All right, hello everyone.

Good evening.

If I can have a progress.

Council members to the front.

Um, calling to order the Berkeley City Council meeting.

Today is Tuesday, July 14th, 2026.

It is 611 p.m.

Thank you all very much for your patience as we get started a little late.

So we had a special meeting right before this.

Um, can we start us off with a role?

Okay.

Uh Councilmember Kessarwadi.

Here.

Kaplan present Bartlett, present.

Drago.

Present.

OK.

Here.

Here.

Luna Para.

Here.

Umbert present and Mary Ishii.

Here.

Okay, quorum is present.

All right, thank you very much for our ceremonial matters this evening.

I'm very excited that we are celebrating Disability Pride Month.

Um, and also BORP's 50th anniversary.

And today we have Emily, who's the executive director of BORP, um, who is going to be receiving the award.

Feel free to come up here.

There's a mic down here as well for you to receive.

Thank you.

Okay.

Whereas Disability Pride Month is observed every July to commemorate the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA on July 26, 1990, a landmark civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in all areas of public life.

And whereas Disability Pride Month highlights disability culture, history, and community pride, and challenges the harmful notion that people with disabilities must conform to societal norms to lead meaningful lives.

Their lives are inherently full, valuable, and worthy of dignity and respect.

Whereas the first Disability Pride Day was held in Boston in 1990, followed by the first disability pride parade in Chicago in 2004.

And today's celebrations take place across the country, empowering people with disabilities to take pride in who they are.

And whereas the theme for the 2026 Disability Pride Month, The World Works Better With Us, affirms that when people with disabilities are included, respected, and supported, communities work better for everyone.

And whereas Bork Adaptive Sports and Recreation, founded in Berkeley, California in 1976, has been a pioneering force in the field of adaptive sports and recreation.

And whereas BORP is the only organization in the San Francisco Bay Area that provides a comprehensive menu of adaptive sports, fitness, and recreation programs for people with physical disabilities.

And whereas participation in sports, recreation, and fitness empowers people with disabilities by improving health, fostering social connections, enhancing overwhelm overall well-being, and increasing independence while promoting inclusion and equal opportunity in our community.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Adina Ishi, Mayor of the City of Berkeley, do hereby proclaim July 2026 as Disability Pride Month in the City of Berkeley and congratulate and recognize Borp Adaptive Sports and Recreation for its 50 years of extraordinary leadership and commitment to breaking barriers for people with disabilities to participate in sports, fitness, and recreation programs.

Did you want to say a few words?

Yeah, thank you so much, Mayor Ishi, and uh to the entire council.

Um, I wanted to tell just a brief story, which is that in 1976, a student at UC Berkeley named Susan Siegel, who was a wheelchair user, tried to register for a swim class at UC Berkeley.

Uh, she was told that she could not take that swim class because she used a wheelchair, and so for a school project, she designed a program that would integrate people with disabilities and provide them recreation and sports opportunities that at that time were not available to them.

Her professor was so moved by the hypothetical proposal that he suggested she go in front of this very council to get funding for what later became BORP Adaptive Sports and Recreation.

So this council in 1976 made that happen.

BORP was one of the very first organizations of its kind, a pioneer in the field, providing um sports and recreation opportunities for people of all ages uh uh to participate in sports and to get outdoors.

Today, BORP provides over 20 weekly programs that serve over 1400 individuals with disabilities every year, and much of it is possible because of the City of Berkeley's support.

So thank you all.

Um, we are having an event to commemorate our 50 years on October 15th.

So I do invite everybody to join us at that event.

50 years of power play and progress to celebrate 50 years of an organization by and for the community, providing these pioneering opportunities.

So thank you so much, uh Mayor Ishi and the council.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, I can't do that.

Okay, so I am very excited for our next um a ceremonial matter this evening.

Um we are going to be recognizing Kai Wang.

So, Kai, would you and your family like to stand?

You can come up to the podium.

Thank you so much for joining us this evening, Kai.

Um, I know that you and your family are here.

Um, and it's very exciting because Kai is a Berkeley student, a student in Berkeley Unified School District, who competed in the national braille competition in Los Angeles.

There was an article about in the Berkeley side, and my office was so thrilled that you were going to be in attendance.

Um, and then very excitingly, you won first place in the charts and graphs category.

So I really want to give you, yes.

Yeah, Kai is a seventh grader at Longfellow Middle School and the only California student to compete in this competition.

So we are so incredibly proud of you, Kai, um, that we wanted to give you a certificate of recognition from my office.

So, congratulations.

Did you did you want to say anything?

Okay.

I'd like to thank May Rishi first of all for recognizing uh the importance of Bra Literacy, uh, as well as my mom for always advocating for my access.

Um, I'd also like to thank uh my teachers and educators, especially my teacher for the visually impaired, Mr.

Dustin, and my music teacher, Mr.

Houston, for always making my access his responsibility.

Uh I'd also like to thank the blind community in Berkeley, including Borp and my younger brother for keeping me sane throughout my studies.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Okay.

And um finally this evening, we have an adjournment in memory for Vanissa Vanessa Lynn Sanchez, which was requested by Councilmember Kesserwani.

So I'll turn it over to you, Councilmember.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

Um, I would like to adjourn tonight's meeting in solemn memory of Vanissa Vanessa Lynn Sanchez, a 37-year-old Berkeley resident, whose life was brutally and violently taken in her home on California Street.

Though I did not have the privilege of knowing Vanessa personally before learning of her death in the Berkeley Scanner, her tragic passing has left a profound impact on our community.

In a journey tonight in Vanessa's memory, we must collectively honor her life while confronting the systemic epidemic of gender-based violence.

Her death is a painful, urgent reminder that even in cities as progressive and peaceful as Berkeley, violence against women persists.

We must reaffirm our unwavering responsibility to support survivors, strengthen local protections, and hold those who inflict harm fully accountable.

Vanessa was a woman of exceptional warmth and resilience.

Born in Hartford and raised in South Windsor, Connecticut.

She earned her higher education at Eastern Connecticut State University and Sacred Heart University before establishing her home in Berkeley in 2018.

For years, she dedicated herself to serving the wider Bay Area as a college admissions administrator at the Academy of Art University in San Francisco.

Beyond her professional achievements, Vanessa defined what it means to be a fighter.

Diagnosed with stage four breast cancer at just 34 years old.

She publicly chronicled her journey with immense bravery and grace, inspiring countless others as she fought a fierce battle against the disease.

Her family remembers her as a bright light who loved fiercely and wholeheartedly, possessing a rare gift for making everyone around her feel seen, valued, and deeply cared for.

Thank you, Councilmember.

We are finished with our ceremonial matters for this evening.

We will, of course, be adjourning in memory of Vanessa.

And we will move on to city manager comments.

No comments tonight.

Madam Mayor, thank you.

Thank you so much.

I think our city auditor, oh, there our city auditor is here and has some comments as well.

All right, good evening, everyone.

Um I wanted to make brief comments on the item on the public bank ballot measure.

I think this is item number three.

It's an initiative petition.

Um the intention behind a public bank is to create a publicly owned financial institution rather than having a private bank hold those investment dollars, money can be directly invested in local issues of interest, such as affordable housing and infrastructure.

Um I haven't evaluated the contents of this measure, but um I think this is something that could potentially benefit Berkeley.

At the same time, I do want to state one specific concern I have with this measure.

There's a provision in the measure requiring independent audits by the city auditor.

Um, however, the measure in no way provides funding for these audits.

This is in contrast to the most recent measure FF on safe streets and on the council bond measure on infrastructure.

Both measures include language on independent audits as well as funding for oversight.

Imposing audit requirements without additional funding will curtail the scope of our of other audits we are able to execute.

Other priority issues may be left unaddressed.

This sets a bad uh really bad precedent.

If this type of language continues to appear in future ballot measures, our audit plan could eventually be completely hamstrung.

In fact, similar things have happened in other jurisdictions where a number of mandated audits exceeded the office's ability to conduct them, and they've had to ask for additional funding to add positions in order to do this work.

As we all know, we can't afford to do that in Berkeley given our uh deficit.

Um, our audit agenda must continue to be set based on the need and in conjunction with our existing processes.

I hope that future measures that require city auditor audits will also provide resources to conduct oversight.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, um auditor.

That's a very important point, and I appreciate you bringing that to our attention.

Okay.

All right.

Very well.

Okay, so we are moving on.

Okay, to public comment on non-agenda matters.

Yes, okay.

So this is public comments on items that are not on the published agenda.

We'll select uh up to five cards uh from in-person speakers, and then we will go to the first five hands raised on the Zoom.

So if you'd like to put comments on non-agenda items on the Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand.

And we'll pick the cards for in-person speakers.

Okay.

So we have uh for in-person speakers.

We have Andrea Pritchett, John Mario Sevilla, Samantha Torres, and Glenn Turner.

So come forward in any order, and uh, you can provide public comments.

Each speaker will have one minute.

Good afternoon, Council members.

Um, I had the opportunity to listen to your previous meeting.

And I have to confess that I was sort of shocked to hear people say that the racial disparities presented to you by the police accountability board were not statistically significant.

When 50% of the uses of force are against African Americans in a city where less than 8% of the people are African American, I don't know what measure you used to just dismiss that and say it doesn't matter.

Look behind you.

Black lives matter, right?

So the question is what are you gonna do?

If you guys are satisfied with that, you're like, yeah, well, okay, on to the next.

Or you could look at that early warning system data.

You could look because I know from statistical analysis that you have one lieutenant here who over a five-year period.

75% of the people that he arrested were African American.

You could dig in and find out, or you could walk away.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um the things that are not on the agenda.

Public safety is very important, but what I see now is that we were talking about police things, but then actually we've had a cut, and so the uh the special crisis team that used to come out has been cut and is no longer in existence.

Uh the uh wellness centers through the mental health committee there uh department, they closed that.

So they're closing down safety nets, and I'm afraid that you know things are not gonna get better, they're gonna get worse, especially considering the uh you know, economic crash that's gonna be happening as this war proceeds.

And I'd like to talk about uh the future, and I especially like the way our auditor uh talks about public banks and things like that.

Well, thank you so much.

It could be said, thank you.

All right, next speaker.

Was there anyone else who whose name was called?

Samantha Torres and John Mario Sevilla.

Yeah, go ahead.

All right, good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and members of the city council.

My name is Samantha Torres.

Um, I'm speaking tonight as the vice chair of the recreation and parks commission from the city of Richmond, and I'm representing one of the five member cities of the joint powers agreement that created the Tom Bates Regional Sports Complex.

In 2001, the Joint Powers Agreement was formed with the goal of building a regional sports facility that will serve all the communities.

Since 2023, with the support of the mayor and city council, I've worked to help Richmond Youth Organizations access Tom Bates.

Uh we're having uh what we're seeing as inconsistent, burdensome, and uh lack of transparency in the allocation process.

The need for Richmond Youth Sports Access at Tom Bates is clear.

Berkeley's population is only about 12% larger than Richmond, and Richmond has about 48% more residents under 18.

I will follow up by email.

I was expecting two minutes.

Thank you.

Is John Mario Sevilla?

He's gonna speak on it.

He's gonna speak okay.

Um so Mayor, that's just um three speakers, but we did have a um uh somebody else who wanted to speak but did not fill out a card.

Um so if you I'm fine with taking them.

Okay, thank you.

Hi, thank you.

Hi, thank you for letting me speak.

My name is Noori Clark, and I live in Berkeley at 1309 Bonita Avenue.

Um I have heard that the uh fire department is responsible for all the 911 calls and to respond to them, and that this has put a very big stress on their budget, and they're getting in there having fundraising to try and cover it, but that we're gonna go deeper and deeper into a whole if we require that they respond to all 911, but do not give them the uh money necessary to do this, and I'd really like you to take a look at this problem.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, going to the speakers online.

I only have four hands raised.

First, uh now five.

First is uh Eva.

Me.

Yes.

Okay, good evening.

My name's Eva.

I would like to comment uh something on the effect of a policy change from Texas Grip to Google Grand Program.

Um I was told in February that uh there will still be a taxi taxi script program in July, but uh to my surprise that uh in June I was told that that a program is cancelled instead it's going to be Google brand, and uh the exact I can see is three aspects.

Number one, it increased the financial burden to a lot of seniors, number two, it reduced their mobility and independence.

They used to rely on this taxi script and to go about, but uh now there's no more, so they just they just don't go out, and for me, I am a disabled senior.

I have a lot of medical appointments, and now I I'm in difficulty, and um either I have to use a taxi and uh it's a thank you very much.

I I'm so sorry, but your time is up.

Thank you.

Uh next is Alana Auerbach.

Alana, you should be there.

You go.

Here I am.

Okay.

First, I'd like to give you all some kudos for a change.

The new playground on Bonita and Hearst, Tot Playground.

I took my grandgirl there several times.

It is fantastic for tots.

There's also a great play area for older children.

Highly recommended if you haven't been there and you've got kids.

There's graffiti on the UA Theater downtown.

That's a Berkeley landmark.

Please enforce the anti-blight policies and insist that that building owner cleans it up.

The the previous speaker uh talked about the go-go car service.

I have an elderly neighbor who also is very uh upset about the change in um what happened with uh the go-go grandma car service and and that not being available anymore.

And I also want to say that the the parking, the new parking program is very unfriendly to the people who who own cars in Berkeley, and it's very unwelcoming to people who are gonna be visiting Berkeley.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh next is Russell Bates.

Hi, everybody.

Uh Russell Beach here.

Um I'm a little bit irritated, a lot of things.

Um the ice in Berkeley at the same time, a proposal for increased use of tear gas and pepper spray.

Uh does somebody have inside information there?

Uh something's going on.

The same people that are calling for military militarization, the police, also the ones who support the genocide going on in Gaza and Lebanon and that area.

You need to remember that as the empire crumbles, the middle class is gonna be shrinking, the working class is pissed off, and the ruling class is gonna become much more oppressive than it is already.

Please do not be part of the ruling class, be part of the working class of the traditional Berkeley is working class.

Make sure you stay working class.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Russell.

Two minutes.

Next is Makai Freeman should be there.

You go.

Okay.

Council members.

I'm here tonight.

Ask as a death.

But technique.

And that's and we'll take more exchangers and that meeting.

I also want to express deep concern.

The nursery.

I wasn't alive when dogs.

And last year people just in justice.

Right.

Suggested.

Dogs.

And chemical weapons.

And hearing about seem to it's being discussed again.

Yes, you don't go down.

We don't need it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next is Kelly Hamergren.

Thank you.

I hope you don't consider this cheating when there were only four hands.

Um, but I really appreciated the recognition of uh disability pride month.

And I'd like to ask that does this mean tomorrow at fight we will finally have a resolution to the commission on disability asking for contracts in the city of Berkeley to abide by the public by Pro Weg, which stands for public right of way accessibility guidelines.

They've been waiting for over a year for results and resolution on this item.

And I think it's important that we start considering disability rights if we're gonna celebrate uh disability month, and we also need to look at floating islands in the BERC plan.

Thanks, Kelly.

Bike plan, thank you.

Yeah, I only get one.

Uh that's it.

There's no more hands raised.

Thank you.

Um thank you, everyone.

All right, we are now moving on to the consent calendar.

I believe we need to vote to approve the addition of the supplemental agenda material.

Did you want to say anything about it, Councilmember sure?

This is in relation to item number 20 relinquishment of council office budget funds uh for the raising the next generation of student advocates arise program, and this just adds a resolution and um co-sponsor is Mayor Adina Ishi and Councilmember Bitepack.

Thank you very much.

Is there a motion to add this to the agenda?

I'll move second.

Can we take a roll on that, please?

Okay, to accept uh supplemental three material on item number 20, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Yes, tapes, Bartlett, yes, tragab, aye.

OK, yes, black of these lunapara, yes, Humbert yes, and Mayor Ishi.

Yes, okay, motion carries.

Okay, thank you very much.

Are there any council member comments for this uh consent calendar?

Sorry, I know our parliamentarians been on the fritz today, so feel free to wave at me.

Anyone have comments?

Yeah, go ahead, Councilmember Lunapara.

Um wanted to thank the city manager and his team um for the appointment of the director of public works, and I am excited to welcome um Jamie Parks to the city of Berkeley.

Thank you so much for the process, and I'm I'm really really excited.

Um I also would like to donate 200 for my discretionary um budget to items 18 and 20, and thank the authors for bringing them forward.

Thanks.

Okay, anyone else?

Yes, Councilmember Bartlett.

Thank you.

I'd like to um 25 dollars to um item 20, the the rise program.

Thank you, uh Councilmember Tragob.

And um and the the birth of Brown Moral Gathering and Hunger Program recognition is um really special event.

As we know, hunger is on the rise um in our in our area.

People are now selling food in the streets.

Um and the food shocks will be coming uh greater and greater waves uh very soon due to the shortage of fertilizer due to the war.

So uh keep hunger on your mind.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Other uh councilmember taplin, I see your hand raised, and then councilmember tragub.

Thank you very much.

On items 18 and 20.

I'd like to relinquish 150 dollars each.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Tragubb.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um I would like to uh first of all extend my sincere gratitude to our city clerk and his team for all the work uh they've done to facilitate the placement of uh initiatives onto the ballot uh and all of the appointments as well that they're helping to facilitate.

I would like to welcome her new director of public works, Jamie Parks.

We heard many great things about him from our neighbors in Oakland and are looking forward to working with him.

And I want to take a moment to acknowledge and to express my profound gratitude, our profound gratitude to Director Wahid Ameri for his extraordinary service to our community.

Every time our constituents reach out to us with simple or complex requests, he's a trusted and impressively responsive colleague.

Um his team and my and my staff's experience are always looking for solutions, and this approach is truly refreshing and welcome in this area and it's and in government in general.

Um even on tonight's agenda, we are approving many items that were brought to us by Director Amiri and his team.

So thank you so much for your work.

Um I would uh like to contribute um 150 dollars uh on item 18.

Thank you, Councilmember Bartlett, for offering this item.

Um I would like to thank my colleagues for their contributions towards item uh 20, the um supporting the rise program.

Uh I attended a Barkley High School RISE graduation uh this uh I think last month, and it it was I was deeply moved by uh that experience.

Um and lastly, uh I want to thank my colleagues for considering support for item 19, which would be to adopt a position of opposing ACA 22, which is the California two-thirds um two-thirds um vote requirement for special taxes.

Um while we appreciate all the hard work that our state legislators put into repealing a much more extreme uh Howard Jarvis uh supported initiative, which would have retroactively voided local taxes and restricted charter city real estate transfer taxes from the upcoming ballot.

ACA 22, if passed, uh will still have compounding negative impacts on the financial well-being of California cities, including ours.

Uh and so um we are um we as the city of Berkeley, um, if we pass this tonight would be one of the first local jurisdictions in the state to do so.

And I think it's very important to send a clear and unambiguous message of our opposition for this to a colonial ballot measure.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councilmember um Councilmember Kessarwani, and then we'll go to Vice Mayor O'Keefe and then Councilmember Humbert.

Okay, thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

I'd like to be recorded as donating $100 to item 18, the Bertha Brown Community Memorial Gathering, and 100 for the RISE program, item number 20.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Councilmember oh, Vice Mayor O'Keefe.

I totally forgot it was the Vice Mayor.

Thank you for reminding me.

Um I want to uh donate 250 dollars to the Bertha Brown um community memorial gathering.

Thank you very much.

Sounds like a great great um program.

And also 250 to the RISE program item.

I've had many students involved in the RISE program, and I'm very happy to support it.

So thank you for bringing that item.

And then I just want to also just add, I think uh Councilmember Traygroup said it really well.

I just really want to add my gratitude.

Uh I want to first welcome Director Parks uh and also um really just honor and thank uh acting director Ameri for the amazing job he did.

He really stepped into a huge position and and really did a great job.

It's an incredibly important position, and he he really nailed it.

So I just so much gratitude to him.

And once again, welcome Director Parks.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Humbert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

And first I want to associate myself and underline both the comments of Councilmember Tree Gub and Vice Mayor O'Keefe about our wonderful, incredibly knowledgeable, incredibly responsive interim public works director, Wahita Mirry.

He's just an amazing, amazing um public servant.

I really appreciate uh the work that he is has done and is doing.

Um with respect to number 18, the Bertha Brown community memorial gathering.

I'd like to um contribute um 150 dollars from our office account and then um item 20, um, which is the RISE program, 100 from our office account.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Yes, Councilmember Blackaby.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

A couple of quick things.

I just want to thank you on item six for your appointment of the new member to the PAB.

And actually, um there's two items.

There's the new member and then also appointment of alternate member.

I think this might be the first time the board's also had its required alternate member.

So it's not only are we going to be at a full compliment, but if someone is out, we actually have an alternate member to step in.

So just appreciate the effort that everybody's made to kind of bring the board up to full up to full strength.

Um want to echo everyone's comments, welcoming uh Jamie Parks.

Uh, look forward to working um with him as our new director of public works and thanking Mr.

Amiri for all of his amazing work.

Um, Marin Avenue and so many other projects in District 6 have benefited from his expertise, and we look forward to his continued work uh together here for the city and thank him for his interim leadership.

Um item 18, uh, please mark our office down for 250 dollars for the Bertha Brown community memorial gathering, and also on item 20, uh 250 for uh the RISE program.

Um, I also just wanted to comment very briefly on item 15, something that um we kind of skim over often in kind of our look at the consent calendar.

This is a uh contract for after hours answering services.

Um just a comment, and this is an issue that uh uh Councilmember O'Keefe and I and many others have been looking at is as a city, how do we continue to look for opportunities to use technology in more effective ways?

Looking at pilots where we can try very targeted uses of AI to automate certain workflows.

I think this area after hours call service, it's an outsourced service.

It does not affect any city staff.

It's fundamentally about routing calls that come in after hours to the right person.

This feels like the perfect candidate for a place to try piloting some AI technology.

Uh I want to acknowledge that the city manager and I had a conversation, he was very open and willing to take a look at this.

Um the contract is for three years, but it's structured in such a way that if we were to pilot something, we could exit the contract early.

And so I'm just excited that this might be one place where we could start to try this.

Um as a city, I think from a cost savings perspective, from an improvement of customer service perspective, we need to be looking at any and all of these sorts of possibilities.

And I just want to thank the city manager for being willing to have that conversation and being interested in in taking a look at maybe this is something that we do and any support that we could provide, obviously, as a body um to encourage I think the city to make some initial steps and tests and pilots and investments because this is certainly the way things are moving, and to sort of continue delivering effective service uh at a in a time where we are seeing more and more budget pressures.

I think we're gonna need to look for this kind of creative solution.

Um, and so again, normally it's an item that would kind of we would pass by, but I did just want to highlight it because I think it's an area where we can really do some interesting work and try some new things.

Um so with that, that's it for now.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um, I also wanted to welcome Director Parks, um, who are will be our public works director and thank, of course, our interim director, Amir as well, for all of his work.

Um, I also wanted to acknowledge that there are three citizen-led initiatives on our consent calendar tonight, and I know folks worked really hard um to gather thousands of Berkeley signatures to qualify for these ballot measures.

We have a parcel tax for the art institutions, a parcel tax supporting a public bank, and a measure to add uh two cents per ounce to sugar sweetened beverages.

Um I also am really thrilled to be appointing Yasmina Vitash Vitesh Kitch as my appointee to the police accountability board.

She's thoughtful, balanced, community-centered, and has experience with investigations.

I'm eager for her to bring her perspective to the PAB's work.

And I know that she will serve with an open mind and a commitment to institutional accountability.

I'm also very happy to be bringing forward Pastor Dwayne Phillips as our alternate for the PAB with a confirmation of these two people.

We are one step closer to having a full police accountability board.

Councilmember Taplan's appointee will be coming forward to the council at the next meeting to round out our outstanding vacancies.

I also I wasn't sure if it was uh we were listed, so $100 for item number 18 as well, Councilmember Barlett.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any comments on consent calendar or information items?

I'm sorry, did you did you relinquish or did you did you mention sorry 100 for 18?

200 for each 100, 100.

100 for each.

Sorry.

Yes, we are now after the budget cuts, doing 100 per.

So and and I do have, just so you know, um, Mr.

City Clerk, the the comment I'm supposed to make before we vote.

So okay, yes.

So please come on up if you have any comments on consent calendar or information items only.

Come on up, Kelly.

Okay, so I wanted to comment on the order for the TURF Star Incorporated.

These are the little the parking carts, and evidently we don't have enough charging at 125, 127 university in order to get the battery operated carts.

I remember when this came around the last time for battery operated carts, number of years ago, before most of you were here.

And I'm just wondering is this the best we can do in Berkeley?

Can't we find another place to charge these carts so that we don't have to do more gas carts?

And we can keep our commitment to going electric.

It just seems like we should be able to do better.

And so I would ask that we take a hard look.

Of course, most of us here in the city would be happy if we didn't have carts for a while.

But um, anyway, that's my request.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly.

Hi.

Hello, um, my name is Adriana Betty.

I am the executive director of RISE.

I want to thank the council member Igor, especially for putting this on the ballot and for attending our graduation.

And I hope you got the article from the jacket.

Um, and thank you also for contributing uh to our program.

As you know, Berkeley High, I mean, RISE is housed on the Berkeley High campus.

It was actually founded in 1976 by youth that were seeking educational equity.

One of those students was Calvin Fong, who worked for the mayor's office, the late Calvin Fong.

And so we do want to remember him in every piece of work that we do.

So by supporting us, you are also having his efforts live on in our kids that are still trying to do the same thing.

Every year we have a graduation that's put on by donations and student fundraising.

Just the food alone was 1,950.

The food was cooked by a uh 2023 Berkeley High Graduate.

We had 20 great 28 graduates this year.

Three of them went on to, well, one went to the University of Indiana, one went to the University, American University of Paris, and one to the University of San Francisco.

Can I finish?

Sorry, can we get a minute for her?

Yes, thank you.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Um, seven of them went on to UC systems, two of them went on to state colleges, 15 of them went on to junior colleges, in other words, all 28 are going on.

One went on to um rising sons trade school.

So all 28 are engaged in post-secondary.

Six of them received the High Hope scholarships, 11 of them received the first step scholarships, and all of them at various uh colleges either got a number of different scholarships or full rides.

Um, we do have a girl that was kicked out and homeless um at the end of the school year, um, and she got a full ride at uh um Northridge.

So just wanted to say that.

Uh just uh one other thing I'd like to say, just attended a graduation in May.

Uh my student who was homeless, uh getting abused living on the street, um, just graduated and became a doctor and is going to be doing her residency at Marshall's University uh in uh West Virginia.

So thank you for your thank you so much, Miss Betty.

Thank you for bringing that wonderful news to us.

Yes.

Good evening, madam mayor, members of the council.

My name is Sean Dugar.

I am a Berkeley native whose family has been in the city since 1919.

In that hundred plus year history, we have seen the city of Berkeley, the voters of Berkeley continue to make history, continue to push forward a progressive agenda, and we have an opportunity to do that this November again with setting up a fund that would create a public bank here in the East Bay, a public bank that would allow for us to be um to not be as dependent on Washington, DC, um, not be as dependent on Wall Street to invest in our communities, but instead be able to invest in green energy and infrastructure in affordable housing and workforce housing and to support small businesses.

So I want to thank the members of this council who have been supportive of this entire body that has supported public banks here in the East Bay in the past, and onward to November.

Thank you all.

Thank you, Sean.

Uh good evening.

My name is Tom Parish, and I am a member of the Berkeley Arts Coalition and a resident of District 5.

Um I'm here to speak about the 2026 Berkeley Arts and Creative Economy Rescue and Sustainability Measure.

Uh Berkeleyans understand that the arts are not a luxury.

They are important civic infrastructure.

Just as we invest in our schools, our libraries, and our parks because they strengthen our community.

We must also invest in the artists and cultural organizations that define who we are, build community cohesion, and provide lifelong learning opportunities.

Last summer, 93% of Berkeley voters polled agreed that arts and culture are a critical part of what makes Berkeley a special place to live.

And this ballot measure gives those values meaningful action.

This measure will generate more than six million dollars annually to support nonprofit theaters, music and dance organizations, museums, community festivals, and individual artists, and expand arts education, free community events, and preserve cultural spaces.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks so much, Tom Brahms.

Hello, good evening.

My name is David Mayer.

I'm the founder and CEO of the UC Theater.

I'm here also in support of the Save the Arts measure.

And it's a not only investing in the quality of life in Berkeley, but it's also uh investing in something that also gives a return, not just a cultural return, but a financial return.

Um performing arts theaters and music venues are both primary and secondary revenue generators and primary and secondary job generators.

For for example, every ticket that's sold at the UC Theater generates 14 to 16 dollars in the community.

So for every 100,000 tickets sold, that's 1.4 to 1.6 million in surrounding businesses.

And in addition to that, the jobs that we create are not only in our venue, but the secondary jobs and the businesses uh surrounding us.

So I think it's important to look at it from not only just a cultural standpoint, but also for economic.

The city of Berkeley also did a creative economy study on the creative economy in Berkeley, and that's we're taking a look at underscores that as well.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, Mayor, Council members and members of the community.

My name is John Mario Sevilla.

I'm the director of development and operations at Luna Dance and Creativity.

I'm here to express also my strong support for the uh Berkeley Arts measure.

Uh, for 30 years, Luna has been uh has brought creativity, equity, and community to children's lives through dance.

So I'm speaking about the educational impact of this measure.

Last year we served 731 educators and artists, and reaching more than 50,000 children, 6,000 with disabilities and special needs.

The arts are essential to learning, belonging and building vibrant communities.

Berkeley's support has already established our ADA accessible community dance center, expanding opportunities for children and people of all of all abilities.

At a time when federal and state arts funding is in sharp decline.

This measure is an investment in our children, our local economy, and Berkeley's identity as a city where creativity and learning thrive.

Thank you so much.

My name is Glenn Turner.

I ran on the Green Party ticket for state treasurer, and one of my platforms was a public bank.

And I've been uh tabling for them 10 years ago at Farmers Markets, and I'm so excited that it got on the ballot.

I had I was I was so disappointed at the turnout of number of signatures.

I thought it had not gotten on the ballot, but now I'm just thrilled that we will actually be the first public bank, East Bay public bank in California, and uh it it's a it will be a bonus to us.

This is exciting.

I just had to say how happy I am.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I've been gifted with the possibility of a second minute from Steve.

Council members, I want to sorry, Steve.

Yeah, okay.

Sure.

Okay.

Council members, um, I want to express my excitement about that possibility of a full PAB.

Excuse me.

And hopefully, my council member will also nominate someone from District 2 to serve.

Um, but I guess what I heard in your previous meeting, I heard you express that some members of the community are just kind of anti-police and are just oppositional in that way.

And what I want to, I want to get under that, because I don't hate any police.

I am critical of policing in our city.

Yeah, how the way that it is conducted.

And this has been a long struggle that far precedes your presence on the council for some of you.

But the idea is that it's called care, not cops.

And it's it's it's a whole philosophical difference that I hope the new members of the PAB will understand.

It's not about hate, it's about deep love.

It's about care.

It's about offering people things like a place to sleep instead of a dog bite.

It's really fundamental.

I'm asking, where is our warming?

Is it economically wise to eliminate warming centers from our budget and yet considerance proposals?

How much will you spend litigating these things?

How happy will it make us?

It's it's about this is our community.

We love it, and we want you to care for it in a way that collaborates with with what we're expressing to you.

And it really is a heartbreaker to see proposal after proposal in full retreat from the high aspirations you expressed a few years ago.

And so we are saying we want to go back there.

Thanks.

Thanks, Andrea.

That woman always floors me.

She speaks the truth in such a bottom line way because Mayor, you brought it up with the disability thing.

And so I respect, include, and support.

It is a fundamental point of view that together we can.

We need more interaction.

We need as a community to know that we keep ourselves safe.

And I'm definitely in support of the public bank, police accountability.

I love the police if they would do their job with heart and care, and if we would prevent harm.

I just saw a man surrounded by three police cars.

He didn't need that, he needed help.

He needed help, and we're not providing enough help.

Okay.

Elevators, please.

I really support that because elevators are falling apart and people get hurt.

And if you're going to buy new parking enforcement vehicles, please resell the old so that we can use them in the community.

Thank you.

Thanks, Maria.

Carol Morasovic.

First, I want to support the city auditor's comments regarding public banks and her need for additional auditors to do that job.

Second, I want to uh support the comments where that were made regarding Waheida Miri.

He was great, he was professional, he was a great communicator, and he brought a lot of expertise.

And uh he's just was just excellent.

Third, I want to address the number eight, the capacity building.

I was hoping there would be some relationship to Bendix and uh curing the racial disparities and gender disparities and and building it building that type of capacity.

Um last, I want to comment on the comments about AI that have been made, uh, which is uh to state that um there were also is a downside to AI.

Just today I received uh a couple different emails related to uh a negative aspects of AI.

For example, the University of Chicago has big law schools banned tech.

Thanks.

Thank you, Carol.

Did you want a minute?

Someone from the audience is giving you a minute.

Thank you.

I was hoping to read some of the comments, but it suddenly my phone went out on that.

But from the uh on AI, and that was uh basically to sum it up, it was talking about the human aspect and that people want the human aspect.

And this has been uh I am so sorry, this has just gone down uh on my phone, but uh that you can't replace the human aspect, and we have to remember that that AI may seem very efficient, but it it there is that you okay.

Here goes one line from the strategy stood out.

They write the many aspects of legal practice will remain the domain of humans, not merely because humans are good at them, but because clients, employers, judges and society will want humans to perform them.

That is a different argument that AI can't do this yet.

It's saying that even when an AI can do something, people will still want a human doing that, whether it is uh, and I'm gonna go to the next paragraph.

What we still want humans to do, and whether we are built in the conditions so to them to do what is important.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks so much, Carol.

Have some comments online.

Yes, uh, first speaker is Ben Gerhard Stein.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council.

Uh Ben Gerhardstein with Walkwake Berkeley.

Calling in this evening to um appreciate the hard work uh that the city manager's office did and that you all did in recruiting and um ideally highly hiring Jimmy Parks for public works director.

Uh Walkwright Berkeley is thrilled with his appointment.

Um has the background that the city needs right now um to really uh advance our work to make our streets safe, accessible, and smooth uh for all.

And we're excited to bring him on board and uh get to work with him.

So um great to hear so much support across council for this appointment and uh onward.

Thank you, Ben.

Next is Martin.

Of the many uh community benefits that the ecology center brings to Berkeley.

Uh we were the anchor organization for the 2014 Berkeley versus Big Soda soda tax ballot measure, and we are excited to announce that we gathered over 5,000 signatures.

This um, Martin, you cut out Martin.

I can't hear you.

Oh on to the next um next is Jeff Lomax.

Uh good evening, council.

Regarding item three, I would encourage you to use your authority under this item to oppose the bank tax.

Some of you have already stated opposition to the measure as written, and that is correct.

It's a hundred percent financed by the citizens of Berkeley during a time when you're struggling with a 30 million dollar deficit with no guarantees that any of the parcel tax will be spent in Berkeley.

Funds will go to Richmond, funds will go to Oakland, but there's zero guarantee any funds will be spent in Berkeley.

And then there are unprecedented inflators on this mandatory inflators.

This is unprecedented.

It takes away your authority to uphold your fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Berkeley.

Your own $50,000 study shows that the financial underpinnings of this proposal are quite shaky.

Use your authority to oppose this measure until it is done in a responsible and fiduciary responsible way to your constituents.

Thank you.

Next is Jill.

Thank you.

Hello and good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Jill Randall.

I'm a longtime South Berkeley resident, an artist, currently the co-artistic director of 68-year-old Shaw Anderson Dance Center.

During my time over the years on the Berkeley Cultural Trust, including two years chairing it, I worked with colleagues in council to help increase the civic arts budget.

We've tried numerous strategies over the years, including the Airbnb tax and the idea of a cannabis tax.

And there were many years where we worked together to incrementally increase the budget.

The arts measure about the parcel tax will literally be a life-changing opportunity for arts in Berkeley.

Vital, uplifting, capacity building, sustainability, and longevity.

Out of all of the ideas we have brainstormed over the last decade, dreamed and vetted, this is it.

Thank you for putting it on the ballot this fall.

Thank you, Jill.

Next is uh former council member Cheryl Davila.

Can I get a minute or two from people in the audience?

Um there's a minute over here.

Oh, and someone in the back.

So you have three minutes.

Thank you.

Um yeah, so District One Council member and all the other people that are on this item should be ashamed.

We do not need to give air support, canines.

Um, Cheryl, we're actually on consent calendar and information items only.

Okay, so we'll go to the next speaker.

Um did you did you have other comments that are on the consent calendar or information items?

Yes, I do.

May I continue?

Yes, go ahead.

Um I don't think any of these tax measures are gonna go through.

Um, people are tired of paying Berkeley for things, and um, you know, they what do they get out of it?

There's Curtis Street's not paved.

I agree with the public banking and the sugar tax, yeah.

But you know, there's a lot of other things that um people are really disappointed in, and um you know, I don't feel like the people that I've talked to, which I talked to a lot of people that live in Berkeley, um District 2 and beyond, that aren't happy with how things are going in Berkeley, they don't want to pay any more money, they don't feel like when they do pay more money that the money gets used when the way it's supposed to be used, and they are very disappointed.

Um, so it's uh you know, it's interesting, we'll see how that works out.

Um, and also, you know, a lot of these um people that I talk to are really disappointed in how you're treating our unhoused people with um evictions and all that, all the stress that you're putting on them when you do these things, and um they're not happy, and it's not okay.

Uh, they don't have you're not giving alternatives, you're not talking to them and trying to get to know them and trying to help them with whatever issue that they have that keeps them from being housed.

Um, you need to have a universal income to actually support folks to be housed that can't actually afford to be housed or need a little extra boost.

You need to be doing more to help people to help your constituents, and you need to listen to your constituents and pay attention to your constituents, and um I don't recall seeing any of you there for uh the honorable wonderful man that passed away, Carl Anthony.

Um which happened this past weekend, they had a memorial for him, and another person that passed away is Bailey.

Bailey was a person in Berkeley that has been here for quite some time.

He's an icon and a staple to the telegraph area, a musician.

He worked at the Berkeley Square, and um, you know, played at um Larry Blake's and Rest in Peace, Rest in Power, Carl Anthony, Rest in Peace, Rest in Power, Bailey, um, Pendegrass.

Thank you.

Uh next is Public Bank East Bay.

Thank you.

Um, my name is Debbie Knotkin.

I chair the Friends of the Public Bank East Bay.

I will try to be as quick as I can.

I first of all want to say that we completely support the city auditors' request for more resources, and I'm very glad that she spoke up about it.

Second, I want to say that the very clear intent of the measure is to prior, if if the bulk of the funds come from Berkeley, would the bank will prioritize Berkeley in every in every possible and legal way?

And thirdly, I just want to say that this is as one of the gentlemen who spoke about the arts measure said, this is in the medium term, a way to bring success, not just success, but actual cash to the city.

And it it is for the benefit of Berkeley and the surrounding area.

But the but Berkeley stepping up, we are incredibly grateful.

And thank you.

Thanks so much for your comment.

I think that was our final comment online.

Um so I did uh just want to add one more thing that I'm supposed to say before we approve our consent calendar this evening, which is that pursuant to state law, we are verbally disclosing our action on public agency executive salaries.

The council will vote to adopt a resolution confirming the appointment of James Jamie Parks as the director of police account uh the public excuse me, sorry, we were we've been talking about police accountability all day as the director of public works to be effective August 17th, 2026 at an annual salary of 270,000.

All right.

Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

Second.

All right, can we take the role on that, please?

Okay, to approve the consent calendar, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Yes, Taplin, yes, Bartlett, yes, Traga, O'Keefe, yes, Blackaby, yes, Luna Para, yes, Humbert, yes, and Mary Ishii.

Yes.

Okay, motion carries.

Very good.

Thank you all so much.

Okay, moving on to our action calendar.

We are moving on to 20 item 21, which is lease agreement, International Child Resource Institute, I C R I, for 125 to 127 use of University Avenue office space from our city manager.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

We don't have a presentation today, but if people have questions, we're available.

Thank you.

Are there any questions on this item?

Okay, seeing none, is there any public comments on this item?

This is for item number 21, lease agreement with the International Child Resource Institute.

Anyone online?

Excuse me.

Uh no, no, no raised hands.

We can close the public hearing if you like.

All right.

Um, is there a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved.

Second.

Can we take the role on that, please?

Okay, to close the public hearing, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Yes, Taplin.

Yes, Bartlett, yes, Trage, aye.

Okie yes, Blackaby, yes, Unapara, yes, Humbert, yes, and Mary Ishi.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Is there a motion to approve the lease agreement or any comments first, I should say move to approve the lease.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Can we take the role on that, please?

Okay, to uh approve the lease agreement.

Uh councilmember Casarwani.

Yes.

Taplets Bartlett, yes.

Tragab, aye.

O'Keefe, yes, Blackaby, yes, Unapara, yes, Humbert, yes, and Mayor Ishi.

Yes.

Okay, motion carries.

All right, very good.

Moving on to item number 22, levy and collection of fiscal year 2027.

Street lighting assessments, also from the city manager.

Um, also no presentation this time, but available for questions.

Thank you very much.

Are there um any questions?

Okay.

Seeing none, um, I would like to move forward to public comment.

I see one person in the room coming up, Kelly.

Um, thank you.

So can we as a city start looking at the dark skies initiative that is good for our environment and insects and birds and nature?

That when we do our street lighting, can we do our street lighting so we're not having big lights at three stories up above the tree canopy that we bring them down?

And again, follow dark skies initiative and try to make Berkeley um the kind of city where we support nature.

So I'm not um opposing the tax.

I'm just asking that we spend it differently to help our environment.

Thank you.

And you could take a trip out to um the Oakland airport and see how the lighting there on the driveway after dark is low.

It's not way up in the sky.

So I think we can do better with our lighting here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly.

Maria.

I still can't grow.

All right.

With regard to street lighting.

It's more for me the street crossings.

And low is good.

LED is great.

Or solar.

But oh my God.

I can't see people dressed in black stepping out in front of my car because they can, expecting me to stop.

Or bicycles.

Or scooters.

Or women with strollers.

Street crossings.

Or in between parks.

You know, where people are walking their dogs.

This wouldn't and shouldn't be cost prohibitive if we don't have a exploitative.

You know.

Charging too much money for this.

This could be reasonable.

And it could be ecological, and it certainly would keep me from getting more gray hairs because I don't want to hurt anyone.

So thank you.

Thanks, Maria.

Any public comment on this item online?

There's uh no hands raised online.

No.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Coming back here to our council member colleagues.

Is are there any comments?

Is there a motion to close the public hearing?

Some of it.

Second.

Can we take the role on that, please?

Okay, to close the public hearing on item twenty two, Councilmember Cassarwani.

Yes.

Taplin?

Yes.

Bartlett.

Yes.

Tregum.

I'll keep?

Yes.

Lackaby.

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Humber.

Yes.

And Mary Ishi.

Yes.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Public hearings closed.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Um the other comments, just wanted to double check.

Okay.

All right.

Is there a motion to approve?

Move approval.

All right.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Can we take the role on that, please?

Okay.

To approve the levy and collection of fiscal year twenty twenty-seven street lighting assessments.

Councilmember Kessarwani.

Yes.

Taplin?

Yes.

Bartlett.

Yes.

Trago.

I.

O'Keefe.

Yes.

Wackaby.

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Humber.

Yes.

And Mary Ishi.

Yes.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Very good.

All right.

I just want to check in with my council colleagues.

Should we move on or do folks want to take like a quick ten minute stretch break?

Yeah, let's take a quick ten minute stretch break and we'll come back.

Thank you.

Recording stopped.

Okay, so I'm sorry.

Hello, everyone.

Councilmember Kessarwani.

Okay, so just to just to start us off since I do want us to get started again.

Um we are on item 23.

Um there you will notice there is an A and a B.

That is because the uh Peace and Justice Commission submitted an item that was relevant to item 23A, so there's a B.

And similarly, we have for item 24.

There's an A and a B, and again, that B is the um is a recommendation from the Peace and Justice Commission.

And so these are our four remaining items this evening, but again, they have parts A and part B.

And for both of these items, we have uh BPD here to uh answer any questions that we have.

And so um hopefully in a minute we will have our council member come out and present item number 23.

Um perhaps in the meantime, do you want to just introduce yourselves?

Absolutely, good evening.

So I'm I'm joined this evening with uh Deputy Chief Gentate and Captain Oakies.

Uh so uh DC Tate oversees our policy and training division as part of her duties.

Uh, Captain Oakies is our operations captain who oversees both our patrol responses as well as our special response team or SRT.

So both of them have uh extensive experience in use of force policy training, managing critical incidents, and they were our departmental leads on working with the council member on on uh specific policy language.

So um they'll take the lead on answering questions tonight.

Thank you very much.

Okay, I am gonna just run back there and see if I can okay.

Shouldn't the police accountability board be up there too?

Folks, just give us a minute while we um wait for our council members to return.

Those are all represented.

Okay, so we are moving on to item number 23A, which is resolution rescinding resolution number 51, 408 NS, restricting the use of air support and canine units and updating mutual aid policies.

And I will pass it over to Councilmember Kessarwani to present.

Uh thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

I want to thank uh the police chief and uh members of the public who were um able to provide input on this item at the public safety policy committee earlier this year.

I want to thank uh the council members who serve on that committee, councilmember O'Keefe and Chair Blackaby, and um we're bringing this item forward tonight uh because it modernizes a 1982 resolution that governs when Berkeley police can request helicopter and canine support through mutual aid.

The 44-year-old policy was written in a different era and its restrictions no longer reflect current operational realities or best practices.

Hey, excuse me.

The existing approval process, which routes through the city manager before a resource can be deployed, can consume 20 to 30 minutes in incidents where every minute matters, a child who is missing, a violent fleeing felon, a a suspicious device that needs explosives detection.

In the years that this policy has been in place, the city manager to our knowledge has never denied a request from the chief.

What we are doing here is replacing a procedural delay that doesn't change outcomes with watch commander pre-approval and a robust post-deployment notification and reporting framework, preserving accountability while eliminating a ball and a bottleneck that compromises public and officer safety.

We are also updating the list of authorized uses to reflect modern policing practice.

You can imagine a resolution from 1982 does not reflect that.

While maintaining the explicit prohibition on canine use for crowd control and adding new categorical prohibitions that didn't exist in 1982.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, council member.

Are there any questions from my council member colleagues on this item?

I'm happy to start.

Um I think it would be helpful if you could clarify the difference between the original policy versus the updated policy.

What are some of the changes?

What are the changes that you've um suggested here?

So as I so as I noted, uh Madam May, the uh the new resolution provides the modern policies, those are listed on page six of 14 of the item, and also the the categorical prohibitions have been expanded.

So that's paragraph C.

So now canine teams shall not be deployed in in connection with, and we have a list there, infractions, misdemeanor offenses not involving a weapon likely to cause serious bodily injury, flight from an officer absent and independent justification under this section, thefts that escalate to robbery solely from a suspect's resistance to the victim's effort to stop the theft, absent use of a weapon or actions causing great bodily injury, stolen vehicle incidents involving a named suspect or that are civil in nature, or crowd control.

That is continues to be uh prohibited, a prohibited use.

And could you speak to the authorized uses, please?

Because I actually feel that this is where a lot of people have concerns.

Okay, the authorized uh deployments, uh, so that's paragraphs A and B.

I can read those out.

Authorized deployments involving suspected involving suspect apprehension, canine teams may be deployed to locate or apprehend a suspect when any of the following is true.

The suspect is wanted for a violent felony.

There is a reasonable belief that the suspect possesses a weapon likely to cause serious bodily injury.

The suspect is wanted in connection with a residential burglary, or the deployment supports service of a warrant on a subject who is wanted for a violent felony, has a documented history of violent offenses, has a documented history involving firearms, or has a documented history of felony evasion or physical assault against law enforcement.

Thank you.

And council member, can you speak to why it's residential burglary only as opposed to commercial and residential burglary or just burglary?

Oh, um.

Or perhaps maybe Chief Lewis would DC Tate would like to to the police department for that question.

So there um when we think about the the residential aspect of it, that's that's someone's home.

It's it's more than a business in the middle of the night where there are no occupants.

This is something that it could be a life safety incident in that moment.

Um it also speaks to it.

Some um some of the canines are alert only.

Um, and this is more or less reflective of best practices in um regionally.

So just to understand um the the expectation is that they would only be deployed at nighttime in residential areas, or this could be at any time of day, is that correct?

No, I was speaking for the the difference between the residential and commercial, in that um one of the differences may be that in a residence that's where you have your expectation of privacy, that is your home, your calling, there's someone breaking in in that moment as opposed to a commercial burglary in the middle of the night just for comparison, um, where there may be no occupants.

I see what you mean.

And I guess my thought is that you know, for the commercial burglary, there could also be people, you know, on site and and also potentially customers.

So I was just curious about that.

And then also, um, I think maybe a point of a point of clarification too.

So uh typically, in order for it to be a burglary in that sense, it's going to be a closed business.

So commercial burglary is something that's closed and there's not people there.

The idea being that if someone has broken into a home where there are possible people inside and then flees, that is somebody who has shown um a willingness to engage with people in the commission of their crime.

That's it makes it more serious.

And so apprehending someone that would break into someone's home while they were in it is is something that we we uh are very serious about trying to locate that person.

Thank you.

Um, and then also DC Tater or any of you, if you could also just speak to how does using how do canines actually apprehend someone who's burglarizing?

Like what I think when we think of dogs, we're thinking of, you know, they're they're grabbing someone, pulling them to the ground, that kind of thing.

But it would be helpful to understand that better.

Okay, folks, please just if you could please keep your comments to the common period.

I know you're very passionate about these issues, and I want to make sure that we can hear all the answers to our questions.

So thank you.

Go ahead.

So there's a number of ways that uh canines can be used uh under current practices, canines uh are frequently used with a lead or under a leash, and they're used, they have alert canines, so canines that are not trained to bite, but they're trained to alert.

And so, in a circumstance where they're doing a search of a residential uh residence uh looking for a burglary suspect, there are instances where a canine might be deployed with a handler uh that would alert, hey, there you know, alert the the the handler that there is uh someone in a room concealed in a room, which then allows officers to safely from a distance call that person out rather than entering the room uh in that residential burglary.

And so just to clarify, would um would that be the cases in which we'd use it, or would there be instances in which the dog could also you know attack the person as well?

So it depends on the training uh of the dog and the policies of the of the department that's bringing the dog in, but typically for a residential burglary, it's uh the anticipated use would be for uh uh just to alert that there's there's something there absent the the other um elements listed in the policy, armed history of violence, those kinds of things that are specifically enumerated in the policy.

Thank you.

And then um could you also speak to the implication of removing the requirement that the suspect is in a controlled, this is a quote suspect is in a controlled contained area, and there are no known occupants of the area other than the suspect.

Um how can you speak to how you would protect bystanders who could be in the area?

Sure.

Uh so again, uh practices around canine use have changed substantially uh over the years.

And uh, what is more common now is that canines are placed on a lead or leash uh and that the handler is controlling the canine.

And so uh unlike uh in uh years past where they would release a canine without being on a lead all the time, now they have options.

They train the canine to to work in different capacities, and one of those capacities is uh under the control of a leash, and so therefore that would mitigate the risk uh of if there were other people potentially in an environment, the canine would be on a leash and and not necessarily be in contact with them.

I guess my concern there though is that if we've removed the part where the requirement that the suspect is in a controlled contained area, um and we're not specifically saying that um that we would release a dog only if they are in a controlled contained area, then that would kind of take away that sort of protection.

So I maybe it was a policy decision to remove it.

I'm not sure if maybe I should ask the council member.

Um are you able to address that, council member?

I can also provide a little feedback on that.

Sure.

We we talked through this a little bit uh as well uh at PSBC, and part of that is it it's a limiting factor.

And if you're thinking of an open area where you have a wanted suspect who has um committed uh uh crime with a gun or you know, a dangerous felon in an open area, it would be basically disqualifying if we limit it to that.

Whereas Captain Oakies was discussing if you have someone, uh a couple dog handlers who have a canine on a lead, then that would open that up for possibility for us to use a canine in that circumstance rather than having officers go out and hand check the area.

Thank you.

And council member, did you want to address I think that that's correct?

Uh Deputy Chief J.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, the the um as I'm looking at the uh the 1982 version of this, you know, that limited this to just use in a controlled and contained area, but to your point in terms of a modern use and how we might expect a suspect to move that we we we did change that to make make this more workable for the you know the modern policing strategy.

Yeah, and then I I guess someone who has three dogs that are very not threatening looking.

I mean, I know that also um there are many people, uh especially children who can be very afraid when you know dogs are off leash, especially if it's like a police dog.

And so I think you know, I have a lot of concerns about um about that, not only um, of course, the safety of others.

I I know we train, I'm sure the dogs are trained quite well, um, but also just you know the fear that can come from feeling you know unsafe around that.

Um and so okay, I I think those are my questions uh for the moment to yes, Councilmember Blackaby questions.

Great, thank you.

Um I just wanted to confirm current use, like canine support and air support is currently available already.

We we currently use those sources.

That's correct.

We get them from external agencies that we partner with.

Yes.

Um, so the question here is we're not enabling new tools, we have these tools.

It's a question of how we use them, how we approve them.

That's basically what we're talking about.

Yes.

Okay.

Um could you talk about in a suspect apprehension scenario?

How do you what's the decision making process about hey, this might be an appropriate time to use canine support?

What's what's the process?

How do you think about that versus another tool?

Could you maybe talk about that?

Sure.

So we're always looking at um our use of force policy and whether or not something is um uh dangerous threat in the moment to uh bystanders to officers um and evaluating that.

I think um you probably have more relevant um recent.

Sure.

Uh so typically again, we look at the nature of the crime uh and we look at the uh area in which uh the the suspect may be f you know hiding and evaluate if there are ways for officers to safely try and locate that suspect uh and uh as a as a function of that, we evaluate what's the likelihood that the suspect is still in the area that we're we're looking where that area is contained, um, combine again with that the nature of the crime uh and then uh all those things uh go into the decision making process of should we bring a canine in to help assist us uh in in uh in uh apprehending the suspect.

And if it's helpful, like that I can give you maybe a handful of the most recent examples of times when that the the captain has called me and asked to authorize a canine.

Um it's situations where they had a uh a robbery that just occurred, um they had eyes on a person who went into a block.

Um they knew that they got uh patrol units surrounding that almost immediately.

And then so they know that the person is contained in this general area, they there's they verified with the victim that there was a gun involved, right?

And the alternative would be for officers to go yard by yard to check versus use a dog on a lead to go into a yard and alert if there's someone in there.

So that's that's one kind of scenario.

The other is uh situation when they're doing a high-risk search warrant.

Uh and they'll go, we'll uh call phone numbers of the residents, do um loudspeaker audible um to tell people to come outside that we have a lawful warrant and ask them to come out.

Um maybe a couple people come out, we can't verify there's no one else in there.

Um and so instead of sending officers in there, your tools become using a interior drone to go in there and fly, or have a dog on a lead go in room by room and be able to clear a room, say that that room is clear, officers can go into that room and then and then move forward.

So there's it's it's not that um uh a thing happens and then you immediately go to deploying a dog.

There's things you do to ensure that there's a high likelihood that there's somebody in there or that you need to clear an area safely.

And if uh canine support isn't available, like what's the next step?

I mean, uh my understanding, and correct me, part of this is also you're trying to always create more distance between suspects and officers.

You're part of this that there is a there's a safety argument from the perspective of not sending an officer into a situation they can't see, or exposing then a suspect to a situation where the officer feels bound to protect him or herself in a situation and things ask whereas this sort of support again creates one more sort of piece of distance.

Is that again, can you just help us?

Uh what I'm trying to think of is if this is not available, what else do you go to?

And does that introduce other kinds of risk when you don't have this kind of tool?

Yes, traditionally, when there's no say we call for canine support and there is no canine available, then ultimately officers are left with the resources that they have available, which is generally going in room by room and and officers potentially engaging with someone rather than having a dog be able to alert that there's someone there.

Okay.

Um I know in the report that, and again, we haven't talked about air support yet, but just we're talking about both.

There you've there typically we see four to five helicopter requests a year, eight to ten canine unit requests per year.

Um you anticipate that's gonna stay similar, or what do you I mean, increase, decrease, stay the same.

I mean, is that the same level of frequency you would anticipate?

I'm not committing you to a specific number, but I would say generally, yes.

Is there any reason that this part we're doing, we're we're reducing the time that it takes to get the approval, but we're not necessarily changing the sort of scenarios that you would use these kind of tools in.

So I'm that's what I'm I guess I'm asking.

So with with the one exception, as we're talking about um being able to use them with pursuits, um to the extent that they are where CHP may already be um in the area and engage individually on their own and and let us know that they see a vehicle fleeing.

Um that's not us making the request.

However, um I would imagine that if we had a pursuit, that then that would give us an opportunity to, in a more timely matter, request air support.

So we may see an increase there.

Okay.

Um the report also notes a 20 to 30 minute time to move approval up and down the chain of command.

I think that's either for canine or air support, because it's the same process.

Um under the new policy, what do you expect that approval time to be reduced to if it's just the watch commander um and then after action reporting?

Sure.

Uh it would just depend on how quickly we could figure out which agency had the resources available, but generally uh a matter of minutes once the watch commander determines that a resource would be appropriate, and then it would just be making the phone calls to determine where the asset is.

Okay.

Um then remind us how the reporting works in terms of um how each case is reported to the city manager, how each case goes to the PAB or to the council.

How how is the reporting work on the back end?

Just to remind us.

So currently, or what is proposed?

Uh what's proposed current and then what it would be under the proposed.

So currently, uh on scene supervisor.

So the sergeant is making the request to the watch commander, watch commander to the captain, captain to the chief, chief to the city manager, and then back down.

Okay.

And then after action, um, how will it work in the new scenario?

Um so this would be uh the after action in the proposed scenario would basically be the watch commander would notify the chief uh as soon as possible, who would then make the notification similar to other notifications that we do to the city manager.

Okay.

And then this shows up in the use of force reporting that is done on a regular basis.

So this flows into the normal reporting process that we also get.

Okay.

Um I noted in the uh the PAB letter, it said um they they they called this uh there's a lack of demonstrated need because the BPD has presented no evidence about the undue burden on the department, which is certainly you know one consideration.

But I guess I I think there are other considerations which are you know impacts on response times.

This isn't just about the burden on the BPD, this is also about potential benefit to community in terms of response times.

Um I just wonder what that means in sort of a crisis situation in terms of having the the shorter, the shorter approval window.

So in a crisis situation, every moment counts.

If you're the individual who is needing help on the other end where there's a suspect, or there's an armed suspect going towards uh you know an open area and we don't know where they are, every moment is gonna matter and being able to find either uh uh path for the person or if it's a missing person or or any of those moments.

So in in the moments where they matter most, that's where we're closing the gap.

Okay.

And we'll continue to be using these uh mutual aid, like we're not anticipating creating our own helicopter unit or our own canine unit.

This is about continuing to use resources from other partner jurisdictions.

Correct.

This would be continued mutual assistance that we already have access to regionally.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a follow-up question.

Chief, you brought up drones.

I'm just curious, how do we decide whether to request a drone to um you know do a type of search versus a dog?

Or canine, sorry.

Yeah, sometimes it's what available what units are available.

Um obviously, you know, understanding your concerns around the canine uh capability, we we can get better intelligence sometimes from a drone, the use of a drone than you can with a dog.

However, the the dogs have capabilities that the drones don't.

Pile of clothing that somebody's under, dogs can smell that there's a human being in there and alert versus a drone can't see that.

Um so you know, closet, same thing where you can't access via that.

So both both tools have their um uses.

There are some um um agencies that deploy out with a canine that won't uh deploy their canine until first you run the drone through the house and see everything you can see, and then the next step is you send the canine in and do a clearance, and then the next step, which is the most dangerous step, is then the officers go in and have to hand check that.

And I I seem to recall that some drones have the ability to see like heat detection, though, is that correct?

So they they would be able to see um behind you know, clothing or something like that, is that right?

There are there are some drones that have a heat sensitivity that can pick up a thermal imaging.

Most of those are the larger drones.

Uh I'm I don't think that the interior drones have that capability to that extent.

That's good to know.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Um other questions, yes.

Uh Councilmember Traco.

Uh thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um and uh thank you uh PD for being here this evening.

Uh I have several questions.

Um I think my most basic question, uh this is what I'm still trying to wrap my head around.

Um this is a proposed rescation of a 1982 resolution and replacement with a new resolution around um authorized uses.

How does this map on or does it to any um uh relevant use of force uh policies and or um how does this map onto existing or future MOUs?

So with regards to uh use of force, it we would make our notification and it would depend on the force that that was used, whether or not there was force used uh on an individual.

And um as we're working with regional partners, they would be subject to their own use of force uh policy requirements and and what we would be doing is reporting on the use, and then obviously our criminal report um would document uh what the result of the interaction with the canine would would have been.

Thank you.

So I guess this is really I guess specific to mutual aid um assistance requests.

Um what guardrails currently exist or would exist if um this item was adopted around um, you know, I I imagine different agencies that we might receive a request from might have different levels of tolerance for how to use uh helicopters and how to use um police dogs.

Uh so how would um I guess what guardrails would exist operationally?

So we currently operate under our police officer standards for training in the state of California, and there are best practices for canine handlers and programs uh that are established for that training.

Um to my understanding, there are some changes that are that are also uh coming about um next year to sort of standardize those across the board.

Um so the the canine handlers are subject to their own policies, and um many of those are very similar to uh what we're talking about in the proposal for how they're used and when they're used.

Uh and we talked about this last week also when we were um talking about could another agency's more um uh expansive policy, you know, uh allow for greater access.

And the answer is no.

So um they have to operate under what our allowed uses are and the type of cases and situations that that um we are allowed to ask for an air support to come in and monitor something, or canine to come in and do a find and alert or find and locate or missing person uh um search.

So the um uh irrespective of another agency's policies, and I will tell you that that as DC Tate shared, they have to also align with state best practices.

Um they can't come in and do some other use, like they can't come in and look for something like a misdemeanor with no weapon because their policy allows it.

That we have they have to follow, they are only gonna get asked to come to do a thing that is allowed pursuant to our policy.

And would that be reciprocal if we got a request by another agency?

Well, um, we don't have a helicopter or a dog, so we wouldn't be providing the same.

Yes, it's um okay.

Uh going to some other questions.

I and I think this might be perhaps for council member Kesarwani.

Um I know it's probably hard.

Uh there's a type with a 1982 resolution, and then there's this, but it would be helpful um, I guess in the absence of a matrix of what the specific changes are, if you might be able to just summarize like uh I I understand the um changing the uh to an after action report to the city manager.

So that part I understand, but in terms of the actual uh specified, you know, permitted or um prohibited uses, it would be helpful for me to understand the changes.

Sure.

The uh I do want to note the the 1982 resolution is in the item.

Um if if folks are would like to read that, it is typewritten, so it's a little harder to read, but it's page nine of 13.

And then just to summarize, um, in the report, we note that the 1982 apprehension authority is really rarely usable in incident in incidents for which canine support would be most appropriate.

So it requires BPD to simultaneously confirm a threat to human life, that the suspect is armed, that the suspect is in a controlled and contained area, and that no one else is present, conditions that almost never align at the moment a request must be made.

Um a residential burglary with a barricaded subject, suspect, a high-risk warrant on a subject with a doc with documentearms history and pursuit of a violent fleeing felon, each fail at least one of these elements.

So our goal here is to have a policy that is restrictive, and I believe it is with those clear expanded prohibitions, uh, but can actually be used when residents of our city are are facing a life-threatening criminal situation.

And and I have to say, you know, the the I I respect the view that a dog being used to identify a fleeing violent felon could be fearful for some people, but I also have to say that a suspect at large who is suspected of a violent felony is also a very fearful situation for our community.

So I think that we can folks we can balance this policy and ensure that our police department has the modern tools that that other police departments have.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Bartlitch, please folks.

Oh, sorry, you have more questions.

I apologize.

Go ahead.

No worries, no worries.

Um the next question I would like to ask is going to the PAB letter that we received uh specific to relationship with proposed drone technology.

Um while the PAB acknowledges the drones would not be capable of performing all functions that a helicopter can provide, some of the expanded uses contemplated for helicopters appear to overlap with operations described in the drone proposal.

Um could you please elaborate on that point?

Uh if the two technologies were in use um simultaneously, how would they um compete or complement, compete with or complement each other?

Sure.

So the drone technology uh is something that's uh easier to deploy uh and frequently will have a faster turnaround time and is much less expensive than uh a helicopter program, and so uh there's greater access to uh drone technology and and a faster deployment.

Uh that being said, uh drone technology is limited by the amount of time that it can be in the air.

It's battery is its limiting amount, whereas a helicopter has a much longer runtime.

And so for events uh that are either long and protracted or an event such as uh a fleeing uh uh a fleeing uh suspect in a vehicle, uh a helicopter is a uh a better uh option and uh provides a level of coverage that uh drones uh are not do not.

If I can add on that, um drones also have a limitation is as far as how far they can go.

So a helicopter would also be able to follow someone on a freeway for a long period of time, and officers would be able to fall back and not necessarily um be engaged in that pursuit uh in the ways that they might be if they were uh in the city.

Um anyway, uh that to say that helicopters can have a longer range than then the drones.

Okay, thank you.

And uh last question, I think for now, um of the requests that you've um you receive now or the city of Barkley receive for mutual aid uh as it pertains to use of canine.

Um can you provide um an approximate breakdown of how many of them are for things like search and rescue and uh uh you know, God forbid uh bomb sniffing operations, those kinds of things versus um, you know, well uh we don't have this now, but if well versus the 1982 policy around, you know, all three antecedents or criteria about um a life being in danger and violence.

Yeah, and that's it's exactly a limiting factor and be able to kind of compare that data.

Um what I can tell you is that we use them regularly for um missing at risk people um that go with search and rescue dogs that we have access to through the county and some of our uh other mutual assistance jurisdictions.

Uh we regularly use them for events uh where we know a dignitary might be present um or some other event that has a risk for explosives or bombs, and we'll use it for that.

Um and so I would say that the most common is missing persons.

Um the uh current policy is restrictive on how often we can use them and how we can use them for for um crimes in progress where someone is in a block.

So that those numbers are are lower.

Um but those are all situations that we see regularly, and uh I I know in the course of the last maybe two or three years, um very small handful of times when they've been part of a high-risk search warrant operation.

Uh and if this policy were to be if I guess if the restriction set were to be amended via this resolution, um to what an extent do you see or anticipate a change in kind of the type of um requests we might uh Queen light?

So I I don't expect to see a major change in any of those categories except the one that we have created space for um the the violent felony with a felon with a gun and the residential burglary, the things that we right now are prohibited from really requesting that where we need them because we can't by the by the old policy.

So I there will be an increase in those um as needed uh based on the parameters of the use policy um if we if we if the council's direction was to move forward on this tonight.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Questions from Councilmember Bartlett?

Thank you.

Uh thank you Kesserwani for bringing this forward, and thank you, Chief and Team, for coming here and um presenting to us.

Um very curious.

You know, I went on a ride along recently, as you might you know, it was a lot of fun, really good time.

So I feel like uh I'm a veteran now of the force.

Um but it makes me just wonder though, like really like where this is coming from, honestly.

Um but so I'm wondering like do we have to rescind the resolution or could we just amend it to uh permit explosive detection or June and urgent search and rescue deployments?

Yeah, that's for the author.

So um council member, your question is do we uh need to rescind it instead of amending it for very specific use cases, like explosive detection or generally urgent search and rescue?

So I you know, my proposal is to rip rescind it and replace it with with what's here so that we can have the uses that we believe are aligned with best practice.

Okay, you know, one thing uh one thing I noticed in your resolution um is that it doesn't distinguish between uh tracking dogs, explosive detection dogs, or biting the whole patrol dogs.

Um is there a reason for that?

All right, shh, come on, folks.

You know, I I think given the the um the comments from uh the chief and deputy chief tate tonight, it it's clear that we don't always, and correct me if I'm wrong, we don't always know exactly which canine may be available.

And so uh I think this provides the ability to uh come on to seek the resources that are available at the time.

And Deputy Chief Tate, do you want to elaborate?

Correct.

So if we were looking for a dog that was specific to bomb detection, then we would make that request specifically.

Um and that dog would be trained in bomb detection.

Um so we would be asking for the specific canine or asset that meets the criteria for what it is that that our mission is.

Okay.

And and and what is uh in the language you use is locate and apprehend.

Um apprehend uh what do you mean by apprehend exactly?

Happy to speak to that.

The definition of apprehend is to arrest a suspect for a crime.

Well, for a non-human.

A canine.

Okay, come on, Andrea, please.

We'll let Deputy Chief Tate take it.

So again, depending on what the specific mission is, if it's to locate a suspect, then it would be to locate and arrest that suspect.

And that would be by using a canine as the asset to uh locate the individual as opposed to putting our officers in harm's way by having to go and physically look for the individual.

But it doesn't include biting them.

Again, it would depend on what the type of dog is that we end up getting.

Yeah.

Okay.

And if you've observed or or um understand how canine units work or canine dogs are deployed, the and all of the steps that we take as we as we look to resolving the situation.

Again, it's can we contain the area?

Have we made announcements that we are entering the area?

The dog, the handler will come up with the dog.

I have a dog.

I am going to release the dog.

We know you're in the block.

Please come out of the block.

We have a dog.

There's a the repeated loud verbal commands.

Sometimes it's via PA, sometimes it's an environment where they don't have to be on a PA where they're announcing.

It's they don't show up, open the door, and send the dog out there.

That's not the way that the best practice is for deploying.

They now deploy on a lead so that they control and pull back.

Most of these dogs are alert dogs.

There are times when we know an individual is in an area, they are refusing commands to come out, and we are left with nothing else to do except and we have to apprehend that person where there are dogs that will move to a bite phase.

That's that is that is far down the continuum of how we are deploying how this this tool is deployed to apprehend an individual.

Okay, and uh which um which agencies do we expect to provide?

I guess we for we the eight or nine a year, right or so, right?

So which agencies are providing dogs for us.

So we currently make the request to Emoryville, Alameda County Sheriff, East Bay Regional Parks, um Oakland.

Do we have uh data on their bite rates, their um you know training standards, etc.?

I can share that we've never had a bite in the last 10 years that I can think of in any of the deployments we've had with canines, if not farther back.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lunopara.

Thank you.

Um I want to follow up on a question that Councilmember Bartlett had around um rescinding the previous resolution instead of um amending it.

And I am curious why that was that was the choice that um you brought forward.

Yeah, I mean, as I said to Councilmember Bartlett, I I want to rescind it and replace it with the resolution and with all of the authorized deployments and categorical prohibitions that are newly listed here.

I understand.

My my question is why because that was the best way to effectuate the policies that I'm seeking to put forward.

Um would it I I guess I'm I'm trying to understand why the why the it could the the previous resolution couldn't be redlined.

I just I think that it had um some value and um I don't think it needed a full I don't think it needs a full rescation.

Um also am in the um policy or in the in the transmittal um it says that canine teams maybe may be deployed in any of the following circumstances um canine teams may also be deployed for purposes not involving the apprehensions of a suspect, including um, but it's not is it is it's not limited to was that purposeful?

Councilmember, what what page are you reading from?

Page two of 13 page two.

Okay, so that's the report.

I would refer you to the resolution for you know what would be the actual policy.

Okay, which does say only as follows.

I see.

Thanks.

Um a couple of my questions were already answered or were already asked and answered.

Um I do have a couple follow-ups um to council member Bartlett was asking um for the police department.

Um in what situation would you look for a canine that is trained to chase or bite a suspect any time we make a request for a canine, it would be to um apprehend a suspect if if that's what the circumstance is, and we would ask for the resource to help us locate that individual.

So we wouldn't specifically call and ask for someone that has a canine that meets the criteria that that you're sharing, it would be to ask for a canine asset.

Okay.

Um I guess I've I'm I'm talking about uh what Councilmember Bartley was bringing up around the different breeds of dogs.

Um, and some are trained to apprehend a suspect, and others are trained to um detect something.

Um what are the main differences and how dogs who are trained or canines who are trained to apprehend a suspect?

What what are the different trainings that got that go into creating a dog like that?

So California Post sets the standards for canine training, and every law enforcement agency um has to follow the post the post guidelines for how canines are trained and deployed.

So we we would be asking for a canine, and depending on which agency we got, um it would depend on how their program works.

So it's not that we would call and ask for a specific thing other than we need a bomb detection canine, or we're trying to locate a missing person, or we have a suspect who's fled, and then we would find out regionally who has an available canine specifically for for what our goal is.

Okay.

Um is there a situation in which the uh canine could be released or let go of the um of the leash, yeah.

There are some in some instances where uh canines are doing searches, they are off leash doing those searches.

Uh other instances they're on leash okay, thank you, but not in not in apprehension.

Yes, not in apprehension.

Uh there are some instances where there are some instances where a canine with their handler is looking to see if there is a suspect in an area, and there are other instances with on-leash and sometimes off-leash.

Okay, just to clarify, there are situations in which apprehend and in which the uh police department is trying to apprehend a suspect and the canine is released.

When you yes, the the canine is uh under the control of the handler, but they are not on a leash.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I I recognize that the that the resolution um has an explicit prohibition on using canines for crowd control.

Um is there any situation in which a canine can be used during a protest?

No.

Uh so crowd control clearly defines any protest activity.

We would not use a dog for crowd control.

If we had a missing child that wandered away from a um salon stroll um and we conducted a check of the thing and couldn't find them, would we ask surge and rescue to come out with a fine dog?

Potentially.

Okay, thank you.

Is there um for example, if there is a violent person within a large protest crowd?

No.

Okay, absolutely not.

Thank you.

Those are my questions.

Thank you.

Yes, Councilmember Blackaby.

Another set of quick questions.

I just note in the staff report there's a lot of discussion about 1982 versus now, and I just point this also to the background um in the staff report.

We were talking about in 82.

The original resolution was enacted in response to concerns about the use of specialized law enforcement resources from outside agencies.

The values that motivate its adoption, local oversight, narrow tailoring of authorized uses, and explicit prohibition of canine deployment and crowd control are preserved in this proposal.

What's different are all of the other mechanisms that we also have in place in 2026, which include lexipol, aligned policy manuals, all of our officers wear body worn cameras, the police accountability board is in place to review complaints, the city surveillance technology use and community safety ordinance, which require annual reports to council of all the uses of these tools.

So what's different and what did not exist in 1982 were all these additional things.

So I what I what I am balancing and considering in what um Council Member Caswani is proposing is yes, there are some expansions to meet the moment in terms of what modern policing is the expectations that we have in place, but we also have more accountability tools, more camera coverage, more report back, and and basically I basically just want you to comment on that, how that balances, and basically, you know, how that also weighs as a check in terms of how you would use this on the back end.

Thank you for that.

Yes.

Um everything uh that we do is governed by our policy, and there is strict oversight in any time there is a use of force.

Um there is a layered approach to supervisor oversight and reviewing everything that happened.

Um with this, it would be no different.

There would be a report to the chief of police onto the city manager, and would be something that is included in the annual report.

So there's um by way of doing this, it does um modernize the uh the policy to enable us to use the tool again to close the time distance gap and getting the asset available and reducing um potential dangers to the community officers and the suspect, and also maintaining all of the oversight that that exists.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions from my council member colleagues?

Okay.

Um we will take public comment then.

If you have public comment on item number 23A, which is the resolution rescinding resolution number 51, 408 NS, restricting the use of air support and canine units and updating mutual aid policies.

Please line up and also raise your hand if you are online and would like to speak.

Um actually, I am just realizing that probably it would have been good for us to also hear the peace and justice resolution after.

Uh Mr.

City Clark, could you advise would it be would it make more sense for us to take public comment on both now and have have our peace and justice commissioner present?

Uh well, yeah, yeah, they're they're agendized as A and B items.

There's only one public comment period for both for both items.

So it would be helpful to hear from our peace and justice commissioner then.

He is first, so would you just come up, please, and and please introduce um the 23b.

Sure.

How long do I have?

Um I don't know.

Uh maybe like five minutes.

How's that?

That would be great.

Um I have it to I have it divided into the two different items, but I would just yeah, if you could just focus on the one that's relevant to this current item, that would be great.

And we can have you present the second part of it at the second item for item number 24.

Thank you.

Okay, so uh George Lippmann, I'm representing the Peace and Justice Commission as as directed by the chair who regrets not being able to be here.

Um sorry.

So the commission recommends uh as an alternative to this motion, um retaining the existing uh uh 1982 ban on police dogs and helicopters, and that the council requests the city manager to engage in academic institutions such as UC Berkeley, UCSF, or Stanford to study the health impacts of both the tear gas and other chemical weapons and canine support, potential short-term and long-term impacts on vulnerable populations and possible alternatives to the use of these um uh tools and weapons that provide officer safety, suspect safety, and safety to the general public.

Um the um the commission share I I'm I am also uh concerned that you don't have the DPA or the PAB up here to represent.

So, but I will speak a little to um to their comments as well.

The the peace and justice supported um they said the previously permissible uses of helicopter assistance were limited to clearly defined humanitarian and emergency purposes, including disaster response, rescue efforts, excluding hostage situations, and locating missing persons.

This proposal introduces new explicitly enforcement-oriented justifications, including felony suspect pursuits, vehicle chases, and deployments intended to reduce risk to officers that go beyond the scope of the earlier permissions.

Taken together the proposed resolution reflects a shift in emphasis from primarily enforcement assistance toward authorizing helicopter use as a tactical law enforcement tool should it be adopted, and that's of that was of concern to our commission.

Um police helicopters to get more specifically into it uh provide cons uh provoke concern in a number of communities for unhealthy noise pollution, inefficient spending, and instances of bias by over policing certain neighborhoods.

Officers in the LAPD often disgracefully goes so far as to call the helicopters ghetto birds, as sociologist Sarah Brain wrote in her book, Predict and Surveillance.

Berkeley restricted uh use of police dogs in the aftermath of their brutal use, particularly particularly in the South, but across the country as well.

In the last two decades, at least two lawsuits were settled by Hayward, one for 1.5 million dollars.

One dog is said to have bitten about 30 people, two or three of them uninvolved bystanders, one in 89-year-old wound, uh sorry, one 89-year-old who died of his wounds.

Um the commission reminds the council of the precautionary principle that it adopted in 2006.

The principle is an approach to decision making that prioritizes preventing harm to human health and the environment.

The principle shifts the burden of proof, requiring actions to be proven safe rather than waiting for proof of damage to restrict them.

We recommend the lacking proof of safety.

All of these tools and weapons should not be approved.

The commission is also concerned about the removal of required pre-approval by the city manager for both dog and helicopter deployment.

When taken as a pattern, the removal of this check combined with the ref the issues that we've seen over the last couple years, the difficulty in in getting the police chief to fully cooperate with the PAB's city charter mandated requests for departmental records, the chronic overtime underappointing of the PAB.

Hopefully that's in the past, but it's been a very problematic issue for years, and the vacant position of the director of police accountability, the city risks a public perception that it no longer values civilian oversight.

I think that's it for this one.

Um I can if I can come back later.

Thanks, Charles.

Council members, I've been gifted with two extra minutes, and if I need a third, I might just go ahead and take that one too.

I have a lot to say here.

What I'd like to begin with is a little bit of history.

Because in 1982, when local giants like Gus Newport was mayor, Maudell Sherrick was on this council.

Those regulations from 1982 were to balance the safety.

What I have not heard any discussion about is the safety of our community as it relates to dogs that maul.

Dogs that tear the flesh off your body.

And if you if you understand that, if you're willing to speak plainly, you understand why Gus Newport Model Sherek in 1982 worked so hard with that council to enact these prohibitions.

This issue was revisited in 2004, and again, a council with folks like Max Anderson who understood how these kinds of dogs violate, if nothing else, the community trust.

One mauling in Berkeley, and you will lose it.

Since some council members don't think that racial disparities are statistically significant in our city, we know that increased use of these dogs will fall disproportionately on the African American community, on people with mental health, behavioral health issues, people with drug issues and so forth.

If you care to read the ACLU report about maulings of onlookers, about times when dogs were deployed, yes, they're they're taken off the leach.

They say go get them.

And then sometimes the the handlers have a hard time getting the dog to release the arm.

And so the person has permanent damage.

Yes.

It's insane to me that you would consider residential burglaries.

All somebody has to do is go into a house, steal packages, whatever they do, come out, and they are eligible for mauling according to the way that this proposal is being offered to you.

Apprehend, it means tear the flesh.

I also want to say this that none of us here in this room have any opposition to search and rescue.

Locate missing persons.

You know, identify absolutely.

Sniff you want to sniff explosives.

That's not a problem.

The problem is that every day this police department abandons any pretense of trying to work with the community instead of a dog, you know what to do, ask the community.

Hey, where did they go?

Hey, ask the community.

Are they in your back?

What's going on?

And we had good relations with the community.

This dog question would not be up.

But they have they they don't care.

That's the issue.

That's that's an issue.

So yes, I like highlight Ben, I like your proposal.

Let's amend this thing and make attack dogs ban attack dogs.

We have no problem with that.

Thanks, Andrea.

Let me see if I'm done.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, esteemed council members.

I'm a resident of District One.

My name is Daria Ruble.

I'm also a candidate for District One City Council.

Um I want to thank uh several council members for your thoughtful questions and critical thinking on this issue.

I would like to um state that I do not find the reasons for this resolution compelling.

I think the standing 1982 um resolution is working for us, and as um our hardworking uh staff members um with the police have already stated this does not give us new resources.

We still have those resources, we just have additional checks and balances now that do not need to be removed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Daria.

Hello, my name is Alan Evangelisti, and I am a resident and taxpayer of the city of Berkeley.

I oppose the use of helicopters and police canine units.

And I would like to note that I oppose vehemently the flock cameras that are tracking my every move as I move around the city of Berkeley, and I do not condone the expansion of the police state in the United States of America.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, counsel and may uh Madam Mayor.

My name is Jason Martins.

Uh I'm here to speak in opposition to uh unleashing police dogs on our populace.

Uh the scenario that they described where there was like a block that they surrounded, and then they could unleash the dog into that block to go and find a suspect.

Like, what's to prevent my kids from being outside in that same block where the dog is now going to be unleashed?

How is that dog gonna know that my kids are not a threat?

Uh and it's something else that's a threat.

Uh that's just is a horrifying situation to me.

Uh, and uh if the Berkeley police department wants to build community trust and talk about community safety, like I think really this comes down to a simple thing is that they're asking for permission to attack people in Berkeley with dogs.

That's really what this comes down to.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Where's the PAD?

Hello, my name is N.

I am a Berkeley resident of District 3.

Uh you see Berkeley Public Health graduate student and of young black children growing up in Berkeley Unified School District.

Um, I am speaking out against this resolution to further militarize the Berkeley police.

It truly scares me that some of you would choose to endanger your constituents like this, especially at a time of extremely heightened repression and violation of human rights in this country.

This is not safety.

This will only add to more people being brutalized by state section violence, and black and brown communities are the ones who suffer the most.

I don't want black and brown children of Berkeley to grow up in a city that surveils and polices them.

I want them to grow up in a city that prioritizes evidence-backed community-rooted approaches to safety.

Policing and surveillance do not keep us safe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, my name's Dan Brownson.

I work at Berkeley High School.

Um I don't understand the reason for this.

Crime in Berkeley has been dropping for years.

There was an uptick after, during and a little bit after COVID, but that was largely an aberration from you know downward trends that we've been seeing for many years.

Um with the existing restrictions on the use of uh dogs and helicopters.

Um helicopters are not cheap machines, so I'm wondering who is paying for this.

Someone has to be, because uh you know, helicopters require a lot of maintenance, extremely specialized uh training to fly helicopter pilots do not come cheap.

Um, so someone is footing the bill for this.

And in a time when Berkeley is in a little bit of financial difficulties, it doesn't seem wise to be making it easier to um call in these expensive assets.

Um I think getting city manager approval is probably a good thing.

Um furthermore, as to the use of dogs, uh the reason so many people do not trust the Berkeley police department.

Uh is because many people have experiences like mine, where uh, well, the uh police department will sit up here, you know, saying, Oh, how much restraint they use and whatever.

My experience has been the opposite.

Um Berkeley police officers, uh, well, a sergeant had several police officers violently violently throw me to the ground just for arguing with them.

I didn't raise my hand to him, I didn't have any weapon on me, I posed no physical threat soever.

I was still brutally thrown to the ground and arrested and for a resisting arrest.

That's why I don't trust them to have restraint when it comes to using mauling dogs.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Nori Clark, and I'm a longtime resident of Berkeley.

And we keep talking about these new modern assets.

I want to meet one of these modern dogs.

You know, I mean, modern dogs, really.

Are they robots?

Anyway, um it has been well demonstrated and uh and known that dogs often bite the wrong person.

And to have an unleashed dog running around in the neighborhood is not a safety issue.

And this and the uh use, and I agree with the previous speaker that the use of helicopters, we can we really afford this.

You know, it's one thing if they're going down the highway, but they're not they're not being a danger to somebody in their house.

Thank you thank you.

Hi, my name is Maria A.

Noudi, and I'm also a longtime resident of Berkeley.

And I also don't understand the why of it.

It just doesn't seem to make any sense when we are hearing in the news that crime is actually reduced, violent crime is greatly reduced.

Um the provisions of the 1982 uh mandate seem to say it has the built-in protections we need.

You don't really need any more.

It seems like that would just be excess and sort of inciting a violent outcome uh somehow.

Uh so uh it's it's really upsetting to see the city even thinking about these kind of draconian measures.

And as someone who was once very proud of living here, this is the exact kind of thing that makes me want to leave.

Thank you.

Hello, uh, my name is Roberto Rodriguez.

I am a recent resident of Berkeley, and that's actually uh very interesting or very relevant for today.

Um people here only know about four things about me.

One of them is that uh I'm originally from Alabama.

I lived a short period of time in Birmingham.

I studied there for electrical engineering.

Um there's a lot that I do remember about that city, and there's a lot of recent memories that have come about because of this resolution.

Um, one of them have a prop here.

There is a specific piece of art that I saw.

It's on Fifth Avenue.

I lived on Third Avenue.

You notice um, you know, with the history of Birmingham, you do see a lot of depictions of police violence.

The other thing that you do see um are dogs.

It's not handcuffs, it's not batons, dogs.

I don't know how you can policy this image away.

Thank you.

Um hi, I'm here to ask you to not expand use of dogs as a former vet tech who performed vet care on police drug siffing canines, and from my life experience with a friend's German Shepherd named Arlo.

Uh dog Bread and intended to be a police dog before my buddy kind of scooped him out of that life.

He's a great dog.

I knew him from a uh pop, but you we all knew never leave him alone with people he doesn't know, children or animals.

The breed is anxious and fiercely loyal.

If you are not in the pack, there's a chance they will attack regardless of training.

They are powerful dogs as well.

I saw Arlo take down a fully grown white-tailed deer, very bad dog at that point, but we managed to pull them off before he killed it.

I I can imagine that as a person, an absolute physical punishment without any uh six amendment right given to that person.

It it drives me nuts.

I I understand that we are intending only to use these dogs in certain situations, but how that determination is made is deeply concerning, as well as the potential for off-target attacks.

The real price of this authoritarian push.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Thanks.

Hello, good evening.

I have an extra minute.

Thank you.

Okay.

While our federal government wages war on our most vulnerable communities, including here in Berkeley, someone was kidnapped by ice.

Berkeley should be a sanctuary, not a city that hands more power to the cops.

We deserve courageous leadership focused on our community safety.

And instead, we're getting regressive policy that the community never asked for.

What we did ask for, though, is police oversight.

And all of you at one point or another, I think, except maybe with the exception of one, has said that yes, you support police oversight.

You support the police accountability board.

Where are they?

There is an empty chair there.

Where are they?

They have a recommendation letter.

So I know that the chair is standing online for a minute.

Please.

That's disrespectful.

And that's this is an opportunity to walk your talk and show your commitment to actual police accountability.

So please remedy this as soon as you can.

Here's my questions.

What if a suspect has disabilities?

What if a suspect is deaf?

And so then you're gonna send in a mauling dog because the suspect can't hear the commands of the police.

This is not it in disability celebration month.

This is all wrong.

If someone entered my house and and what there was a uh a thief there, I do not.

You can please do 1636 Bonita Avenue.

Do not send in a dog.

My dog would not be happy.

What about if there were dogs there as well?

The whole thing is just inane.

And thus far, there's not a great track record of oversight of our Berkeley police department.

This will eviscerate public trust in the limited trust that they keep saying they want to build with the community.

This will do the opposite.

Please say no.

I'm Chris Taff.

I want to pull back from the details for a minute to look at the bigger picture.

I don't want us as a municipality and as a nation in the future to have to look back in anguish from a bleak totalitarian regime and ask, why did we sow the seeds for this?

How did we not see that incrementally empowering the police with ever more tools designed for crowd control, force, and surveillance would be useful, in fact, requisite for the growth of anti-democratic or wellian power, as Andrea Pritchett said.

Why are we going backwards on this?

The pro forma limitations on dogs, helicopters, and surveillance for crowd control are at police discretion, and we don't find the police trustworthy.

Um we're like frogs in a in a pot of water, looking down at the flame and saying, hmm, this is kind of reasonable, not too bad.

Let's open our let's open our eyes here.

Our nature in the future, we shape it today.

Thank you.

Uh good evening.

I'm a resident of District 8.

I oppose the use of attack dogs in Berkeley and removing oversight on their use, I believe is the wrong move.

Once a canine is released, there's an immediate threat to any person in the vicinity who may or may not have committed any crimes.

And the chain of accountability becomes more fuzzy when with dog actions after release decision than any individual officer would otherwise be made to account for any individual action.

Situations develop moment by moment, but dogs do not de-escalate or discern potential perpetrators from victims and have potential to cause significant injury.

If dogs are to be used, there must be careful consideration for when they are used, and approvals must be extremely deliberate.

Removing obstacles from their use will mean more use, and this could lead to undue harm where it could otherwise be avoided.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Skip.

I am a lifelong resident of Berkeley and a city worker.

It is shameful that you would further militarize the police.

I do not trust the police to hold a monopoly on violence and determine which crimes warrant brutality and mauling by attack dog.

You all keep talking about best practices.

Who decides what best practices are?

I don't think any police practice is best practice, and I certainly don't trust that these practices will keep my community safe.

I do not trust the police with these tools.

I do not trust anyone with these tools.

I cannot believe that I am up that I am standing up here asking you not to allow the police to deploy attack dogs on Berkeley community members.

It is disgusting that this is a consideration.

I reject Rashi's proposals entirely and fully support the peace and justice commission's recommendations.

With helicopters, I echo my friend Dan asking, what are the financial implications?

Isn't this city under a 30 million dollar deficit?

Berkeley police dogs are Berkeley police does not need to use dogs that have been trained.

This training is actually abuse.

And then they go ahead and abuse people, they bite people to death.

Did you hear how the with the peace and justice commission?

Someone was almost a hundred years old and then died of a dog bite.

So especially concerning that you are proposing this rollback of restrictions when we are seeing evidence every day of the Israeli occupation forces training and abusing dogs to then rape and conduct sexual assault on Palestinians.

And wait, who trains the cops?

Yeah, the Israeli occupation forces, the Zionists do.

How do we know that that also will not continue?

Also, dogs are not just an asset or a tool.

Dogs are living sentient animals.

Did we forget the whole man's best friend thing?

Using dogs is inherently cruel.

Thank you.

Don't forget that bird is home to one of the largest animal rights.

Thank you.

No one wants this, especially the dogs, especially the this person's giving her time.

Okay.

Okay.

Does someone want to give would you like some more time?

Excuse me, Andrea.

Would would you like additional time?

I would like to finish my comment.

Do you know how long that might take?

It's two paragraphs.

Okay.

Does someone want to give him some time just in case?

Okay.

All right, someone from the audience is giving you another minute.

And the chief's also giving you a minute.

You're welcome to three.

There you go.

Go ahead.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Honorable Council members.

Police Accountability Board submitted an item, supplemental, opposing item 23A.

I've raised this in the past, but I continue to be mystified why the police accountability board is not invited to sit at the table to answer questions about policy that are clearly matters of public concern and public safety.

When this item was discussed, our board was frustrated because there is a clear pattern in Berkeley of treating oversight and accountability as a mere inconvenience and tossing out those accountability mechanisms when the department cites to a burden that they impose.

The impact of that burden in this case is illusory.

We asked BPD, and they provided exactly zero instances where prior approval negatively impacted BPD's ability to achieve their objectives, which is ultimately what matters.

Accountability is not an inconvenience, it is essential to public safety.

Thank you.

I'm asking for three minutes, and I have one, two, three.

Is it a total of four max?

Paul's giving you a minute.

And then I do in the back and three over there.

And is it a four-minute maximum?

Yeah, four minute maximum.

Thank you, Mayor.

Madam Mayor, Council, Community Members, my heart is heavy.

My name is Moni Law.

I'm a student of life, joy, freedom, justice, and uh Cal Grad class of 82 go bears and a city employee.

I am here in my personal capacity as a resident.

I have six exhibits, your honor.

The seven actually, I'd like to submit to the court.

The first would be this headline, U.S.

police dogs originated from sleeve slavery and must be abolished.

You do know that the original police were known as slave patrols, and they used dogs to control the people having been born in Alabama.

Having been born in Alabama, and if any of you know black people that are older, a lot of them are afraid of dogs for this very reason because they were attacked by dogs as they grew up as kids, as their parents were being bitten by dogs, as Bull Connor and others were out with the dogs.

Not protecting them, but harming them.

So that's exhibit one, and it's a point of fact.

Police dogs are not aligned for best practices.

Harm outweighs the benefits.

So if we're looking at a cost-benefit analysis, this does not fit the test.

No to helicopters, traumatizing feel of a war zone, and tear gas, which is banned in the international warfare under 1925's Gen of Geneva Protocol.

And furthermore, it's not a modern policing tool.

It's kind of ironic to call uh using dogs that were used during slavery as a modern policing tool.

Exhibit two opinion.

It would serve Berkeley well to implement best practices for our police by Moni T.

Law, April 9th, 2018.

This is a Berkeley article, and it was talking about transparency.

And the point was 277 people have been killed by police nationwide that year.

There were the protests that were in the streets here at Berkeley.

We were peaceful, but we got gassed, we got uh baton whipped, we got flashbangs at our feet, we got all the things of mutual aid that harmed the number of people in a federal court case was filed.

Moni Law versus City of Berkeley settlement in the end was to have use of force policies that now are supposed to be in place, like the gentleman prior to me spoke to.

That is not happening after all the work.

Please implement those changes.

The next exhibit, number three, police uh California police attack dogs cause permanent injuries, disfigurement, and disability.

This is an opinion from the physicians for human rights evidence exhibit number three.

Exhibit number four.

There have been reactions from the class action settlement.

Berkeley was making a good move forward.

I was on the fair and impartial policing work group.

The mayor, Jesse Ergine, now our senator, also placed me on the committee that built the policies to try to work for change, reimagining public safety.

I I'm not reimagining public safety right now.

I'm imagining a nightmare.

I'm imagining my son being bitten by a dog.

I'm exact imagining my dog, my son who's been pulled over as a 12-year-old by Seattle police, assumed to be guilty, but walking down the street.

Um, so when it's black people that are involved in the scene, they're also more likely than not the victims of the dog bite.

For example, exhibit five.

The medical opinion has shown actually through the ACLU report that was referenced earlier, exhibit six.

ACU reports police attack dogs severely permanently injured hundreds of Californians and very significant numbers.

And the city of Richmond, police attack dogs involved in 60% of use of force cases, which resulted in great bodily injury or death over a five-year period.

In Fairfield, in the same time period, over 61% of people bitten by police dogs were black.

And in a city whose population is only 16%.

Similarly, in Bakersville in 2020, 89% of police attacks resulted in severe influence.

Thanks, Moni.

I'm sorry, your time's up.

Tony Moni, Moni.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks.

Yay.

Well, that's a hard act to follow.

Uh but you know, I was looking at somebody mentioning like these uh helicopters and dog rentals, they must be rented.

Is this cheap?

Is this free?

Is there any dollar sign on this?

I see no indication that's anybody's thought about funding this.

And also the the helicopters were used four to five times, and the canines were eight to ten times.

I mean, these are not like big uh things.

So it it seems to me like what I'm seeing though is a creeping uh militarization of our police that feel like they get all the goodies and care not cops.

It's all cops and no care.

Where's the care about this?

Where are the crisis intervention trainings for the people who are mentally ill that are left homeless on the street?

Where is any of that?

So this is an expense that's it's not free.

And and all of this is a license to be uh thank you.

Thanks for your comment.

Right.

Okay.

Hello, my name's Alison.

I live in District 4, and I'm also echoing the other people who have spoken that oppose any expansion of helicopter use or the ability to remove safeguards to enable attack dogs to continue terrorizing citizens of Berkeley.

Um I also wanted to go off of the funding element, considering that the funding for the mobile crisis unit was also just slashed.

This feels especially egregious that um these tools suddenly exist, both in terms of expanding flock contracts and giving the police more tools to use feels like a complete step backwards.

Also, especially um the issue of like people who are homeless often have dogs for protection.

And so I can only imagine just the instigating effect this could have of a one of the attack dogs creating an incident in which people have are using one of the only tools they have to keep themselves safe while being attacked constantly by BPD, um, ending up hurt as an effect.

Thank you.

Come on up.

Come.

Um do I just ask for another minute from somebody?

Yeah.

I don't know who to ask.

Yes.

There's someone who would give her a minute.

Someone in the back here is giving you a minute.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay.

Um excuse me.

Um I'm Laura X, and I don't know why my voice is like this suddenly.

Um I've been here since 1963.

And I did speak at the committee meeting, and I did bring up Birmingham.

And I I suggested that the police be trained in what that meant.

Um, so I was so thrilled by this person who just brought that up.

Um, so I'm wondering, did any of you get trained?

Am I allowed to speak to them?

Um in what police dogs mean in this country.

So you can uh you can address the council as a whole, but they won't respond to your questions.

You can ask them or whatever.

That I made that suggestion as a at your committee meeting.

Um, and because I've really felt that the messaging of fear, and that Berkeley is about to lose its ever-loving mind and nationally, and be part of this terrible militarization of the every aspect of this country.

Um, is is really more important than anything in this resolution uh may or may not solve.

Um also wanted to ask uh to say that I was part of the just regular civilian population walking around in front of the university.

I was a student um in 1970, when we were guessed, tear gassed by people in a helicopter.

So that combination is still with me.

And um, that was the they were sent by the governor.

Um and so this was, of course, as I said, in 1970.

So all of that still hangs over people.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good evening, counsel.

Before before I start my minute here, um, may I ask for two or three minutes?

Someone seat, please.

Yeah, you go one.

Can I get two more people?

I I see only two hands raised for you.

So thank you.

Um, so Tarsha's Baptiste um standing here in stark opposition to this proposed item.

Um I'm a lifelong Berkeley resident, have worked as an EMT before, and so I understand from a clinical level what these tools can do to human bodies.

Um, the second reason why is fiscal and operational.

This council is being asked to spend Berkeley's money, liability exposure and political capital, expanding force, and surveillance capacity when the single investment that would most improve the performance of officers in the field, fully staffing the emergency communication center remains unmade.

These tools create patients, not safety.

CS gas and OC spray are indiscriminate.

They do not distinguish a person posing a threat from the asthmatic bystander, the child, the elder, or the unhoused resident sheltering half a block away.

Clinically, exposure means chemical conjunctivitis and corneal injury, bronchospasm, and in patients with asthma or COPD, genuine risk of respiratory failure.

CS residue contaminates skin, clothing, and enclosed spaces for hours, extending exposure to everyone downstream, including the EMS crews who treat and transport contaminated patients.

A chemical agent deployment is a mass casualty incident that the police hand to the EMS system.

Police canines inflict mauling injuries, deep tissue evulsions, neurovascular damage, wounds requiring surgical repair.

National data consistently show canine deployments fall disproportionately on black and brown residents, has been referenced by previous speakers.

Berkeley has run this experiment in December 2014.

BPD and mutual aid agencies deployed CS gas against a demonstration.

The police review commission's independent investigation found the response inadequately planned and excessive, harming peaceful demonstrators, journalists, and residents.

The city paid to settle the resulting litigation.

The 2020 ban and the 1982 city manager approval requirement are not red tape.

They're Berkeley's institutional memory written down so we would not have to relearn these lessons in settlement dollars and emergency department visits.

Every dollar in this direction is a dollar taken from the investment that actually improves field policing dispatch.

Consider what this policy direction actually costs.

The surveillance expansion moving in parallel would roughly triple the city's annual commitment to a single vendor.

Mutual aid helicopter and canine deployments carry pertincident costs, and as the Berkeley police uh Berkeley Accountability Board warned, chemical agents and canines carry significant litigation exposure, a warning Berkeley's own 2014 to 2017 experience validates.

None of this buys a single additional trained professional answering a 911 call.

Meanwhile, the city's own 2022 Federal Engineering Needs Assessment documented chronic understaffing at the emergency communications center.

That shortage is not an abstraction.

It is a structural bottleneck of Berkeley's entire public safety system, and it degrades the performance of every officer in the field, every shift.

That means slower call answering and call processing delays every response.

Police fire and EMS before a single unit turns a wheel.

No weapon in this package recovers a second.

Only staff consuls do.

Thank you.

Carol Morasovic, uh, when I first heard about proposals about canines, I thought these were the happy, soothing dogs that some police departments across the country use to de-escalate people in mental health crisis that I learned about at CIT International.

Instead, these appear to be the vicious mauling dogs that have been used by ICE and other police forces elsewhere, sometimes mauling people who are later proven to be wrongfully arrested and injured and died in some cases.

Vulnerable people, such as autistic people, people with intellectual disabilities, and mental disabilities become agitated by intimidating presences, such as a vicious dog.

That agitation then can be mistaken for a guilty suspect.

It can lead to injury, it can lead to death, it can lead to liability for the city.

And BPD seems to have a recent history of success of arresting people.

Why do we need dogs now?

Thank you.

1982.

Was anyone ever on call in 1982?

Do you remember what that was like?

In 1982, I was a nurse.

I used to be on call.

You'd have to carry a pager if you were out.

You'd have to look for a pay phone.

This is uh 2026, I think, isn't it?

And we all carry phones, or most of us carry phones.

And what is the problem with pre-authorization when we have phones and we don't have to carry a pager and run around looking for a pay phone to respond to that page?

Um we really need to have why should we take away pre-authorization?

That doesn't make any sense.

What I've heard here tonight in your questionings, which was really quite excellent, thank you very much, is a lot of contradictions.

And uh I'm very concerned about the direction this is going when you get a good question and then a kind of a different answer.

Thank you.

I have two extra minutes, one from Paul and one from Steve.

Um, Paul already Paul already gave his minute.

No, that Paul.

Oh, the other Paul.

Another Paul?

Okay, all right, thank you.

Well, I'm sorry if I messed up your name.

No, no.

All right.

I'm I misunderstood which Paul you're referring to.

Well, and that's kind of the point.

I wish all was well.

Um that's our choice.

What are we investing in?

A lot of people wouldn't burglarize if they had sufficient resources.

People wouldn't be appearing to be threatening if they had more mental health care.

If we had a community that invested in supporting each other, concretely, literally, we could reimagine the world so that we wouldn't be where we are now all around the world, where every conceivable threat just needs to get annihilated.

Let's just eliminate all potential threat.

So while we're at it, should we get nuclear bombs in Berkeley?

I'm not being facetious because we end up where we are in the world now, slaughtering people that are just different, or whatever unique, and or we don't like them and we prefer something else, it's inappropriate.

And again, back to you, Mayor.

Inclusivity, respect, and support.

That might be a new tattoo for me, right?

Because it's simple.

And if Berkeley can't do it, who the heck on this planet is?

I say we can.

So, in terms of disability, I consider us to be very able.

So I am recalling the empowerment of our hearts, and I understand the police have a direction of intention.

I'm not disparaging them.

I am just saying that shooting first is not always the best solution.

And I'm also into loving animals.

I consider using dogs this way, animal cruelty, actually.

They're meant to be companions, they're meant to be sniffers, movies don't bite, they just stand over you.

And in an emergency, we need them.

However, not this way.

And I'm just reminded of Rush Limbaugh because he said it was easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

I do not want to ask for forgiveness on my dying day for not standing for how we can care for each other, support each other, and create a better world.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Greetings, council members.

I have two minutes, I believe.

Thank you.

Abolition means avoiding carceral solutions.

It means preventing more harm from occurring.

This issue is all too deep for me.

I was one of the people who are who was defending people's park.

I remember rifles pointed at me, screams in the night, fully prepared for tear gas and attack dogs, and whatever the riot police of UC Berkeley and all its institutions would throw at us for protecting community.

I couldn't understand why this would happen to us for serving free food, for having simply a basketball court.

Was it because we were black?

Was it because we were poor?

I don't understand how anyone, including anyone representing District 7, can vote to build on People's Park, knowing the history.

Respectfully, the council member that authored this item argues that the current approval process causes delay.

But the city overall must prove necessity.

What documented incident shows that this existing policy caused preventable harm.

If the city manager hasn't denied a request, why remove the safeguard instead of approve uh improving approval process?

Ultimately, the council needs to compare alternatives.

This means faster civilian authorization, nonviolent curtailment, improved ground coordination, and strict limits on the mutual aid from other counties and institutions.

Berkeley should not import more aggressive practices from outside agencies and the historical history of this country.

And tonight prove the necessity for this.

Prove that no alternative is capable to be um evaluated.

You heard tonight from people who talked about health impacts, from people who talked about their own history of police brutality, show the president of these items and these tools of war, really, to be used against civilians.

And why because a mental health crisis, why because someone is doing something wrong when they can be talked out when they can have sanctuary.

Okay, thank you, everyone.

All right, folks, if I can have you quiet down, please recording in progress.

Thank you.

Okay, we are moving on to our online comment.

Again, we are on excuse me, folks, please.

We're on item twenty-three resolution rescinding resolution number five one four eight zero four zero eight N S restricting the use of air support and canine units and updating mutual aid policies.

And we are moving to online comments.

So if you have any um comment on this item or twenty-three B, please feel free to uh raise your hand.

Okay, the first speaker is Mickey Ducksbury.

It's quite hi, I'm my name is Mickey Ducksframe of Forty Year Resident City.

I'm in district four.

It's quite disturbing to me that in this political climate we're facing in the country with understandable protests against authoritarian rule that Berkeley would choose now to rescind important limits to militarized policing.

There's been several references by the police to the need for more modernized policing, but modernized policing across the U.S.

has mostly meant billions more dollars to law enforcement instead of the programs that we know that significantly decrease criminality, which we all agree needs to be decreased.

I thought the city was moving in a different direction.

Aren't we supposed to be looking at policing through a social justice lens?

You're increasing these these rescinding these increases access to tools that invite escalation instead of encouraging de-escalation.

Berkeley PD has used force on black people to raid six times higher in white.

Let's not kid ourselves canines and helicopters will be used at that same degree of risk.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mickey.

Next is Audrey.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

My name is Audrey Kramer.

I live in D6.

Um, I'm a Cal student in a Cal Berkeley Democrat.

I am urging you to vote no on this measure.

As we know, policing in the city and this country disproportionately affect the minorities that you as a city say that you're trying to protect.

Loosening police limitations only expands the surveillance state that we are devolving into.

I'm also confused about the fiscal implications of this item.

While the implications of this measure are quote unquote fiscally insignificant.

I know that every department in this city was cut significantly by the budget in the last couple weeks, and this money will come from some magical rearrangement.

I don't know.

I am wondering if there's any other way to rearrange this money to any other department besides this one.

Um thank you for your time.

Have a good evening.

Thank you, Audrey.

Next is uh for uh former council member Cheryl Davila.

Should be able to unmute.

Okay, thanks.

Uh wasn't at my and my husband.

Um, can you stop the clock?

Because I have an extra minute from my husband.

He's on there.

He's on the zoom.

Yep, you got it.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Can you start the clock again, please?

It's it's already at 156.

Go ahead.

I have four sections.

I'll take it.

Anyway.

Your clock is running.

Go ahead.

So um, yeah, you need to vote no on this.

Um, I can remember as a child watching TV during the civil rights, watching dogs, hoses, all kinds of things on black and brown people, children, and what does the it's not real do?

AKA I S R E A L.

I don't want to say their name.

Um, what do they do?

They use dogs to uh attack um chase, um, rape, um, hurt people, Palestinians, and um, we already know the track record that um BPD has, it's not good.

And the dogs are used were used in slave patrols, slave catching.

That's what they did with those dogs.

Um, and um, these tools are used by the Zionists, so don't follow the Zionist ideology.

Um, and also tear gas, yeah.

It was banned for a reason.

It doesn't belong in uh our police department, it will hurt people, it will it it exasperates um lung diseases, you can't control where the where it's gonna go because it's once you deploy it, it everybody can get um hurt by it.

And also pre-authorization is mandatory.

We can't trust them.

We know they lie, we know that they've racially profiled and they've done all kinds of things.

You remember Caleb Moore, remember the guy that they shot in the face?

There's a few things, so you know, say no, no, no, no, be bold, be have courage.

Thanks for your comment.

Next is Jordan Jordan Harger.

Um, all right.

So, according to the Calcrim jury instructions, to be found guilty of burglary, you don't need to be armed.

Nobody needs to be home.

I'm not trying to undermine or belittle those who've been harmed by burglary, but it is to say that burglary is not an inherently violent crime.

And we can't let a generalized fear of crime stop us from being specific with our language and meticulous with our policies.

Regardless of the crime at issue, giving the police department the ability to unleash police dogs upon people simply because they are suspected of a crime is abhorrent.

It brings to mind photographs of the civil rights movement and this proposed policy in combination with efforts to increase video surveillance, reinstate tear gas, and a general cowtowing to the police department is plainly indicative of a rightward swing of Berkeley's government.

We've clearly forgotten the promises of reimagined public safety process that the city enacted in the wake of George Floyd's murder.

We have data showing wildly disproportionate use of force against black people in the city, as much as some of these council people who say your time's up.

Thank you.

Next is Veronica Fuchson.

Hello.

My name is Veronica Fuchsen.

I sat on the city council in 1982 that voted for that resolution that you were asked considering recently.

I worked very closely with Gus Newport and Modell Shirik on all of the measures that we passed and were very proud of.

I want to raise a couple issues, and please, if you could give me the courtesy of a couple minutes, I would appreciate it.

I have seen a uh police dogs be told to sit in a car, and it jumped out the window and attacked its handler.

That's number one.

Number two, a question that I have is are any of the members of the police department dog handlers themselves?

Do they have their own dogs that they would like to use?

That was something that was raised with us when we formed that policy that you're thinking of rescinding.

Um another point I want to make is surely there must be mechanical uh creatures that can be little robot like creatures that can be put into buildings.

It doesn't have to be a dog.

I don't like the fact that they refer to it as canine.

I think it's much better to call it what it is, which is a dog.

And the last thing I'd like to say is there are going to be a number of financial issues on the ballot.

And every single one of them is going to have people thinking about it.

Every time the city spends money, expenses, expensive programs, expensive issues like helicopters and uh trained animals from other jurisdictions.

All of that mounts up.

And I, if I were in your place, would be thinking about the implications when you want people to vote to put some money into governmental pockets that you don't have right now.

Thanks, Veronica.

We we um gave you an extra minute, but your time is up.

Thank you.

Um Rocky Chow.

My name is Rocky Shao with the Berkeley Animal Rights Center.

I am vehemently opposed to resolution 23A and in support of the Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission's 23B resolution.

As a longtime animal rights activist, I understand the intersection of police exploitation of animals to implement state-sanctioned violence against vulnerable community members, especially black and brown folks.

According to the Marshall Project, dogs trained by police have been known to harm bystanders with bites that inflict severe trauma or even death.

And of course that makes sense.

The police forcibly bred canines to harm others indiscriminately.

Dogs are sentient beings who did not consent to being used as another one of police officers' toys.

If cops want to chase someone down or gain compliance, they should just try doing that themselves, as they're paid exorbit amounts to do.

Using canines as weapons or tools are not modernization.

It is straight up animal cruelty and a waste of our tax dollars.

Animals do not deserve to be exploited.

I urge the city council to unanimously vote against using dogs.

Also, free Palestine.

Next is Michael Lyon.

Michael, you should be able to unmute.

Do you think your guns and tear gas and dogs are gonna stop us from demonstrating for what we deserve?

They had guns, gas, and dogs in the South, but people kept demonstrating.

They had guns, gas, and dogs in 2020, but millions marched against police murders of George Floyd and Briona Taylor.

What makes you think that you can stop future class struggle?

The more you pass laws like this, the more people will realize that the whole capitalist system has to be overthrown.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is uh Berkeley neighborhoods.

Oh, that's me.

Uh Christopher Kroll.

I'm actually speaking for myself.

Um I hope the council today is reading the room.

Um, I think it's very clear that we need to maintain civilian control over police activity.

And as Kelly Hammergren pointed out, the city manager is never far away.

This is this is not 1982 anymore, as as one of the council members pointed out.

Um secondly, um, this is animal abuse.

We don't we we have a horrible history in this country of using animals, dogs against people.

Um it is animal abuse.

I I was in a in a in a Richmond vet plate um veterinary office where a former police dog was brought in, they had to get everybody out of the office.

The dog had been so traumatized.

I don't know if it was shot or whatever.

These these animals don't choose to do this.

Police officers, the people in front of you wearing police uniforms, they chose to do this.

These dogs do not choose to do this.

Um so please do not approve this retrograde request.

We need to maintain the current.

Thank you.

Thanks for your comment.

Next is Mina.

Hi.

I want to share from the ACLU and the physicians for human rights report from 2024, which found a lack of transparency and accountability regarding canine units across California, where no agency reported that it disciplines any officer for any use of force involving canines.

The ACLU also found that two-thirds of Californians severely injured by police dogs are people of color.

My God, black Californians are 2.6 times more likely to be seriously injured by police dog police attack dogs than white people.

That can't be true, everyone.

Are you serious?

The police weapon or tool being disproportionately used on people of color.

What that's how all of you sound.

By not standing up and adamantly admonishing and condemning something so badwards.

Why now?

After 50 years, consider this.

Why?

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Maryland.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, members of the city council.

I'm a resident of District 4 and a member of the Berkeley Society of Friends and its racial justice action team.

The Berkeley Society of Friends supports the recommendations of the Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission.

The commission recommends as an alternative to the Kesawani proposals to lift restrictions on these weapons and tools to retain the existing 2020 bans on chemical weapons, C S and OC, and the 1982 bans on police dogs and helicopters.

Two to request the city manager engage an academic institutions such as UC Berkeley, UCSF or Stanford to study the health impacts of tear gas and other chemical weapons and canine support, potential short-term and long-term impacts on vulnerable populations and possible alternatives to the use of chemical weapons that provide officer safety, suspect safety, and safety to the general public.

So you're gonna expand that to some suspect who's wanted for a violent felony that's not a threat to human life, where they possess a weapon likely to cause serious bodily injury that's not a deadly weapon.

And etc.

Thanks, Mendy.

Next is uh Jacob.

Hello everyone.

Uh my name is Jacob Dadman.

Uh I live in D3, and although I serve on a city commission, I'm just here as an individual.

Um, I'm not gonna be able to separately comment on the tear gas item, so consider this uh comment on that item as well.

Uh I'm here expressing my disappointment that the city is spending its time creating more avenues for policing that's based on fear and intimidation and pain.

Uh the tools being discussed today have a shameful past of being used to repress and attack innocent people and police canines and air support in particular have a particularly racialized history.

Uh public safety is a huge issue for Berkeley residents, but this doesn't make people feel safer.

Uh, given that we are seeing his uh historic downward trend in crime across the board.

I support council member council member Bartlett's resolution to update the existing resolution to include new policing situations.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next is uh Cindy.

Yeah, hi.

Uh my name is Cindy Shamban, and I live in District 4.

And I uh really support a lot of what is being said, and I just want to uh put my name in support rather than kind of repeating everything.

But uh two things come to mind, and one is uh the chief mentioned that there were uh deputy chief that there were um several different kinds of dogs, and that they never knew which one they were gonna get, and that seems uh to put everybody in more harm.

The other thing is that with helicopters, if they're being used to uh go after people commentary typing.

Next is Joel.

Hi there.

Uh my name's Joel Germine.

I'm a resident of district two.

Um, I'm speaking against this measure.

Um I just want to echo the sentiments, public safety, uh, you know, crime has been on a downward trend.

This is not the time to authorize these kinds of expanded violent measures by police.

It's a time to invest our resources in our communities as a way to keep improving public safety uh in a much more constructive fashion.

Um, so please vote no on this measure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Russell.

Well, I've found that um when I know what I'm feeling I can deal with a little bit better, and lately a word came to my mind as I've been listening to this tonight.

Dread the second definition.

It's an intransitive verb.

It says to anticipate with alarm, distaste, or reluctance.

Now, I'm reminded quite a bit of that was a feeling that I had when we went overseas in 1968.

I was alarmed, distasteful, and reluctant to go, but I want anyways.

Um the robot dogs uh that somebody suggested we get the army and the Marines have been implementing robot dogs for a while to carry their baggage, but now as I understand it, they've enable the dogs to be able to fire quite accurately rifles and or machine guns.

Um so what we see today may not be what we see tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Russell.

Next is Julie.

I think I think I can still speak.

Yeah, my name is Julie Dickey.

I'm district four, and I'm speaking against this.

We've been reminded over and over about the city's fiscal deficit.

So forgive us if we are particularly sensitive to increased spending for programs that we don't see as helpful, while ones that have proven their worth are being cut.

The fact is, fear is the current ocean we are all swimming in.

It's a very well-honed strategy from the top of this regime.

And the purpose is to have us all turn against each other and be afraid of each other.

Maybe we in Berkeley could just pause and show the rest of the world.

This one place refuses to live under this contagion of fear.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Mimi.

Hi, my name is Mimi, and I live in District 8.

I joined the commission call earlier this year on these proposals.

Around a hundred Berkeleyans spoke passionately and eloquently from a diversity of backgrounds and experiences against these proposals.

Not one person spoke in support, just like what's happening here tonight.

Each person was respectfully thanked for their comment.

And then the commission move the items forward.

That is an MO of this council.

Listen condescendingly to outraged, fearful, passionate, and unanimous public comment, and then support the opposite.

I am disgusted, embarrassed, and appalled by the council members who support these measures and the flock expansion.

Thank you.

Next is uh Cece.

Hi.

Can you hear me?

I'm um just another Berkeley resident echoing the comments from the many people who already spoken that attacks dogs, attack dogs are a terrible idea.

Uh, especially if we've not that long ago been sued over them.

So it's a shocking to me, as to many people that it's a possibility that you might vote to make this okay.

Um, also against using a weapon against citizens that have been that's been banned from use in wars.

Again, that's just hits a person in the gut.

And then um against the use of police helicopters, um, which are intimidating and would give our town the feeling of a police state.

I hope you vote no on all of these.

Thank you.

Next is Jonathan.

Can you hear me?

Yes, yes.

I've only I've lived in Berkeley for a few years.

You may have to turn yours down.

And I've only seen crowds associated with anti-Trump protests, anti-ICE protests, pro-Palestine protests.

And I I have to wonder why we need such serious crowd control um utilities.

I mean, is this what we need to control?

Why does Berkeley need this stuff?

It just seems so strange.

So that's all I wanted to say.

I mean, do is that what we want to control?

Crowds associated with pro-Palestine, anti-Trump or anti ice.

I'm done.

Thank you.

Next is Paola Laverde.

Yes, good evening, council members and Madam Mayor, uh Paola D5.

Uh, I am asking you to please support the police accountability board and the uh peace and justice commission's uh recommendation.

Vote no on council member Casarwani's proposal.

Uh this past March.

The Berkeley Police Department talked about how crime is down in Berkeley by 11% overall.

Thefts fall 16%, burglaries fall 9%, robberies fall by 20%, although aggravated assaults went up by 16%, and uh sexual assaults by 13%.

I also want to mention that uh Los Angeles Police Department last week uh canceled their um flaw contract, and it came out today or this week in Wired magazine about how uh drones being used in San Francisco.

The video was being uh you know distributed all over the internet.

So vote no, we don't need more authoritarian rule.

This is not what Berkeley's about.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's it.

That's the last speaker.

Okay, thank you.

Um are there council member comments on this item on either item, actually.

23 ARP.

Yes.

Go ahead, Councilmember Lenopara.

I have a question that that I thought about in the in the meantime.

Um is there any scenario where a um a canine would be used on during an encampment sweep so uh during an encampment sweep that that wouldn't hit any other criteria unless there was something we knew about uh an individual who is wanted in connection with uh serious felony or that met any other thresholds in here.

So the general answer would be no.

Okay, thank you.

I I have more comments later, but I just wanted to ask that.

Um actually I have an additional question as well.

Um I know there was some folks who brought up cost, and I think it would be helpful to understand what the cost associated with this item looks like.

I think it would be helpful to give folks an idea.

So there are no additional costs associated with it.

I I understand that, but what what is the current cost that we we you know expend um in using police and helicopter, uh police helicopters and canines.

Like do we mutual assistance?

So it would be like uh an officer from another city asking for an officer to come over and cover them on a car stop.

So there's no additional charge.

No.

Okay.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um could you could you speak to the uh reimbursement aspect of that, please?

No, I can't think I can think of is there are any reference to mutual aid.

So if you know city comes and provides mutual aid, which is a process through the county uh where uh whatever our response is has exceeded the capabilities of the jurisdiction for things like natural disasters, unplanned events.

There is a process where that agency can seek reimbursement.

This that is not the case for uh mutual assistance that we get for the use of these types of tools.

Thank you.

I appreciate you clarifying that.

And then um I think that was my only other question.

I will go to Councilmember Humbert for comments.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, I want to thank Councilmember Kel Sarwani for bringing this item forward.

Uh Chief Lewis and Arlo for their work on it.

Uh the Deputy Chief Tate, uh, as well as the City Council Public Safety Subcommittee, the PAB, and the Peace and Justice Commission for its presentation.

Candidly, I think that Councilmember Kesselwani's approach simply makes sense.

Um I think that we should, as we are doing, establish use policies and limitations, and the ones in this item are very limited and restricted.

And trust in our council appointed police chief to carry out those policies.

In the event that a police chief abrogates those policies, our police accountability board, city manager, and council have the ability and necessary tools to address policy violations.

Um the current approach, our current approach, which requires um prior approval, seems to rest on a fundamental assumption of disagreement and distrust between the police chief and the city manager and the city council.

And I don't believe we currently suffer from that level of distrust.

We have an excellent police chief and deputy chief, who I believe work very hard to carry out the policies established by this council.

When lives in public safety are on the line, that is not the moment to be teeing up a required choke point and potential conflict between the city manager and the police chief or watch commander.

In that moment, the police chief and or watch commander will have ready access to information the city manager may not, and which the city manager cannot reasonably absorb or critically evaluate in a reasonable amount of time.

And of course, I'm dealing primarily here with the change in process.

The heat of the moment is not the time to be adjudicating the finer points of our use policies.

And again, if heaven forbid we were to have a police chief engaging in more egregious violations of these policies, that would point to a bigger problem that requires a different approach than you know, instance by instance approvals from the city manager.

Similar um to some of the comments I gave earlier on the ODPA report.

I think our current policy focuses on the wrong things.

I think we made a mistake in adopting policies that compel the city manager to routinely make split-second decisions, potentially second guessing the helicopter and canine unit to use decisions of the police chief or the watch commander.

I don't think this is an effective mechanism for ensuring public safety or protecting the civil rights of Berkeley residents.

Um I therefore will be supporting this item and I move its adoption.

Second Um I'd actually like to make a friendly amendment.

I think now it'd probably be an appropriate time so that way council members can comment um it.

Councilmember Castarwani's item.

Okay.

Yes, that's correct.

Yeah.

Yes, that's correct.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Thank you.

Um so um the the proposed friendly amendment would be to add back this section about provided that the suspect is in a controlled contained area and there are no known occupants of the area other than the suspect, um, focusing instead of on a deadly weapon as opposed to I I think the wording is not sure if sorry, I don't have give me a moment.

So instead of there's a reasonable belief that the suspect possesses a weapon likely to cause serious bodily injury.

Um my suggestion is a deadly weapon specifically.

And then um, and then some changes here that would tie back to that.

And then also specifically listing homeless camp and base abatements as a categorical prohibitions, because although you know you didn't say that that was included as a possibility, I think it's good to lay things out clearly.

That would be the friendly amendment.

Um thank you for that.

I'm I'm just processing.

I I think I'm some of this uh may be okay.

I I did want to um ask the chief to opine, you know, we do we just had a discussion about how the prior resolution was very limiting and only allowing use of the canine in a controlled contained area.

So this seems problematic for me to accept that, but I just want to get your opinion, Chief.

Yeah, I would be concerned about that language as being overlimiting to our ability to use it in a condition under which um trained canines could be deployed safely, even in such an environment.

This would um reduce all those opportunities by doing that.

So I I don't think I can accept that.

I I do want to ask about this insertion of deadly weapon, because I I believe previously we just said possesses a weapon likely to cause serious bodily injury.

Um is there when we use the adverb deadly, I mean, does that have a is that like a term of art that's different from just saying a weapon likely to cause serious bodily injury?

I uh yeah, I I I think we could work with that language, but how I would interpret that language would be a deadly weapon would be a weapon that could likely cause serious bodily injury.

So I guess I would uh want to hear more about uh what was expected by that word deadly.

Okay.

Yeah, it's just it would return it to the word that existed previously.

I think that my concern is that there are a lot of things that could be used to cause deadly bodily injury, like a sharpstick could even chart charge, you know, cause bodily injury.

So I think this just makes it more specific towards something like a gun or a knife or something like that.

Yeah, I guess my only concern would be if the individual had been engaged in some activity with whatever that item was that is not traditionally a deadly weapon, but is by their behavior before they went into an area that we needed to apprehend them in, that they had exhibited something that made that item whatever it was being used as a deadly weapon, would would that would it be precluded from a canine deployment based on the word deadly have been having been added?

Well, I think what you what you just said is that if the person had previously used whatever it was, that object as a deadly weapon, then that would be a deadly weapon.

Let me give you an example and you know, is that behind a a rake.

You know, is a rake considered a deadly weapon, not traditionally or typically, but if that person was doing something swinging it at people had just attacked somebody with it and then fled somewhere, what would it would it, you know, my interpretation would be that that language would then allow us to deploy the canine based on that.

And I just want to make sure that that's what you mean by the word dead.

I think if someone had killed somebody with a rake, I would consider I would be very surprised.

And I I would also be surprised if uh a rake was being used, excuse me, if a rake was being used in uh can you say more about I guess what to uh um the qualifier deadly weapon does not necessitate that that actual weapon at that time by that person caused death before we be it's it's the fact that they are they have something, they have shown an indication by their use of it.

So typically somebody having a a garden tool is not you wouldn't think of that as a deadly weapon.

But if they were doing things with guardian cheers or a rake or whatever before they we lost sight of them as part of the crime that they had, then for me that would be a deadly weapon.

That's a thing that they have showing the propensity for causing great seriously body injury with.

What I'm hearing, Chief, is that is you're saying that there's not much of a difference between the two verb verbiages.

So that that's not an issue for you to as long as I'm understanding that that that would that would fall within the definition of what you're suggesting by deadly.

I mean, as long as that aligns with our previous definition, then that would fall within it.

I would say so.

Okay, so then the other change you scrolled beyond it, if you want to go up a bit, is to remove the suspect is wanted in connection with a residential burglary.

I I'd be concerned about taking that away.

Chief, do you want to opine?

Yeah, I mean, I I I think we provided the instances why it it's it's importantly uh concerning to us that type of particular crime.

Um obviously, whatever council's direction is, um, we will follow and adopting the policy.

But that that's that's my primary concern with that.

Councilmember, I think it might be best since you're the one who has to accept the friendly amendments or not.

If you could just state your opinion on on these different um changes, because otherwise it's hard for us to know what you would be okay with accepting.

Okay, well, you know, given that you're just presenting this now and I haven't had the chief's input, I I feel that that's also important.

I I am prepared to give you an opinion, but I I want to hear hers as well.

So we can go on.

So in terms of deadly in the other paragraph, it seems like that doesn't change what we've already said, which is causing great bodily injury.

It seems like it's just an extra word.

So I don't have a problem with that, and I don't have a problem with homeless encampment abatements as a prohibited category since it's clear that action just it doesn't qualify as an authorized use.

So I'm happy to clarify that in the prohibitions.

Uh did you have anything further below?

No, that's it.

So just to clarify this is go over it again what I will accept and what I won't accept.

So I won't accept provided the suspect is in a controlled contained area and there are known no known occupants of the area.

I will accept deadly weapon in the point two, and I won't accept point three being removed.

And then I can accept those other three red words in paragraph C.

And your secondary?

Yes, I could accept the same things that council member Class Hawani could accept.

Okay, thank you.

Um okay, so uh additional comments from council members.

Uh next is Councilmember Humbert.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, yes.

Um Councilmember Bartlett.

Thank you.

I'm curious.

Um, would the the 30-minute delay?

So that that's at issue here.

I'm curious, what is the what happens in those 30 minutes?

Officers are sitting in a containment position, potentially with an armed subject who's who's dangerous.

Um their positions could be compromised where they're where they are.

Someone who is a dangerous individual could be fleeing.

Uh and not accessible to us.

Uh and ultimately, if if the individual is uh doing something that is creating a threat to public safety in that moment, they can potentially continue that until we have the assets available or resources available to get there.

Also for the for the example of a helicopter, that delay means that likely we we no longer have um uh identified have that suspect located.

Well, I know I mean the just the um like what is the the process delay exactly like are you probably like is the chief are you you're called the cops calling the chief, choose calling city manager, so it's giving the okay?

Yeah, the uh the on-scene suit supervisors asking a watch commander, it's going to the the captain who's calling me.

It's all it's it just happens to be usually about three in the morning.

Um I then um I'm asking pertinent questions.

I contact the city manager, I get him on the phone.

There are sometimes an additional question that he might ask that I didn't think to ask that I might have to call back to the captain to get um feedback from before I call back the city manager, and then it's got to go all the way back down to get that resource going.

Then we have to contact the resource and get the resource on its way.

What if you did a group text?

It's it's it's a conversation around me asking questions about how long has this been, what was the weapon, did people actually see the gun?

What was the crime?

Have you contacted witnesses?

All those questions that I know the city manager is gonna also be asking me so that I I can do that.

But what if he could have live eyes on those questions?

And then could respond to the questions real time.

Every every minute that we are not either containing or getting a helicopter coming so they can begin the pursuit of the vehicle means we've either lost the pursuit or that we are putting in the community and the officers at risk.

Okay.

And did you have any other comments or just those questions?

Uh council member, did you have Noah?

Yeah, okay.

All right, uh Councilmember Tracob.

Thank you.

Uh a couple of questions.

I am I'm trying to wrap my head around uh two a uh three the suspect is wanted in connection with the residential burglary.

Could you define or elucidate on the difference between a burglary and something like a robbery in progress?

Um can you specify what the needs analysis would be for uh burglary?

Uh and then lastly, on this uh wanted in connection with.

I mean, I I have absolute faith in um the professionalism of PD.

I said that many RPD, I've said that many times from the DIES.

Um humans can make mistakes.

What if this is someone who may be wanted, but um, you know, um turns out it's uh you know someone else is uh the culprit.

Um what what are the safeguards that would be in place at that point?

Yeah, a couple things, just a quick quickly comment on the different robbery robbery and a burglary.

What we're talking about with a residential burglary is uh either a suspect is known to be in a house, and uh like we said, this is the safe space.

Um this is the place where someone is most at risk um if you know uh and flees and is in a contained area that has fled from that kind of crime.

That's a very egregious crime, um, or is potentially in that residence still, and we're trying to locate that person knowing that they're inside.

Uh the difference between that and a street robbery or a robbery is that um uh you don't have that same um uh contained environment where the person, but if the robber that was an armed robber fled into a block and was then in a contained block, then it would fall underneath the category of an armed and violent felon who has the weapon.

Uh as far as um sorry, what was the second question was about um well mistakes of identity cards?

Six of identity.

Um and and what I shared earlier about the process that you go through before you deploy a dog um and the mistaken identity and things like that, that is why exactly why you have leads, that's why you then make announcements, that's why you do all those steps first before you uh deploy a dog to apprehend in a way other than uh find and buy bark, you know, to locate, um, to do search to do to do announcements and call-outs.

Um so you mentioned contained space or enclosed space.

Um and it sounds like that is an element of when like a decision analysis around uh deployment.

Uh so then um it was also mentioned that um it it it is your uh judgment that um using the terms of or uh using just including the limitation of a contained uh space is I think you use the word over limiting.

Like that is an element of when like a decision analysis around uh deployment uh so then um uh it was also mentioned that um it it it is your uh judgment that um using the terms over uh using just including the limitation of a contained uh space is I think you used the word over limiting so I I'm just trying to grapple with that and could can you explain what the like how how those two contentions are resolvable that's that's a great question what I'm what I'm referring to when I say contained space it's an area where we believe we reasonably believe the person is in I know there's a lot of concerns that we will just go down the street with a dog and have a dog running around looking for somebody and so when I say contained space what I'm meaning is there is a area that we were able to contain which is a a law enforcement term for and we believe the suspect is in this area um and that's different than there is a contained space where there is we can guarantee without any I mean think about it if a block is contained and people are inside that and people are in their houses inside the block they're not at risk of that dog but it is not an area where there are no other people around um and so what you normally would see is there's a yard the art is secure we would make announcements we are entering this yard there's a police canine come out or the police canine will come in here and search this yard um that allows residents there and you know we've done notices and knock on talks on the doors often and said shelter and place and things like that that to keep that that area is may not be you know guaranteed the contained because you've got a part of it is the house where people are inside of and so those are the kind of differences between a contained and nobody else is in and contained mean meaning um we know we have this sort of general area held and we have a contained environment that we can remove every single individual from before we we deploy that okay um so if I understand contained in this context it may not necessarily be a room where there's reasonable probability of just a suspect being in that room it could be just any kind of maybe not perimeter but like a yard including a yard that could potentially have multiple um units multiple residents multiple pets uh in that same or living um in proximity to that yard within this the same parcel so the way that it's going to be deployed is in consideration of those factors can the dog be safely deployed off leash which is less common or is it more safe to be deployed on a leash because we can't guarantee that that is that's why you do warnings beforehand that's why they use leash control now is in order to protect against those things and to mitigate those risks.

Okay.

Thank you um so um I'll make my comments now I um I I understand and uh respect uh the the you know the desire um to uh want access to additional tools um and I understand that this is driven by the desire to reduce harm to police staff and our residents um in terms of the things that I feel are reasonable and I could get behind um I'm going to I think we're just talking about canines right now um so uh uh the item includes both uh canines and helicopters just to be clear so you can I would like to sever that you're making a motion to sever the helicopters and the dogs yes for discussion purposes over discussion okay yes all right thank you yeah um so for canines um we you know we'll get to helicopters later um echoing the PAVs assessment regarding the absence of a demonstrated needs analysis and given the information provided tonight um that you know I have some questions I I've confidence about the professionalism of RPD but uh absent the needs analysis um and kind of a lack of information about what type of training um the unit has received and and and this is not even necessarily our unit it would be you know allowing other um PDs uh using mutual aid to come in um so I I'm not comfortable at this time uh approving canine deployments beyond those authorite to locate crime scenes or physical evidence missing persons explosives um you know um special events um kind of bomb threat task force operations uh so though those uses seem appropriate and justified to me at this time I don't have enough information uh to feel comfortable approving other uh canine uses thank you thank you going to going to Vice Mayor O'Keefe

Uh so though dose uses seem appropriate and justified to me at this time I don't have enough information uh to feel comfortable approving other uh canine uses thank you thank you going to going to Vice Mayor O'Keefe are we all gonna boom means I can't wait come on all right Council um Vice Mayor I I don't I don't know if that was the most helpful comment to be honest.

I agree I agree I'm sorry I just wanted to get that out of the folks please just um I actually I don't finish her I'm just gonna make my comments uh they're not that long um actually I wanna appreciate Councilmember Humbert uh I wanna associate myself with his comments that he made eloquently earlier tonight um because there's a logic that he expressed that I'm just gonna um echo here which is what we're discussing tonight is is actually what the rules should be that's the only thing that we're we're really talking about and reading these proposed rules um I think they are reasonable and justified and I understand um my colleagues may disagree and that's fine but I I find these to be reasonable um I I do understand that there are a lot of people tonight who um who don't believe and I I'm not I don't know what you believe but I think there are probably some people here who believe that the police cannot be trusted to follow their own rules and I understand that I under I respect that belief honestly a lot of people believe that but from where I sit up here um as someone who's been entrusted by the people to help oversee the city's government I have to believe that the police will follow their own rules and if I didn't believe that if I did not believe that they were capable of doing that I would I wouldn't be up here debating this I would be calling for the chief's resignation because that would be a much bigger problem than the minutia of some rule.

But I'm not doing that and no one up here is doing that because our police leadership and the force itself has proven time and time again that they can follow their own rules they do respect the rules they have earned our trust and so because that situation is fine I am going to look at this item as are these rules reasonable I'm going to assume they will be followed if somehow they are not we will have a discussion there's a lot of accountability built into this item and of course our general system with the police and so looking at it through that lens I am fine with this and I actually completely agree with councilmember Castrowani's choices about um which of those proposed amendments to accept and which ones not to I think that was exactly right I think you know some of some of those things are are worthy of clarification and some of them are a little too limiting.

And so I I support the motion I don't need to say any more but I just wanted to explain my logic the way I'm looking at it and I understand that many people here disagree and that's that's how it is I hope you understand why I'm voting the way I am controlled dogs.

Excuse me folks all right that's enough stop Alana stop councilmember Blackaby thanks I actually wanted to come back quickly to the the question about the residential burglary uh real quick could you pull that back up one uh whoever had it uh one thing I just want to ask the chief um I'm just trying to find a way uh forward here is do you this is there a difference between an active burglary in progress versus the investigation of something two weeks later for example absolutely so my proposal would be to be something and maybe this is a way that we could work this is to be something like the suspect is wanted in connection with an active residential in progress in pro burglary in progress something like whatever the language is that would because to me that's the that's the moment that the urgency around this would demand if you're if it's in connection with the burglary and there's an investigation two weeks later that feels a little broader and not as necessary.

Yeah okay so yeah and I I did want to find a way to incorporate as much from the mayor as I can so if we say the suspect is wanted in connection with a residential burglary in progress it sounds like that would allow us to use this the the canine tool you know with the with the belief that the the person is still in the house potentially or nearby correct having just uh committed the the burglary okay so so that with that I can accept that I still so yeah so so everything else still stands um so that yellow portion remains the only only portion I I can't accept.

Okay.

I appreciate I'll also accept it as the appreciate that because I think that gets to the spirit of it.

And again, I I that makes me I think more comfortable as well.

That it's these are all about things that where there's urgency and time is of the essence, and we're in the moment where the response at that time is really important because a lot of what the this measure speaks to is the is the response that 20 to 30 minutes at a critical time in the middle of an incident.

And so I think that's what all those things do have in common.

So I you know, I support that.

And I again I I do want to emphasize that you know we are currently using these tools.

We're using canine tools and air support in limited and targeted ways, four to five helicopter support um uh tactics a a year, eight to ten canine units.

It's my belief and expectation this will continue to be very rare.

We will monitor this, we will have an eye on it in terms of the report back that we get.

Um, and we have very clear direction in terms of the circumstances when it is allowable and the circumstances when there's not.

It is explicitly prohibited for crowd control in all in all uh in all scenarios, is explicitly now prohibited for encampment sweeps.

Um so I feel comfortable in terms of the clarity of the of the limits and also the uh the look back and the reporting mechanism that we have to ensure compliance on the back end.

Um I do think that improving the department's ability to apprehend suspects in these very targeted ways and reduce the 20 to 30 minute response time is important um and that is important to my constituents who who would be calling the police department and expecting a response.

So with those changes that we've talked about, I'm I'm I'm comfortable supporting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Apologies.

I'm just trying to make sure timing of things.

Um, councilmember tappling.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor, and thanks to everyone.

I appreciate all the speakers.

I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the vice mayor and council members Hasarwani, Blackabee, and Humbert.

I appreciate the limited scope of uses, um, the targeted uh span of scenarios.

Um I I understand that people are concerned about this being potentially used during crowd uh crowd events, and I appreciate that being declaredly prohibited along with uh inherent sweeps.

So I'll be supporting the motion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other comments.

Yes, Councilmember Fartley.

Uh thank you.

And um I want to thank everyone, it's been a really lively debate here, learned a lot.

And I want to thank BPD for the work you do.

It's always so I support you and I want you to have the tools.

You need to keep us safe and keep yourself safe.

Uh, but here I'm just not persuaded that the record establishes an emergency requiring this policy change.

Uh we're being asked to expand the circumstances in which outside police dogs may be deployed in Berkeley, at the same time reducing civilian oversight by replacing city manager approval with approval inside the police unit command.

And that is substantial policy shift.

And the item sites approximately eight to ten canine requests a year, but it does not provide incident level evidence showing how many requests are delayed, how many were denied, what harm resulted from the not from these denials if they were there, or the process, or why narrower amendments would be insufficient.

And uh in frequency, it is not established urgency.

And general statements about operational flexibility are not a substitute for evidence.

Uh I can support a narrowly tailored amendment addressing clear non-force emergencies, such as locating a missing child or detecting explosives, but the city has not established a sufficient basis to authorize broader apprehension deployments.

Potentially severe force, which is already traumatizing, just thinking about it for many of us, uh, should not be expanded on a speculative record.

And crime is decline crime is declining, these deployments are infrequent.

The city has not identified a pattern of failed outcomes under the under the current policy.

And in its declining crime environment is not the time to adopt broader use of force authority based on hypothetical scenarios.

The proportional response is to preserve the existing safeguards, gather the necessary data, and consider narrowly tailored exceptions for genuine emergencies, such as missing children or explosive detection.

The burden is on us to demonstrate that expansion is necessary.

It is not the public's burden to prove that police dogs are dangerous.

I will not be supporting it.

Thank you.

I want to appreciate everyone for coming this evening and sharing your thoughts.

And thank you so much to BPD for answering all of our questions and for you know working to help us understand different aspects of policing.

Or there's a chase, a helicopter that need is needed to follow somebody.

And then you know, the other thing I just wanted to comment on is the trust piece here that we're talking about a lot this evening.

And I think what's really hard is that you know, I do trust our police department, and I've had many good, you know, conversations, interactions with our officers, they've been very professional, and I've seen many instances in where our police officers have done really amazing work.

So I do want to make sure it's clear.

Um I think it's important that we separate our trust for the police department and and just whether or not we want to have these tools be available in in our city.

Um and the other thing about trust that I wanted to bring up is that I think it's really unfortunate that in bringing this item, um, I think that it did impact the trust of the people, and that feeling that now to bring these items during a time where we're seeing our federal government misuse them and abuse them, um, not only the federal government, but other police departments across the country.

I just think the timing is is really hard to be having these conversations.

So, you know, with this item and with the next one, that that for me is is a big issue.

So um I will also be voting now on this item.

So but we do we did sever it, so just to be clear, I know we're very focused on the the canines portion.

Um, but yes, Mark, do you want to give us a sense of where we're at, please?

Procedure.

My understanding was Councilmember Trego severed the discussion, not the vote.

The resolution contains both pieces around canines and helicopters.

My understanding was that he severed the motion um for discussion to allow us to discuss it separately.

But yeah, if that's a could you clarify the way to vote right now on the part of the motion that includes uh reference to canine use but not helicopter, and then we can get to the helicopter right after.

That would be my preference.

Okay, so you're you uh have made a motion to sever the vote.

Sorry, yes, go ahead.

Make a request to several make a request to several.

So um you know, we would have there's two separate components to the resolution, so um we could vote on the policy in I guess number two is canines and three is helicopter to deploy helicopters.

Um I'm not sure if you're yeah, and then and then point four mentions both.

I guess the assumption is if it's severed, then would it be easier if I sever out part three right now, and that's what we were talking to for discussion?

Well, uh point four mentions helicopter support and canine deployments.

Sorry, could you and so does point one?

I'm sorry, I can't quite hear you.

Mark, can you speak to the you can discuss the two topics separately?

The question is if the council members asking to vote on uh the use of helicopter the number three regarding helicopters, vote on that separately from number two, the deployment of canine teams or just wants to discuss them separately.

This took the I think he's saying he wants resolution.

Sorry, I think he's saying he wants to vote on them separately.

Is that correct?

Uh that's correct.

But if it's too so let me just pause you really quickly.

So can you explain to us how we would do this?

Because I see what you're saying about number one, uh, including both.

But I I don't see that as includes both as well, and number five covers approvals for both.

But I mean, but that's fine.

But I think it can be separated still.

Yeah.

So I think um mayor, if you want to put since you have this sort of Google Sheet version, if you want to mark up, so if you just voted on canines first, or it sounds like I'm I'm presuming how you want to vote, uh Council Trevor, but if you want to just vote on the the helicopter first, you could you could strike anything related to canine, so it's so it's striking number two in full, and it's striking mention of police canine units in number one and um striking canine deployments in number four, and then I think you have a resolution just related to helicopter support.

I mean if they both passed, it's not an issue, but it is uh good to in the severed the motion that's the two motions on the severed portions is that you know we'd be voting on the policy in number two regarding canines and you know if that fails then references to canine deployment throughout would be edited, um with helicopters okay.

You so if you want to do like do it in a different color, Madam Mayor, just like a strike through or it's not a strike through because it's it's still there, it's just he wants to vote on it separately, so you could put it in a yeah, um yellow will be hard to read.

Why don't you do like purple?

Oh, you're highlighting that's fine.

Okay, okay, all right.

You just incorporated the edits we accepted before.

I don't see those.

I have not done that, but I can add that on there.

The deadly and the candids.

I'm I'm wondering this.

I I don't want to make this.

We can figure it out.

Okay, you should just hold tight one second.

All right, just wait a second.

Um okay, sorry.

And then should I should I extend time for 15 minutes just so we can make sure we get this done?

So I'll like I like to move to extend time to 1115.

Second second.

Oops.

Okay, can we take the roll on that, please?

Okay, to extend the meeting to 1115, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Yes, Taplin, yes, Bartlett.

Yes, Tregu, I O'Keefe, yes, Blackaby, yes, Unapara, yes, Humbert, yes, and Mary Ishii.

Yes, okay.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Just look at it.

I mean, you don't have to highlight each mention because I mean, depending on what the action passes, you know, my office can edit.

I see what you're saying.

Resolution according to order for the severing.

Yeah, I just sort of want to make it clear what everyone was voting on so that it was that part was clear.

And then um, Madam Mayor, I just want to make sure you you still have the edits that we are accepting from before.

Yes, I will.

Um but just to be clear, this part does talks just about the canine, so I will highlight that and then I will just do it all.

And then I can um do a suggestion here for the other changes.

Oh, okay.

Give me a second.

Okay.

All right, um, I can work on that though.

I I think that as long as everyone understands that we're voting on just the helicopter helicopter piece first, does it matter?

Yeah, helicopter, helicopter piece first, and then it's all in the canine section anyway, so you can get those in, and we can thank you.

Okay, so are we ready to vote?

Okay, I think we're ready to vote.

So which which portion so for the helicopter support version of the resolution first?

Okay, so uh on the which is which is striking these yellow highlighted sections related to canines so we're vo voting whether to include number three regarding helicopters in the resolution and uh associated references to helicopters or what whether or not to keep um helicopters in the resolution, yeah.

That's the first severed portion that we're voting on.

Yes, so a yes vote would keep helicopters in the resolution, a no vote would mean it would not be included.

Yeah, okay.

On the severed portion of the motion, council member Kessarwani.

Yes, taplin, yes, Bartlett, yes, Trego on the severed portion, no.

keep um helicopters in the resolution yeah that's the first severed portion that we're voting on yes so a yes vote would keep helicopters in the resolution a no vote would mean it would not be included yeah okay on the severed portion of the motion council member kessarwani yes taplin yes bartlett yes tregu on the severed portion no to help this is the helicopter section just to clarify yeah I had comments about that but um I am going to I'm going to pass council member O'Keefe Vice Mayor yes yes sorry uh Blackaby yes Lunapara no Humbert yes Mayor Ishi yes and uh council member tregueb okay and then on the severed portion regarding um canine deployment in number two and other associated references to canine deployment so Mr.

City Clerk does it just become now that we are including helicopter support we're just voting on the entire resolution now yeah so if this severed port if this severed portion um passes to include canine references then that effectively adopts the original full original resolution with the amendments and then and then um mayor is just adding the amendments correct okay that we already agreed to yes these two severed portions constitute the full adoption of the resound severed portion number two regarding K9 deployment yes vote to um adopt the references to K9 deployment of course a no vote would mean to not include it in the resolution okay I just want to be clear because it doesn't look like the mayor has added those amendments I agreed to yet so is everyone clear on what those were oh okay so here they are they they're here now okay great so it we can take out the yellow because it doesn't matter anymore and oops all right okay all right there's homeless encampment so in progress is there okay look that looks like what we agreed to thank you Madam Mayor okay I think we can vote on this section now okay so this is uh regard a severed portion regarding canine deployment council member Kessarwani yes taplin yes Bartlett no tregub no Keefe yes Blackaby yes Lunapara no Humbert yes and mayor each no okay a motion carries resolutions adopted with the the uh okay folks that's enough all right okay folks knowing that you folks Andrea please fall our people Andrea that's enough so folks we have we have other items to discuss so please all right so you already have figured out what so excuse me all right um mark just to be clear what happened with 23b can you just make sure that folks understand well um maybe we should do a separate motion on that I was before we got into the severing portions I was gonna say that we should have included something in that original motion to dispose of 23b but there could be a simple motion now I mean the action on 23a would seemly preclude so 23b but sorry you're I can't quite understand what you're saying but I I hear what I think what you're saying is that since we did not address 23b we need to have a separate motion so just yeah to not adopt so take no action want to make a separate portion of the action does someone want to make a separate motion to accept no action um yes I I I move to uh take no action on item 23b and I second that can we take roll on that please okay uh council member Kessarwani yes taplin yes Bartlett uh pass Tregu I'll Keefe yes Blackaby yes yes Humbert yeshi yes and council member Bartlett yes okay 23b is um that action disposes of that item okay so thank you very much so since we still have another item on the agenda and it is almost 11 o'clock um I would like us to do we need to make a remind me sorry do we need to make a motion to move it to a gender and rolls to find another time in which to discuss this item if I wanted to do that then do I need to make a motion yes uh yeah to yes so I'd like to make a can I um yeah can I propose a special meeting next Tuesday july 21st to hear the tear gas item can I make that a motion yes um the the mayor or a quorum of the city council can uh schedule a special

If I wanted to do that, then do I need to make a motion?

Yes.

Yeah, to yes.

So I'd like to make a can I um yeah, can I propose a special meeting next Tuesday, July 21st to hear the tear gas item?

Can I make that a motion?

Yes.

Um the the mayor or a quorum of the city council can uh schedule a special meeting.

So if there was a motion to schedule a special meeting and that passed with five votes, that would constitute a quorum calling the special meeting.

Okay, I'm gonna try that.

So I yeah, so go ahead and go ahead and make your motion.

So I I'd like to make a motion to schedule a special meeting for July 21st uh to hear items 24A and B.

I'll second the motion.

Okay.

I I'd like to speak to that and just say that I I'm very strongly opposed to us having a special meeting next Tuesday.

Um I'm very concerned about having this conversation.

Honestly, um, you know, I did not expect that last item to go so long.

Um, but if we had gotten to this item, I would have been asking anyway for us to move this item until after we discussed use of force, because use of force policy is one of the main policies within here, and um we're actually discussing actively some of the changes that are going to be made to that policy.

Um both the PAB and the police department are in the middle of doing so.

And so, you know, I don't think it's I think it's preemptive to it's to discuss this item without uh especially given that there are many changes that are being discussed for our use of force policy.

And um given that we know we had this meeting tonight and we've got um a very contentious meeting at the last uh night of our council before recess.

Um I'm very strongly opposed to to us doing that.

So I I want to state that for the record and make sure the council members understand that.

Okay, I mean can I state for the record that I introduced this item last fall?

It was heard by the public safety policy committee in February, and uh so there has been all this time now, and and we work to schedule this meeting tonight, these items tonight, the agenda and rules committee scheduled it for tonight.

I understand things took a lot longer.

Uh so I just think we need to deal with this, and um you know, I could have brought this items forward a month after the public safety policy committee, and uh and and we we we decided to wait, and this use of forced discussion, you know, we can certainly have that.

I don't see why that would preclude us from taking action on this this item.

So I respectfully ask us to complete the business that is agendized here next Tuesday.

So um Councilmember Luna Parra, you've got your excuse me.

Folks, please.

Thank you.

Um I did I wanted to mention this.

Um that this is an issue that is very important um to students, and it is not that they and and students are out of session right now, and I do think that it is really really important to make sure that they are part of this conversation, um, given that they are the most politically active part of the city.

Um I feel really strongly as well that that we need to bring this back at an opportunity when they are in Berkeley.

Um I also I guess I I'm I don't that this item could have been brought back right after the public safety committee took their vote and wasn't um so it's not like it has been delayed like by the council.

Thank you, council member.

I want to see if there are any other comments that folks have one question do we know the availability of the room on the 21st?

Yes, it's available.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, I think that that was set aside as a potential special meeting previously.

So mayor, I you know, I I want to be sensitive to people's schedules because I know they weren't expecting me to to make that motion.

When are you proposing to hear this item?

So my proposal is to send it to agenda and rules so that we can see when the use of force is coming in September.

I believe do we have a date for the September use of force approximate?

Approximately the 19th.

So it would be after that, is it would be my hope, but again, it would go to agenda and rules, so agenda and rules would decide.

Okay, I you know, I just don't want this to get punted, you know, too far into the fall.

Sure, I understand that.

If you if you're willing to make, you know, I really want to push us to like pick a date in September, like and and maybe have the vote tonight be for that date in September.

It's yeah, and just to clarify, we are hoping to bring that other item that has separate discussions around 300 in September.

Um, we just had a discussion with the chair of the PAB that they've got some additional data requests that may take us a while to compile.

So it's not date certain that we will be back in September for that portion of 300.

Um I I would uh agree with the the council member that the the discussion around tear gas and smoke in OC does not implicate the work that's underway with 300.

Yeah, and Chief, just to make sure it's clear, I'm not saying that it precludes us from from discussing one before the other.

What I'm saying is I think it makes sense that we discuss the broader policy before going into the more detailed aspects of the tear gas piece.

So I'm I'm not saying that it has to be one before the other.

I'm just saying that I think that it makes sense to do it that way, and that would be my preference.

And so and so just to be clear, the reason why I think it should go to agenda and rules is because I also don't want us to put it on a night where we could end up having multiple controversial things.

So sending it to agenda and rules just gives us the opportunity to to pick a night that's that's gonna make sense with everything else that's going on.

And so I just also want to say that my intention is not to just like keep pushing this off forever.

Um I do think it makes sense to address it.

I just think that I'd like to send it to a gender rules so we can have a little bit more time to figure out what the whole mix of things is gonna be.

So yeah, council member Blackabi.

My only question was you know, we did it did go through agenda rules and was agendized for tonight.

So I mean my my plan and my assumption is we were gonna complete consideration tonight.

So I guess that's my question is what's what's changed.

What's changed?

Yeah, that's a great question.

And so and I think that you know, we did have this come to agenda and rules, and I think since then I've gotten updates on where we're at with our use of force policy.

Um it's true it was gonna come later, but I think thinking about it more, I realize that it made more sense for it to come after.

So it's just it's just a matter of like you know, information and changing you know where where I think it should go in terms of the even if we'd finished the first item in two hours, you still were gonna plan on pushing it.

Yes, yeah.

So okay, other comments before we take a vote.

So I I'd like to amend my motion.

I want to schedule this item to be heard September 15th at the regular council meeting on on that date.

I'd like to ask our city manager what is gonna be scheduled for that day.

We're still developing the calendar with the items for that, so we've only got about six that are known.

I'm just concerned because usually what happens is after recess, we have a lot of things to catch up on.

Um and so typically the meeting right after recess is quite full.

You know, I would argue that this should be a priority for the first meeting after recess.

So, you know, that's my motion.

I don't know if anyone's willing to second it.

I'll second it.

It's also my birthday, but that's okay.

Um all right, so any other comments before we take a vote on that.

Okay, go ahead, Mark.

You can take their role.

So the motion is to schedule items 24A and 24b for the September 15th meeting.

Uh Councilmember Kessarwani.

Yes.

Councilmember Taplan.

We couldn't hear you, Councilmember.

Yes.

Okay.

Bartlett.

Yes.

Pass.

O'Keefe.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Blackaby.

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Humbert.

Sorry, and just to clarify, this is voting on Councilmember Kesarwani's motion to schedule this for September 15th.

Could could I call to reconsider the vote?

Well, we haven't finished the roll call.

You can we haven't gone to the you can change your vote if you like.

No.

You can finish the roll and then someone can call to reconsider.

Uh councilmember Humbert.

Yes.

Mayor Ishi.

No.

Uh Councilmember Trego.

No.

Okay.

Uh motion carries uh seven yes, two no.

So we move to reconsider the vote.

Okay.

Councilmember Luna Parra is moving to reconsider.

I'll second.

Uh Mayor Ishi seconding, so to reconsider the previous vote to schedule the items for September 15th.

So Mark, sorry, can you just clarify?

So we're all voting whether or not we want to consider reconsider the vote.

Yes, and then we would vote again.

Right.

If the motion to reconsider passes, then we would vote again on the motion to schedule for the 15th.

Oh, just to rehoot.

We will revote if it passes.

We will revote again.

Yeah, yes.

Okay, okay.

Councilmember Kessarwani.

No.

Taplin.

No.

Bartlett.

Yes.

Dragum.

Aye.

O'Keefe.

Just to reconsider.

Yes.

Blackaby.

To reconsider, yes.

Munapara.

Yes.

Humbert.

No.

Mayor Ishi?

Yes.

Okay.

Motion carries.

So then on the new motion to um well, um, we're we're re reconsidering the same motion, so same maker and same seconder, and this is to schedule 24A and 24B.

I just want to I want to clarify that use of force is gonna come after gonna come back to council after this date.

Yes.

Right now it's proposed to come September 19th.

Use of force.

That's the council meeting.

But if the if this is September, what chief just said.

I think she meant we they would be done with the policy at that point, but there is no council meeting on the 19th.

That's the 29th.

That's the 29th.

Okay, so point is though, use of force is planned to come after the 15th.

Okay, so on the motion to schedule items 24A and B for September 15th, on that motion, Councilmember Kessarwani.

Yes.

Taplin.

Yes.

Bartlett, no.

Tregob.

No.

O'Keefe?

Yes.

Blackaby.

Yes.

Unapara.

No.

Councilmember Humbert?

Yes.

And Mayor Ishi.

No.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Okay.

So we are we have we have moved to move 24 A and B to the September 15th meeting.

We will now take any public comment on items not listed on the agenda.

So just to review.

Before you guys go, before Officer Chief, before you go, we have sat for months and months and endured proposals to talk about how we're gonna get gassed, now we're gonna get mauled by dogs, to talk about how we're gonna get surveyed, to talk about how there's gonna be less reporting, how you how the the police department is not gonna let us even even know what you're doing in a moment.

We've been kicked off the public channels access.

And I'm just trying to think what are you what are you doing to build trust?

What are you doing that that assures us?

What are you doing to preserve the idea of checks and balances in our city?

What are how are you accountable?

Because if if the if the city manager is abdicating or being taken out of it, can address your comments to us.

If if the city manager is being taken out of it, can I have a minute, please?

I got another minute.

I'm trying to feel the safety part.

You know, I have council member who says you she's gonna do whatever the police chief says.

You just trust a body, has a body address us.

Certain council members say they trust the chief, no matter what.

That's what we hear out here.

We don't hear any criticism.

We don't see any hand being extended to us.

There's no olive branch.

So and then you we get characterized as being kind of hysterically anti-cop.

There is palpable real fear out there.

I just don't get why when you it used to be that there were four requirements before you could unleash a dog on us, and now a simple accusation of a burglary could lead to a mauling, and there's no regard to people with disabilities, people with behavioral health.

That used to matter in this town.

Thank you for your comment.

Thank you for those of you who had a spine.

Thank you all.

Um I just wanted to comment on policy 300, which is the use of force policy to explain what the mayor was trying to allude to, which is the intersection between the two.

There are three very relevant changes.

Um, two policy 300 that have been proposed by the police department.

The first one of them is when the department is allowed to use force at all.

That proposal is being why that the level of force, when when the department can use force, they're proposing to expand the discretion, expand the instances in which they can use force.