How soon would be reasonable for this to come to closed session following city attorney review.
It's on our work plan and we've started working on it already.
So I think in the next 2 weeks, we should have.
Our analysis done and be in a position to provide that guidance and come to close session.
Thank you.
Did you.
Thank you.
I want to make it very clear that this resolution is written very explicitly to be an assertion of our values.
It does not change any policy and.
We wrote it in very close communication with the city attorney to ensure that it doesn't change any policy.
All this resolution says is that on house people in our city are not less safe than they were 2 weeks ago.
I also have changes that I would like to see to our homelessness policy, but this resolution does not preclude us from making any changes in the future.
It just affirms that city staff won't escalate any harms against on on house people just because the Supreme Court ruled a certain way.
Thank you.
I also have changes that I would like to see to our homelessness policy, but this resolution does not preclude us from making any harms against on on house people just because the Supreme Court ruled a certain way.
If we're going to have more discussion then I'll make the motion to extend the meeting to 1140.
Thank you.
Yeah, I think we're ready to vote.
I'll just say that we have somebody who put out a whole sleeping bag, the actual.
Okay, let's vote.
I would like to see the resolution to extend the meeting to 1140.
We have a motion to extend the meeting time from that 9 by 9.
But 9 square foot rules, I'll just note that for the record.
Let's call the roll on the substitute motion which is approve the resolution has written.
Okay, on the substitute motion council member Kisner wanting know.
Yes, Bartlett.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mary.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
That completes that item.
I moved to suspend the rules and adjourn.
Is there, is there.
That can 2nd, let's call the roll map.
Council member Kisner wanting.
Yes.
Oh, just just to adjourn.
Yes.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Hi.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Recording stopped.