Extra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   ---