Transcription
July 14, 2026 · 7:00 PM
Document Information
- Whisper version
- 2
- Generated
- July 15, 2026
- Archive URI
- berkeley_e2865ea4-1140-4e72-bb81-99374155e989.ogg
Segment 1
All right, hello everyone. Good evening. If I can have folks take their seats. Council members to the front. I'm calling to order the Berkeley City Council meeting. Today is Tuesday, July 14th, 2026. It is 6 11 p.m. Thank you all very much for your patience as we get started a little late. We had a special meeting right before this. Can we start us off with a roll? Okay. Council member Kessler-Waddy? Here. Kaplan? Present. Bartlett? Present. Dragab? Present. O'Keefe? Here. Blackaby? Here. Lunapara? Here. Humbert? Present. And Mary Chee? 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 and also BORP's 50th anniversary. And today we have Emily, who's the Executive Director of BORP, 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, 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 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 BORB 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 BORB 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 overall well-being, and increasing independence while promoting inclusion and equal opportunity in our community. Now, therefore be it resolved that I, Adena Ishii, Mayor of the City of Berkeley, do hereby proclaim July 2026 as Disability Pride Month in the City of Berkeley, and congratulate and recognize BORB 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. Thank you. Did you want to say a few words? Yeah, thank you so much, Mayor Ishii and to the entire Council. 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. 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 BORB Adaptive Sports and Recreation. So this Council in 1976 made that happen. BORB was one of the very first organizations of its kind, a pioneer in the field, providing sports and recreation opportunities for people of all ages to participate in sports and to get outdoors. Today, BORB provides over 20 weekly programs that serve over 1,400 individuals with disabilities every year, and much of it is possible because of the City of Berkeley's support. So thank you all. 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, Mayor Ishii and the Council. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Did you want to say anything? I'd like to thank Mayor Ishii, first of all, for recognizing the importance of Braille literacy, as well as my mom for always advocating for my access. I'd also like to thank 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. I'd also like to thank the blind community in Berkeley, including BORB, and my younger brother for keeping me sane throughout my studies. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. Okay, so I'm very excited for our next ceremonial matter this evening. 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. Thank you so much for joining us this evening, Kai. I know that you and your family are here, 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 it in the Berkeley side, and my office was so thrilled that you were going to be in attendance. 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, that we wanted to give you a certificate of recognition from my office. So congratulations. Did you want to say anything? I'd like to thank Mayor Ishii, first of all, for recognizing the importance of Braille literacy, as well as my mom for always advocating for my access. I'd also like to thank 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. 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. Let's see if we can turn around. I can't see where you are. There you go. Thank you. Thank you. Congratulations. Okay. And finally this evening, we have an adjournment in memory for Vanessa Lynn Sanchez, which was requested by Council Member Kessarwani. So I'll turn it over to you, Council Member. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. I would like to adjourn tonight's meeting in solemn memory of 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 adjourning 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 4 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. The sudden loss of Vanessa is an absolute tragedy for her neighbors, colleagues, loved ones, and the entire city of Berkeley. As we adjourn tonight, let us carry forward her spirit of determination, warmth, and courage. We extend our deepest, most heartfelt condolences to her family and to all who are grieving this devastating loss. Thank you, Council Member. 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 is here and has some comments as well. All right. Good evening, everyone. 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. 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. I haven't evaluated the contents of this measure, but 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. However, the measure in no way provides funding for these audits. This is in contrast to the most recent.
Segment 2
I can see 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 Texas trip to go about. But now there's no more, so they just don't go out. And for me, I'm a disabled senior. I have a lot of medical appointments. And now I'm in difficulty. And either I have to use a taxi and... Thank you very much. I'm so sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. 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 recommend it 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 previous speaker talked about the Go-Go car service. I have an elderly neighbor who also is very upset about the change in what happened with the Go-Go grandma car service and that not being available anymore. And I also want to say that the new parking program is very unfriendly to the people who own cars in Berkeley, and it's very unwelcoming to people who are going to be visiting Berkeley. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Russell Bates. Hi, everybody. Russell Bates here. I'm a little bit irritated at a lot of things. The ice in Berkeley, at the same time, a proposal for increased use of tear gas and pepper spray. Does somebody have inside information there? Something's going on. The same people that are calling for militarization of the police are 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 going to be shrinking, the working class is pissed off, and the ruling class is going to become much more oppressive than it is already. Please do not be part of the ruling class. Be part of the working class. The tradition of Berkeley is working class. Make sure you stay working class. Thank you very much. Thanks, Russell. Next is Makai Freeman. There you go. Here I am. Okay. Good afternoon, Madam Mayor and Council Members. I'm here tonight as a mayor of the city to talk about the district and death suspect and reflecting on the experience and personal disabilities. So that's what I'm meaning. I also want to express deep concern about militarization of our city. I wasn't alive when dogs, sticks, and flash people just demonstrating at the beginning of justice, but it really upsets me that in the course of our third and first amendment rights, we should be subjected to dogs and chemical weapons and keep hearing about Berkeley values and to think that it is being discussed and considered for this city is astounding. I ask that you don't go down this road. We don't need it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Kelly Hammergren. Thank you. I hope you don't consider this cheating when there were only four hands. But I really appreciated the recognition of Disability Pride Month, and I'd like to ask that does this mean tomorrow at FITES, 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 ProRAG, 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 going to celebrate Disability Month. And we also need to look at floating islands in the Burke plan. Thanks, Kelly. Bike plan. Thank you. That's it. There's no more hands raised. Thank you. All right. 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, Council Member? Sure. This is in relation to item number 20, the relinquishment of Council office budget funds for the Raising the Next Generation of Student Advocates Arise Program. And this just adds a resolution and co-sponsors Mayor Adina Ishii and Council Member Bartlett. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to add this to the agenda? Second. Can we take the role in that, please? Okay. To accept supplemental three material on item number 20, Council Member Kesarwani? Yes. Taplin? Yes. Bartlett? Yes. Tregub? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Lunaparra? Yes. Humber? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay, motion carries. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any Council Member comments for this consent calendar? Sorry, I know our parliamentarian has been on the fritz today, so feel free to wave at me. Anyone have comments? Yeah, go ahead, Council Member Lunaparra. I wanted to thank the City Manager and his team for the appointment of the Director of Public Works, and I am excited to welcome Jamie Parks to the City of Berkeley. Thank you so much for the process, and I'm really, really excited. I also would like to donate $200 for my discretionary budget to items 18 and 20, and thank the authors for bringing them forward. Thanks. Okay, anyone else? Yes, Council Member Bartlett. Thank you. I'd like to donate $200 to item 20, the RISE program. Thank you, Council Member Tregub. And the Bertha Brown Memorial Gathering and Hunger Program recognition is a really special event. As you know, hunger is on the rise in our area. People are now selling food in the streets, and the food shocks will be coming on greater and greater waves very soon due to the shortage of fertilizer due to the war. So keep hunger on your mind. Thank you. Thank you very much. Council Member Taplin, I see your hand raised, and then Council Member Tregub. Thank you very much. On items 18 and 20, I'd like to relinquish $150 each. Thank you. Thank you very much. Council Member Tregub. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would like to, first of all, extend my sincere gratitude to our City Clerk and his team for all the work they've done to facilitate the placement of initiatives onto the ballot and all of the appointments as well that they're helping to facilitate. I would like to welcome our 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 Waheed Amiri 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. Waheed and his team and my staff's experience are always looking for solutions, and this approach is truly refreshing and welcome in this area and in government in general. And 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. I would like to contribute $150 on item 18. Thank you, Council Member Bartlett, for offering this item. I would like to thank my colleagues for their contributions towards item 20, supporting the RISE program. I attended a Berkeley High School RISE graduation, I think last month, and I was deeply moved by that experience. And lastly, 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 vote requirement for special taxes. While we appreciate all the hard work that our state legislators put into repealing a much more extreme Howard Jarvis supported initiative, which would have retroactively voided local taxes and restricted charter city real estate transfer taxes from the upcoming ballots, ACA 22, if passed, will still have compounding negative impacts on the financial well-being of California cities, including ours. And so we are, we as a city of Berkeley, if we pass this tonight, would be one of the first local jurisdictions in the state to do so. And I think it is very important to send a clear and unambiguous message of our opposition for this draconian ballot measure. Thank you. Thank you very much, Council Member. Council Member Kesarwani, and then we'll go to Vice Mayor O'Keefe, and then Council Member 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, Council Member, oh, Vice Mayor O'Keefe. I totally forgot it was the Vice Mayor. Thank you for reminding me. Okay, I want to donate $250 to the Bertha Brown Community Memorial Gathering. Thank you very much. Sounds like a great 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 Council Member Traigub said it really well. I just really want to add my gratitude. I want to first welcome Director Parks, and also really just honor and thank Acting Director Amiri for the amazing job he did. He really stepped into a huge position and really did a great job. It's an incredibly important position, and he really nailed it. So I just so.
Segment 3
But anyway, that's my request. Thank you. Thank you, Kelly. Hi. Hello. My name is Adriana Betti. 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. And thank you also for contributing to our program. As you know, 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 2023 Berkeley High graduate. We had 28 graduates this year. Three of them went on to, well, one went to the University of Indiana. One went to the American University of Paris and one to the University of San Francisco. Can I finish? Sorry. Can we get a minute? Yes. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. Seven of them went on to UC systems. Two of them went on to state colleges. Fifteen of them went on to junior colleges. In other words, all 28 are going on. One went on to Rising Sun's trade school. So all 28 are engaged in post-secondary. Six of them received the High Hope scholarships. Eleven of them received the First Step scholarships. And all of them at various colleges either got a number of different scholarships or full rides. We do have a girl that was kicked out and homeless at the end of the school year, and she got a full ride at Northridge. So just wanted to say that. Just one other thing I'd like to say, just attended a graduation in May. My student who was homeless, getting abused, living on the street, just graduated and became a doctor and is going to be doing her residency at Marshalls University in West Virginia. So thank you for your help. Thank you so much, Ms. 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 100-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 will create a public bank here in the East Bay, a public bank that would allow for us to not be as dependent on Washington, D.C., 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, 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. Good evening. My name is Tom Parrish, and I am a member of the Berkeley Arts Coalition and a resident of District 5. I'm here to speak about the 2026 Berkeley Arts and Creative Economy Rescue and Sustainability Measure. 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 $6 million 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. Thanks so much, Tom. Hello, good evening. My name is David Mayer. I'm the founder and CEO of UC Theater. I'm here also in support of the Save the Arts measure, and it's not only investing in the quality of life in Berkeley, but it's also investing in something that also gives a return, not just a cultural return, but a financial return. Performing arts theaters and music venues are both primary and secondary revenue generators and primary and secondary job generators. For example, every ticket that's sold at the UC theater generates $14 to $16 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 in the businesses 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 it's worth taking a look at underscores that as well. Thank you. Thank you. 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 Berkeley Arts Measure. For 30 years, Luna 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 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 tabling for them 10 years ago at farmer's markets, and I'm so excited that it got on the ballot. I was so disappointed at the turnout. A number of signatures I thought 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 it will be a bonus to us. This is exciting. I just had to say how happy I am. Thank you. Thank you. I have some comments online. Yes, first speaker is Ben Gerhardstein. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Ben Gerhardstein with Walk Right Berkeley calling in this evening to appreciate the hard work that the city manager's office did and that you all did in recruiting and hiring Jamie Parks for public works director. Walk Right Berkeley is thrilled with his appointment. Jamie has the background that the city needs right now to really advance our work to make our streets safe, accessible, and smooth for all, and we're excited to bring him on board and get to work with him. So great to hear so much support across Council for this appointment and onward. Thank you, Ben. Next is Martin. Martin City Council. This is Martin Bork. I'm the executive director at the Ecology Center. Of the many community benefits that the Ecology Center brings to Berkeley, 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.. Oh, Martin, you cut out. Martin, we can't hear you. All right. Move on to the next. Next is Jeff Lomax. 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 100% financed by the citizens of Berkeley during a time when you're struggling with a $30 million 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 Shawl Anderson Dance Center. During my time over the years on the Berkeley Cultural Trust, including two years chairing it, I worked with colleagues and 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 former.
Segment 4
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 I don't recall seeing any of you there for the honorable, wonderful man that passed away, Carl Anthony, which happened this past weekend. I 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 played at Larry Blake's. And rest in peace, rest in power, Carl Anthony, rest in peace, rest in power, Bailey Pendergrass. Thank you. Next is Public Bank East Bay. Thank you. My name is Debbie Notkin. 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 auditor's 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, if the bulk of the funds come from Berkeley, the bank will prioritize Berkeley 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 is for the benefit of Berkeley and the surrounding area, but Berkeley stepping up, we are incredibly grateful. Thank you. Thanks so much for your comment. I think that was our final comment online. So I did 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, the public, excuse me, sorry, we've been talking about police accountability all day, as the director of public works to be effective August 17, 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 roll on that, please? Okay. To approve the consent calendar, Council Member Kessarwani? Yes. Taplin? Yes. Bartlett? Yes. Trager? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Luna-Para? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay, motion carries. Very good. Thank you all so much. Okay, moving on to our action calendar. We are moving on to item 21, which is lease agreement, International Child Resource Institute, ICRI, for 125 to 127 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 comment on this item? This is for item number 21, lease agreement with the International Child Resource Institute. Anybody online? Excuse me. No raised hands. We can close the public hearing, if you like. All right. Okay, is there a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. Can we take the roll on that, please? Okay, to close the public hearing, Council Member Kessler-Waney? Yes. Taplin? Yes. Bartlett? Yes. Trager? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Luna-Para? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay, motion carries. Public hearing is closed. Okay, thank you very much. Any comment? Any 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 roll on that, please? Okay, to approve the lease agreement, Council Member Kessler-Waney? Yes. Taplin? Yes. Bartlett? Yes. Trager? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Luna-Para? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay, motion carries. Okay, very good. Moving on to item number 22, Levy and Collection of Fiscal Year 2027, Street Lighting Assessments, also from the city manager. Also no presentation this time, but available for questions. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Okay, seeing none, I would like to move forward to have a comment. I see one person in the room. Come on up, Kelly. 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 the kind of city where we support nature. So I'm not 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 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 an exploitive, 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 no hands raised online, no. Okay, thank you very much. Coming back here to our council member colleagues, are there any comments? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. Can we take the roll on that, please? Okay, to close the public hearing on item 22, Council Member Kesarwani? Yes. Taplin? Yes. Bartlett? Yes. Triggum? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Luna-Para? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay, motion carries. Public hearing is closed. Okay, thank you very much. Any comment? Any 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. Can we take the roll on that, please? Okay, to approve the levy and collection of fiscal year 2027 street lighting assessments, Council Member Kesarwani? Yes. Taplin? Yes. Bartlett? Yes. Triggum? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Luna-Para? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? 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 a quick 10-minute stretch break? Yeah, let's take a quick 10-minute stretch break and we'll come back. Thank you. Recording stopped. Okay. Hello, everyone. Oh, I'm still waiting on some of my council colleagues to come back, but they should be here soon. Just realized we need Council Member Kesarwani since this is her recording in progress. Council Member Kesarwani? Okay, so just to start us off, since I do want us to get started again, we are on item 23. You will notice there's an A and a B. That is because the 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 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 BPD here to answer any questions that we have. And so hopefully in a minute, we will have our council member come out and present item number 23. Perhaps in the meantime, do you want to just introduce yourselves? Absolutely. Good evening. So I'm joined this evening with Deputy Chief Jen Tate and Captain Oakese. So DC Tate oversees our policy and training division as part of her duties. Captain Oakese is our operations captain who oversees both our patrol responses as well as our special response team or SRT. So both of them have extensive experience in use of force policy, training, managing critical incidents. And they were our departmental leads on working with the council member on specific policy language. So they'll take the lead on answering questions tonight. Thank you very much. Okay. I am going to just run back there and see if I can.. Okay. Why isn't PAB up there? Recording in progress. Council member Kesserwani? Okay. So.
Segment 5
grabbing someone and pulling them to the ground, that kind of thing. But it would be helpful to understand that better. Folks, please, if you could please keep your comments to the comment 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 canines can be used. Under current practices, canines are frequently used with a lead or under a leash, and 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 residence, looking for a burglary suspect, there are instances where a canine might be deployed with a handler that would alert the handler that there is 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 in that residential burglary. And so just to clarify, would that be the cases in which we'd use it, or would there be instances in which the dog could also attack the person as well? So it depends on the training of the dog and the policies of the department that's bringing the dog in. But typically for a residential burglary, the anticipated use would be for just to alert that there's something there, absent the other elements listed in the policy, armed, history of violence, those kinds of things that are specifically enumerated in the policy. Thank you. And then 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. How can you speak to how you would protect bystanders who could be in the area? Sure. So again, practices around canine use have changed substantially over the years. And what is more common now is that canines are placed on a lead or a leash and that the handler is controlling the canine. And so unlike in years past where they would release a canine without being on a lead all the time, now they have options. They've trained the canine to work in different capacities. And one of those capacities is under the control of a leash. And so therefore that would mitigate the risk of if there were other people potentially in an environment, the canine would be on a leash 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 and we're not specifically saying 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 maybe it was a policy decision to remove it. I'm not sure if maybe I should ask the council member. Are you able to address that council member? I can also provide a little feedback on that. We talked through this a little bit as well at PSBC and part of that is it's a limiting factor and if you're thinking of an open area where you have a wanted suspect who has committed a crime with a gun or a dangerous felon in an open area, it would be basically disqualifying if we limit it to that. Whereas Captain Oakes was discussing if you have someone, 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. Council member, did you want to address? I think that that's correct. Deputy Chief Jay, thank you. As I'm looking at the 1982 version of this, 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 did change that to make this more workable for the modern policing strategy. I guess someone who has three dogs that are very not threatening looking, I know that also there are many people, especially children, who can be very afraid when dogs are off leash, especially if it's a police dog. I think I have a lot of concerns about that, not only, of course, the safety of others. I know we train, I'm sure the dogs are trained quite well, but also just the fear that can come from feeling unsafe around that. I think those are my questions for the moment. Yes, Council Member Blackaby, questions? Thank you. I just want to confirm, current use, like canine support and air support is currently available already. We currently use those sources. That's correct. We get them from external agencies that we partner with. Yes. 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. 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 the process? How do you think about that versus another tool? Could you maybe talk about that? Sure. We're always looking at our use of force policy and whether or not something is a dangerous threat in the moment to bystanders, to officers, and evaluating that. I think you probably have more relevant recent. Sure. Typically, again, we look at the nature of the crime and we look at the area in which the suspect may be hiding and evaluate if there are ways for officers to safely try and locate that suspect. As a function of that, we evaluate what's the likelihood that the suspect is still in the area that we're looking, where that area is contained. Combined, again, with that, the nature of the crime, and then all those things go into the decision-making process of should we bring a canine in to help assist us in apprehending the suspect. If it's helpful, I can give you maybe a handful of the most recent examples of times when the captain has called me and asked to authorize a canine. It's situations where they had a robbery that just occurred. They had eyes on a person who went into a block. They knew that they got patrol units surrounding that almost immediately. They know that the person is contained in this general area. They've verified with the victim that there was a gun involved. 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. That's one kind of scenario. The other is a situation when they're doing a high-risk search warrant. They'll call phone numbers of the residents, do loudspeaker audible to tell people to come outside that we have a lawful warrant and ask them to come out. Maybe a couple people come out. We can't verify there's no one else in there. Instead of sending officers in there, your tools become using an 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 move forward. It's not that 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. If canine support isn't available, what's the next step? My understanding, correct me, part of this is also you're trying to always create more distance between suspects and officers. There is 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 escalate. Whereas this sort of support again creates one more sort of piece of distance. Is that again, can you just help us? What I'm trying to think of is if this is not available, what else do you go to? Does that introduce other kinds of risks 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 officers potentially engaging with someone rather than having a dog be able to alert that there's someone there. I noted in the PAB letter, it said they called this, there's a lack of demonstrated need because the BPD has presented no evidence about the undue burden on the department, which is certainly one consideration. But I guess I think there are other considerations which are 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. I just wonder what that means in sort of a crisis situation in terms of having 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 an open area and we don't know where they are, every moment is going to matter and being able to find either a path for the person, if it's a missing person or any of those moments. So in the moments where they matter most, that's where we're closing the gap. And we'll continue to be using these 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 do a type of search versus a dog or canine? Sorry. Sometimes it's what units are available. Obviously, understanding your concerns around the canine capability, we can get better intelligence sometimes from a drone, the use of a drone, than you can with a dog. However, the dogs.
Segment 6
I want to note the 1982 resolution is in the item. If folks 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, in the report, we note that the 1982 apprehension authority is really rarely usable 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. A residential burglary with a barricaded suspect, a high-risk warrant on a subject with documented firearms 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, but can actually be used when residents of our city are facing a life-threatening criminal situation. And I have to say, 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 balance this policy and ensure that our police department has the modern tools that other police departments have. Thank you. Council Member Bartlett, please. Oh, folks. Oh, sorry, you have more questions. I apologize. Go ahead. No worries, no worries. Okay. The next question I would like to ask is going to the PAB letter that we received specific to relationship with proposed drone technology. Quote, 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. Could you please elaborate on that point? If the two technologies were in use simultaneously, how would they compete with or complement each other? Sure. So the drone technology is something that's easier to deploy and frequently will have a faster turnaround time and is much less expensive than a helicopter program. And so there's greater access to drone technology and a faster deployment. That being said, drone technology is limited by the amount of time that it can be in the air. Its battery is its limiting amount, whereas a helicopter has a much longer runtime. And so for events that are either long and protracted or an event such as a fleeing suspect in a vehicle, a helicopter is a better option and provides a level of coverage that drones do not. If I can add on that, drones also have a limitation 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 be engaged in that pursuit in the ways that they might be if they were in the city. Anyway, that to say that helicopters can have a longer range than the drones. Okay, thank you. And last question, I think for now, of the requests that you received now or the City of Berkeley received for mutual aid as it pertains to use of canine, can you provide an approximate breakdown of how many of them are for things like search and rescue and, you know, God forbid, bomb sniffing operations, those kinds of things versus, you know, well, we don't have this now, but if, well, versus the 1982 policy around, you know, all three antecedents or criteria about life being in danger and violence. Yeah, and that's exactly a limiting factor and being able to kind of compare that data. What I can tell you is that we use them regularly for missing at-risk people. They go, we have search and rescue dogs that we have access to through the county and some of our other mutual assistance jurisdictions. We regularly use them for events where we know a dignitary might be present or some other event that has a risk for explosives or bombs and we'll use it for that. And so I would say that the most common is missing persons. The current policy is restrictive on how often we can use them and how we can use them for crimes in progress where someone is in a block. So those numbers are lower, but those are all situations that we see regularly. And I know in the course of the last maybe two or three years, there's a small handful of times when they've been part of a high-risk search warrant operation. And if this policy were to be, I guess, if the restriction set were to be amended via this resolution, to what extent do you see or anticipate a change in kind of the type of requests we might green light? So I don't expect to see a major change in any of those categories except the one that we have created space for, 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 old policy. So there will be an increase in those as needed based on the parameters of the use policy if the council's direction was to move forward on this tonight. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Questions from Council Member Bartlett? Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Casarwani for bringing this forward and thank you Chief and team for coming here and presenting to us. Very curious. You know, I went on a ride-along recently, as you may know. It was a lot of fun, really good time. So I feel like I'm a veteran now, the force. But it makes me just wonder though, like really where this is coming from, honestly. But so I'm wondering, like do we have to rescind the resolution or could we just amend it to permit explosive detection or a genuine urgent search and rescue deployments? You know, that's for the author. Council Member, your question is do we need to rescind it instead of.. Amending it for very specific use cases, like explosive detection or generally urgent search and rescue? So, you know, my proposal is to rescind it and replace it with what's here so that we can have the uses that we believe are aligned with best practice. Okay. One thing I noticed in your resolution is that it doesn't distinguish between tracking dogs, explosive detection dogs, or bite and hold patrol dogs. Is there a reason for that? Come on, folks. You know, I think given the comments from the chief and deputy chief Tate tonight, 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 I think this provides the ability 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. And that dog would be trained in bomb detection. So we would be asking for the specific canine or asset that meets the criteria for what it is that our mission is. And if you've observed or understand how canine units work or canine dogs are deployed, and all of the steps that we take as we look to resolving a 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'm going to release the dog. We know you're in the block. Please come out of the block. We have a dog. There's 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, or there are dogs that will move to a bite phase. That is far down the continuum of how this tool is deployed to apprehend an individual. Okay. And which agencies do we expect to provide? I guess we're doing for eight or nine a year, right, or so, right? So which agencies are providing dogs for us? So we currently make the request to Emeryville, Alameda County Sheriff, East Bay Regional Parks, Oakland. Do we have data on their bite rates, their training standards, et cetera? 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. Council Member Linaparra. Thank you. I want to follow up on a question that Council Member Bartlett had around rescinding the previous resolution instead of amending it. And I am curious why that was the choice that you brought forward. Council Member, what page are you reading from? Page 2 of 13. Page 2. Okay, so that's the report. I would refer you to the resolution for what would be the actual policy. Okay, which does say only as follows. I see. Thanks. A couple of my questions were already asked and answered. I do have a couple follow-ups to Council Member Bartlett was asking for the police department. In what situation would you look for a canine that is trained to chase or bite a suspect? Anytime we make a request for a canine, it would be to apprehend a suspect 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 you're sharing. It would be to ask for a canine asset.
Segment 7
So there's, by way of doing this, it does modernize the policy to enable us to use the tool, again, to close the time distance gap in getting the asset available and reducing potential dangers to the community officers and the suspect, and also maintaining all of the oversight that exists. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions from our council member colleagues? Okay. We will take public comment then. If you have public comment on item number 23A, which is the resolution rescinding resolution number 51,408NS, restricting the use of air support and K-9 units and updating mutual aid policies, please line up and also raise your hand if you are online and would like to speak. Yes, actually, I am just realizing that probably it would have been good for us to also hear the Peace and Justice resolution after. Mr. City Clerk, could you advise, would it make more sense for us to take public comment on both now and have our Peace and Justice Commissioner present? Well, yeah, they're agendized as A and B items. There's only one public comment period for both items. So it will be helpful to hear from our Peace and Justice Commissioner then. He is first, so would you just come up please and please introduce the 23B? Sure. How long do I have? I don't know. Maybe like five minutes? That would be great. I have it divided into the two different items. 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 George Lipman, I'm representing the Peace and Justice Commission as directed by the Chair, who regrets not being able to be here. Sorry. So the Commission recommends, as an alternative to this motion, retaining the existing 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 tools and weapons that provide officer safety, suspect safety, and safety to the general public. The Commission, I am also concerned that you don't have the DPA or the PAB up here to represent, but I will speak a little to their comments as well that Peace and Justice supported. 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 was of concern to our Commission. Police helicopters, to get more specifically into it, 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 go so far as to call the helicopters ghetto birds, as sociologist Sarah Brain wrote in her book, Predict and Surveil. Berkeley restricted use of police dogs in the aftermath of their brutal use, 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. One dog is said to have bitten about 30 people, two or three of them uninvolved bystanders, one an 89-year-old who died of his wounds. 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 that 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 issues that we've seen over the last couple of years, the difficulty in getting the police chief to fully cooperate with the PAB's city charter, mandated requests for departmental records, the chronic over time under-appointing 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. If I can come back later, thanks. Thanks, George. 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, Maudel 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. If you understand that, if you're willing to speak plainly, you understand why Gus Newport and Maudel Sherrick 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, 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 want, if you care to read the ACLU report about maulings of onlookers, about times when dogs were deployed, yes, they're taken off the leash. They say, go get them. Then sometimes 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, identify, absolutely. If you want to sniff out 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 don't need to do as the community. Hey, where did they go? Hey, ask the community. Are they in your back? What's going on? If we had good relations with the community, this dog question would not be up. They don't care. That's the issue. That's an issue. So yes, I like, 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's see if I'm done. Good evening, Madam Mayor, esteemed council members. I'm a resident of District One. My name is Daria Rubel. I'm also a candidate for District One City Council. I want to thank several council members for your thoughtful questions and critical thinking on this issue. I would like to state that I do not find the reasons for this resolution compelling. I think the standing 1982 resolution is working for us. And as our hardworking staff members 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 Ellen 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, Council and Madam Mayor. My name is Jason Martins. I'm here to speak in opposition to unleashing police dogs on our populace. 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 going to know that my kids are not a threat and it's something else that's a threat? That's just a horrifying situation to me. And if the Berkeley Police Department wants to build community trust and talk about community safety, 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. Hello, my name is N. I am a Berkeley resident of District 3, a UC Berkeley public health graduate student, and the aunt of young black children growing up in Berkeley Unified School District. 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.
Segment 8
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 on line for a minute. Please. That's disrespectful. And 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 going to send in a mauling dog because the suspect can't hear the commands of the police? This is not a disability celebration month. This is all wrong. If someone entered my house and there was 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 Taft. 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 Orwellian 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. We're like frogs 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 eyes here. Our nation's future, we shape it today. Thank you. 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 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 the 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 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 deficit? Berkeley Police does not need to use dogs that have been trained. This training is actually abuse. Then they go ahead and abuse people. They bite people to death. Did you hear how with the Peace and Justice Commission, someone was almost 100 years old and then died of a dog bite. It's 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. Wait, who trains the cops? 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. Don't forget that Berkeley is home to one of the largest animal rights communities. No one wants this, especially the dogs. This person is giving her time. Okay. Okay. Can we please give the PAB some time? Does someone want to give? Would you like some more time? Excuse me, Andrea. 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? All right. Someone from the audience is giving you another minute. Chief is 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 have 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. Paul. Is it a total of four? Paul is giving you his minute. Paul is giving me one and then two in the back and three over there. 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 Cal grad, class of 82, go Bears, and a city employee. I'm here in my personal capacity as a resident. I have six exhibits, Your Honor, seven actually I'd like to submit to the court. The first would be this headline, U.S. police dogs originated from 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 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 Bill 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 benefit. 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 Geneva Protocol. And furthermore, it's not a modern policing tool. It's kind of ironic to call 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 Monique 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 baton whipped, we got flash bangs at our feet, we got all the things of mutual aid that harmed a number of people in a federal court case was filed. Monique 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, 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 Ehrigan, now our senator, also placed me on the committee that built the policies to try to work for change. Reimagining public safety. 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 imagining my son who's been pulled over as a 12-year-old by Seattle police assumed to be guilty of walking down the street. So when it's black people.
Segment 9
Professional answering a 911 call. Meanwhile, the city's own 2022 federal engineering needs assessment documented chronic understaffing at the emergency communication 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. A weapon in this package recovers the seconds only staff consoles do. Thank you. Kara Milosevic. When I first heard about proposals about K-9s, 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, sometime mauling people who were 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. BPD seems to have a recent history of success of arresting people. Why do we need dogs now? Thank you. Kara Marasevic. 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 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? 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 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. 1982. I have two extra minutes, one from Paul and one from Steve. Paul already gave his minute. No, that Paul. Oh, the other Paul. Another Paul? Okay. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry if I messed up your name. No, no. All right. I misunderstood which Paul you were referring to. All is well. Well, and that's kind of the point. I wish all was well. And 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. Bouviers 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 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 improving approval process? Ultimately, the council needs to compare alternatives. This means faster civilian authorization, non-violent 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. UC Berkeley should not have the precedent to use attack dogs now if the city chooses to open this item. I don't understand how any of our students can see this and think that it won't be affecting them. High-risk tools, including animals, they need a higher public standard to be in operation. Before any change occurs, prove and tonight prove the necessity for this. Prove that no alternative is capable to be evaluated. You heard tonight from people who talked about health impacts, from people who talked about their own history of police brutality, who showed the precedent of these items and these tools of war, really, to be used against civilians. And why? Because of mental health crisis? Why? Because someone is doing something wrong when they can be talked out, when they can have sanctuary. The city council needs to determine what type of future it wants to go in. I'm against carceral logic. I'm against penalizing people. I'm against using animals to cause harm. Please choose. Thank you. Any other in-person public comment? I do want to take a brief break before we go on to the virtual because I think we've been sitting for, I don't remember how long now, but it's been a while. So we're going to take a quick break and then a stretch break and come back. Thank you. Recording stopped. Okay. Thank you, everyone. All right, folks, if I could have you quiet down, please. Recording in progress. Thank you. We're going to get started. Okay, we are moving on to our online comment. Again, we are on, excuse me, folks, please. We're on item 23, resolution rescinding resolution number 514808NS, 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 comment on this item or 23B, please feel free to raise your hand. Okay, the first speaker is Mickey Duxbury. Hi, my name is Mickey Duxbury. I'm a 40-year resident of the city. I'm in District 4. 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? These rescinding these increases access to tools that invite escalation instead of encouraging de-escalation. Berkeley PD has used force on black people at a rate six times higher than 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. I'm a Cal student and a Cal Berkeley Democrat. I am urging you to vote no on this measure. As we know, policing in this 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'm wondering if there's any other way to rearrange this money to any other department besides this one. Thank you for your time. Have a good evening. Thank you, Audrey. Next is former council member Cheryl Davila. Should be able to unmute. Okay, thanks. It wasn't at my and my husband. Can you stop the.
Segment 10
People kept 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 Breonna 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 Berkeley Neighborhoods. Oh, that's me, Christopher Krull. I'm actually speaking for myself. I hope the council today is reading the room. 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 not 1982 anymore, as one of the council members pointed out. Secondly, this is animal abuse. We have a horrible history in this country of using animals, dogs, against people. It is animal abuse. I was in a Richmond vet 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 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. 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 disciplined 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 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? Wow. That's how all of you sound. By not standing up and adamantly admonishing and condemning something so backwards. Why now, after 50 years? Consider this. Why? That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Marilyn? 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 Kesarwani proposals to lift restrictions on these weapons and tools, to retain the existing 2020 bans on chemical weapons, CS and OC, and the 1982 bans on police dogs and helicopters, to request the City Manager engage in 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. I speak in opposition to the Police Department. Thanks for your comment. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. It is virtual meetings. You should be able to unmute. My name is Wendy Alvson from District 4, long-term resident, also with a Berkeley Friends meeting. I just want to point out in opposition to rescinding the current resolution that what is being requested of you is that the police can use the dogs for a person who is not a threat to human life, who is not a suspect reasonably believed to be armed with a deadly weapon, and where, not in a controlled contained area where there are no known occupants. So you're going to 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 et cetera. Thanks, Wendy. Next is Jacob. Hello, everyone. My name is Jacob Dadman. I live in D3, and although I serve on a city commission, I'm just here as an individual. I'm not going to be able to separately comment on the tear gas item, so consider this comment on that item as well. 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. 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. Public safety is a huge issue for Berkeley residents, but this doesn't make people feel safer. Given that we are seeing a historic downward trend in crime across the board, I support Councilmember Bartlett's resolution to update the existing resolution to include new policing situations. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Cindy. Yeah, hi. My name is Cindy Shamban, and I live in District 4, and I really support a lot of what is being said, and I just want to put my name in support rather than kind of repeating everything. But two things come to mind, and one is the chief mentioned that there were, or deputy chief, that there were several different kinds of dogs, and that they never knew which one they were going to get, and that seems to put everybody in more harm. The other thing is that with helicopters, if they're being used to go after people.. Thanks for your comment. I'm sorry. Your time is up. Next is Joel. Hi there. My name is Joel Gerline. I'm a resident of District 2. I'm speaking against this measure. I just want to echo the sentiments, public safety, 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 in a much more constructive fashion. So please vote no on this measure. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Russell. Well, I've found that when I know what I'm feeling, I can deal with it 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 the feeling that I had when we went overseas in 1968. I was alarmed, distasteful, and reluctant to go, but I went anyways. The robot dogs that so many 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 enabled the dogs to be able to fire quite accurately rifles and or machine guns. So what we see today may not be what we see tomorrow. Thank you very much. Thanks, Russell. Next is Julie. I think I can still speak. Yeah, my name is Julie Dickey. I'm District 4, 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, Berkeley, 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 100 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 moved the items forward. That is the 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 block expansion. Thank you. Next is Cece. Hi. Can you hear me? I'm just another Berkeley resident echoing the comments from the many people who have already spoken that attack dogs are a terrible idea, especially if we've not that long ago been sued over them. So it's shocking to me, as to many people, that it's a possibility that you might vote to make this okay. Also against using a weapon against citizens that's been banned from use in wars. Again, that's just hits a person in the gut, and then against the use of police helicopters, 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. I've lived in Berkeley for a few years. You have to turn yours down. And I've only seen crowds associated with anti-Trump protests, anti-ICE protests, pro-Palestine protests. And I have to wonder why we need such serious crowd control 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. 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, Paola D5. I am.
Segment 11
probably be an appropriate time so that way council members can comment on it. If you'll give me a moment, I will pull it up. This is just Council Member Kessarwani's item. Yes, that's correct. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Thank you. So the proposed friendly amendment would be to add back the 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, focusing instead of on a deadly weapon as opposed to, I think the wording is not sure. 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, my suggestion is a deadly weapon specifically. And then some changes here that would tie back to that. And then also specifically listing homeless camp and abatements as a categorical prohibition because although 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. Thank you for that. I'm just processing. I think some of this may be okay. I did want to ask the chief to opine. We just had a discussion about how the prior resolution was very limiting in only allowing use of the canine in a controlled contained area. So this seems problematic for me to accept that. I just want to get your opinion, chief. Yeah, I would be concerned about that language as being over limiting to our ability to use it in a condition under which trained canines could be deployed safely even in such an environment. This would reduce all those opportunities by doing that. So I don't think I can accept that. I do want to ask about this insertion of deadly weapon because I believe previously we just said possesses a weapon likely to cause serious bodily injury. 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? Yeah, 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 want to hear more about what was expected by that word deadly. I think if someone had killed somebody with a rake, I would consider I would be very surprised and I would also be surprised if a rake was being used, excuse me, if a rake was being used in, can you say more about? I guess the qualifier deadly weapon does not necessitate that that actual weapon at that time by that person caused death before we it's the fact that they have something they've shown an indication by their use of it. So typically somebody having a garden tool is not you wouldn't think of that as a deadly weapon, but if they were doing things with garden shears or a rake or whatever before they we lost sight of them as part of a crime that they had then then for me, that would be a deadly weapon. That's a thing that they have showing the propensity for causing great seriously bodily injury with. What I'm hearing chief is that you're saying that there's not much of a difference between the two verbiages so that that would be not an issue for you. As long as I'm understanding that 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'd be concerned about taking that away. Chief do you want to opine? Yeah, I mean I think we provided the instances why it's important or concerning to us that type of particular crime. Obviously whatever council's direction is we will follow and adopt in the policy but that's my primary concern with that. Council member 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 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 feel that that's also important. I am prepared to give you an opinion but 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 that action just it doesn't qualify as an authorized use so I'm happy to clarify that in the prohibitions. Did you have anything further below? No that's it so just to clarify this is 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 point two and I won't accept point three being removed and I can accept those other three red words in paragraph C. And you're a seconder? Yes I could accept the same things that Councilmember Kessel wanting to accept. Okay thank you. Okay so additional comments from Councilmembers next is Councilmember Humber. Oh I'm sorry I already spoke. Oh yes Councilmember Bartlett. Thank you I'm curious yes operationally with the the 30 minute delay that's an 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 their positions could be compromised where they are where they are someone who is a dangerous individual could be fleeing and not accessible to us and ultimately if the individual is 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 if that delay means that likely we no longer have identified have that suspect located. Well no I mean the just the like what is the the process delay exactly like are you probably is the chief are you called the cops calling the chief chief's calling city manager so he was given the okay? The on-scene supervisor is asking a watch commander it's going to the captain who's calling me it's it just happens to be usually about 3 in the morning I then 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 feedback from before I call back to 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 had 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 going to also be asking me so that I can do that. But what if you could have live eyes on those questions and then could respond to the questions real-time? 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. Did you have any other comments or just those questions? Councilmember did you have? No no no. Okay all right Councilmember Triggab. Thank you a couple of questions I am I'm trying to wrap my head around two ace 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 can you specify what the needs analysis would be for burglary and then lastly on this wanted in connection with I mean I I have absolute faith in the professionalism of PD I've said that many our PD said that many times from the dais humans can make mistakes what if this is someone who may be wanted but you know turns out to you know someone else is the culprit 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 in a burglary what we're talking about with the residential burglary is either a suspect is known to be in a house and like we said this is the safe space this is the place where someone is most at risk if you know and flees and is in a contained area that has fled from that kind of crime that's a very egregious crime or is potentially in that residence still and we're trying to locate that person knowing that they're inside the difference between that and a street robbery or a robbery is that you don't have that same 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 as far as the second question was about well so six of identity and and what I shared earlier about the process that you go through before you deploy a dog 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 deploy a dog to apprehend in a way other than find and by bark you know to locate to do search to do to announcements and call outs so you mentioned contained space or enclosed space and it sounds like that is an element of when like a decision analysis around deployment so then it was also mentioned that it is your judgment that using the terms over using just including the limitation of a contained space is I think you used the word over limiting so I'm just trying to grapple with that and can you explain what the like how those two contentions are resolvable 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.
Segment 12
I respect that belief, honestly. A lot of people believe that. But from where I sit up here, 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 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 Council Member Kesarwani's choices about which of those proposed amendments to accept and which ones not to. I think that was exactly right. I think some of those things are worthy of clarification, and some of them are a little too limiting. And so 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 how it is. I hope you understand why I'm voting the way I am. Excuse me, folks. All right. That's enough. Stop. Alana, stop. Council Member Blackaby. Thanks. I actually wanted to come back quickly to the question about the residential burglary real quick. Could you pull that back up? Whoever had it. One thing I just want to ask the Chief. I'm just trying to find a way forward here. 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 burglary in progress, whatever the language is. Because to me, that's the moment that the urgency around this would demand. If it's in connection with a burglary and there's an investigation two weeks later, that feels a little broader and not as necessary. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, and 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 the canine tool, you know, with the belief that the person is still in the house, potentially, or nearby. Correct. Having just committed the burglary. Okay. So with that, I can accept that. I still, so, yeah, so everything else still stands. So that yellow portion remains the only portion I can't accept. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I'll also accept it as the second. Oh, thank you, Council Member Hubbard. I appreciate that because I think that gets to the spirit of it. And again, that makes me, I think, more comfortable as well. These are all about things 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 this measure speaks to 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 support that. Again, 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 tactics a year, eight to 10 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. And we have very clear direction in terms of the circumstances when it is allowable and the circumstances when it is not. It is explicitly prohibited for crowd control in all scenarios. It is explicitly now prohibited for encampment sweeps. So I feel comfortable in terms of the clarity of the limits and also the look back and the reporting mechanism that we have to ensure compliance on the back end. 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. And that is important to my constituents who will be calling the police department and expecting a response. So with those changes that we've talked about, I'm comfortable supporting. Thank you. Thank you. Apologies. I'm just trying to make sure timing of things. Okay. Yes, Council Member Taplin. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor, and thanks everyone. I appreciate all the speakers. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Vice Mayor and Council Members Hasanwani, Blackaby, and Humbert. I appreciate the limited scope of uses, the targeted span of scenarios. I understand that people are concerned about this being potentially used during crowd events, and I appreciate that being declaratively prohibited along with encampment sweeps. So I'll be supporting the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments? Yes, Council Member Barlett. Thank you. And I want to thank everyone. It's been a really lively debate here. I learned a lot. And I want to thank BPD for the work you do. I support you, and I want you to have the tools. You need to keep us safe and keep yourself safe. But here, I'm just not persuaded that the record establishes an emergency requiring this policy change. 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 or replacing city manager approval with approval inside the police chain of command. And that is substantial policy shift. And the item cites approximately 8 to 10 canine requests a year, but it does not provide incidental evidence showing how many requests are delayed, how many were denied, what harm resulted from these denials, if they were there, or the process, or why narrower amendments would be insufficient. And in its frequency, it does not establish urgency. And general statements about operational flexibility are not a substitute for evidence. I get support of narrowly tailored amendment addressing clear non-force emergencies, such as locating a missing child or detecting explosives. But the city has not established sufficient basis to authorize broader apprehension deployments. Potentially severe force, which is already traumatizing just thinking about it for many of us, should not be expanded on a speculative record. And crime is declining. These deployments are infrequent. The city has not identified a pattern of failed outcomes under the current policy. And 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. On the record before us, that burden has not been met. 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 working to help us understand different aspects of policing. I want to make sure it's really clear. I do understand the need for reducing the time that it takes to request services, especially if there's a missing child and we're trying to find them or there's a chase, a helicopter that is needed to follow somebody. I understand that reduced time. And so I don't have a problem with that. I'm really more concerned about having dogs and canines and using them for purposes in which people could get hurt. And so that, for me, at the end of the day is really the issue that I have with it. I also want to say police safety is very important. And I understand what you're saying, Chief, about wanting to make sure that an area is clear of harm before sending our officers in. And also I'm very hopeful that we have tools that are able to do that inside in a safe way that doesn't hurt an animal or a dog potentially or a person. And then 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 I do trust our police department. And I've had many good 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. I think it's important that we separate our trust for the police department. And just whether or not we want to have these tools be available in our city. 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, 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, not only the federal government, but other police departments across the country. I just think the timing is really hard to be having these conversations. So with this item and with the next one, that for me is a big issue. So I will also be voting no on this item. So what we do, we did sever it. So just to be clear, I know we're very focused on the canines portion. But yes, Mark, do you want to give us a sense of where we're at,.
Segment 13
Oh, okay. Here they are. They're here now. Okay, great. So if we can take out the yellow because it doesn't matter anymore. And oops. Okay. Right. There's homeless encampment. So in progress is there. Okay. 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 a separate portion regarding K-9 deployment. Council Member Kesarwani. Yes. Taplin. Bartlett. No. Trago. No. O'Keefe. Yes. Blackabee. Yes. Munipara. No. Humber. Yes. And Mayor Ishii. No. Okay. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted with the amendment. Okay, folks. That's enough. All right. Okay, folks. Folks, Andrea, please. Andrea, that's enough. Folks, we have other items to discuss, so please. All right. So, excuse me. All right. Mark, just to be clear, what happened with 23B? Can you just make sure that folks understood? Well, maybe we should do a separate motion on that. I was, before we got into the severing portions, I was going to 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 seemingly preclude 23B. Sorry, I can't quite understand what you're saying, but I think what you're saying is that since we did not address 23B, we need to have a separate motion. Yeah, to take no action. So, do you want to make a separate motion? Any portion of the action. Does someone want to make a separate motion to accept no action? Yes, I move to take no action on item 23B. And I second that. Can we take roll on that, please? Okay. Council Member Kessler-Waney. Yes. Taplin. Yes. Bartlett. No. Trago. Aye. O'Keefe. Blackabee. Luna Parra. Yes. Humbert. No. Mayor Ishii. Yes. And Council Member Bartlett. Yes. Okay. 23B, 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, 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 Jenin Rules 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. So, I'd like to make a.. Can I propose a special meeting next Tuesday, July 21st, to hear the tear gas item? Can I make that a motion? Yes. The mayor or a quorum of the city council can 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 going to try that. So, yeah. So, go ahead and make your motion. I'd like to make a motion to schedule a special meeting for July 21st to hear items 24A and B. I'll second the motion. Okay. I'd like to speak to that and just say that I'm very strongly opposed to us having a special meeting next Tuesday. I'm very concerned about having this conversation. Honestly, you know, I did not expect that last item to go so long, 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 the use of force policy is one of the main policies within here, and we're actually discussing actively some of the changes that are going to be made to that policy. Both the PAP 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 discuss this item without, especially given that there are many changes that are being discussed for our use of force policy. And given that we know we had this meeting tonight and we've got a very contentious meeting at the last night of our council before recess, I'm very strongly opposed to us doing that. So, I want to state that for the record, make sure that council members understand that. Okay. 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 so, there has been all this time now, and we worked to schedule this meeting tonight, these items tonight, the Agenda and Rules Committee scheduled it for tonight. I understand things took a lot longer. So, I just think we need to deal with this. And, you know, I could have brought these items forward a month after the Public Safety Policy Committee took their vote and wasn't. 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 is, do we know 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, Council Member Buenaparte, you've got your.. Excuse me. Folks, please. Thank you. I wanted to mention this, that this is an issue that is very, very important to students. And it is not.. 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, given that they are the most politically active part of the city. And I feel really strongly as well that we need to bring this back at an opportunity when they are in Berkeley. I also, I guess, I don't.. This item could have been brought back right after the Public Safety Committee took their vote and wasn't. 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 is, do we know 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, Council Member Buenaparte, you've got your.. Excuse me. Folks, please. Thank you. I wanted to mention this, that this is an issue that is very, very important to students. And it is not.. 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, given that they are the most politically active part of the city. And I feel really strongly as well that we need to bring this back at an opportunity when they are in Berkeley. I also, I guess, I don't.. This item could have been brought back right after the Public Safety Committee took their vote and wasn't. 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 is, do we know 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, Council Member Buenaparte, you've got your.. Excuse me. Folks, please. Thank you. I wanted to mention this, that this is an issue that is very, very important to students. And it is not.. 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, given that they are the most politically active part of the city. And I feel really strongly as well that we need to bring this back at an opportunity when they are in Berkeley. I also, I guess, I don't.. This item could have been brought back right after the Public Safety Committee took their vote and wasn't. 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 is, do we know 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, Council Member Buenaparte, you've got your.. Excuse me. Folks, please. Thank you. I wanted to mention this, that this is an issue that is very, very important to students. And it is not.. 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, given that they are the most politically active part of the city. And I feel really strongly as well that we need to bring this back at an opportunity when they are in Berkeley. I also, I guess, I don't.. This item could have been brought back right after the Public Safety Committee took their vote and wasn't. 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 is, do we know 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, Council Member Buenaparte, you've got your.. Excuse me. Folks, please. Thank you. I wanted to mention this, that this is an issue that is very, very important to students. And it is not.. And students are out of session right.
Segment 14
police officer when I disagreed with him. So of course there's a lack of trust. There's a reason people call them pigs. There's a reason there ain't no song called fuck the fire department. Also, even the famously corrupt and racist police department, LAPD, who that song was written about, has now terminated their contract with Flock. It's time for Berkeley to do the same. And as always, free Palestine. I think these are limited to comments. Stephen Tupper in the plaid shirt is giving me a minute. Okay. Thank you. So at the last council meeting you heard from Amber Whitson, who's been living in an RV and has been homeless for the last 29 years since she was 16 years old, and she told you about the difficulties with the housing system and not finding, identifying the subsidy she needs for this apartment. So the Thursday after that meeting, I met with the housing, well, Amber and I together met with a housing navigator at Inside Housing. And she is now properly in the system, but it's still not going to allow her to get this great fit of an apartment where she can have her five yapping dogs. But he said it'll take a year to two years to find something for her. So that's the status of it, but somebody is working on it. Again, she was assessed back in October 2022, almost four years ago. Second, we are now finally getting a CIT coordinator after 10 years that we haven't had one with the police department part-time, and she's going to the CIT International Conference this August. I'll be glad to see her there. This will be my 10th CIT conference since 2012 that I've gone to out of pocket. I want to say that I have heard police departments, well-intended ones, have workshops there, as well as a family member of a son who had been shot who was in mental health crisis. And they come to these workshops saying they made a mistake, and they're learning from their mistakes through someone having been injured or having died. And these are well-intentioned police officers, but they make mistakes. The police can make mistakes, and that's why we have to have CIT to de-escalate situations. Thank you. Mark, sorry. Was it our third public speaker in person? I lost track. Okay, I'm just.. Just until then. I wanted to thank you, Mayor and Council Members, for really doing your job and representing the constituents, your constituents. You represent the community. You don't work for the police, although someone, it seemed like she was working for the police because she kept asking the chief to answer her questions. It's really clear the push, why there's the pedal to the metal on all these police desires and asks, because of the election in November. And so whatever we can do, let the people speak. We are going to elect new Council Members, certainly because Kesarwani's not running again. Wait for all this. Don't push it through in this time of expanding fascism and ICE coming into our city and abducting people. Pause. Let the community speak with our vote in November. Thank you. Council Members, I have a minute for my friend, Nikhaila, back here. Council Members, I want to thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Derek Rodriguez. I'm here on behalf of Cal Berkeley Democrats and as a candidate for the Berkeley Rent Board. I would first like to recognize community gathered here today and remotely. A community whose trust in its institutions will either be strengthened or fractured by decisions in the near future. As someone who served in the military, I understand that public safety is not a responsibility taken lightly. I understand dangerous situations, difficult decisions, and the obligation to protect the lives of both the public and those called to serve them. But I also learned that restraint is not weakness. Restraint is discipline. And power without discipline becomes a danger to the very people it claims to protect. If Berkeley allows offensive weaponry, what begins as an exception for extraordinary circumstances may become another ordinary instrument of force. And before you think I don't know what I'm talking about, I've been gassed before with CS gas. The intense burning is etched into my brain. I remember being OC sprayed, the effects of which last days on end. And in the Army, we weren't given tear gas and offensive weapon. And if I as a soldier maintain more restraint overseas, then how is this acceptable in America? We are all citizens of the world, and we should all be equal under the law, not tormented by it. This was all born from the recognition that an indiscriminate chemical weapon, a dog used to inflict damage, once introduced into a civilian community, can injure the innocent, silence lawful dissent, and fracture public trust that effective policing depends on. I urge you to preserve our dignity. Public safety must never require us to abandon public trust. Thank you. Thank you. This is a time of war. I don't know if you watched as much about the Iran war and the Ukraine war, and this is a war world. And the problem is, it feels like the police are coming and bringing the war to our town with more weapons, with more people not listening to the community. Is this some sort of buyout? ICE showed up in Berkeley recently. We have a whole surveillance problem. We have a whole, you know, every time I turn around, it's the police wanting more and more and more. And you know what? November is coming up really soon after September, and people are going to be paying attention, especially when the economy goes down. And, you know, what your votes are going to be very much noted, and who's for what? Thank you. Am I allowed to have another extra minute? No, go ahead. Oh, I see what you're saying. I wanted to say that I, and I'm very upset that they left. I had, when I had a home for 63 years in Berkeley, all positive experiences with the police. I lived near the Rose Garden, and I wanted to say that while they were there. However, I was swindled out of my home by a very famous perpetrator that Trump let out of prison, and the one that bribed the Catholic priest. You may have read that in the paper recently. And so I live at the YMCA right across from City Hall. And I'm really very happy there with the community and all of what I've learned. But suddenly I had a terrible experience with a police officer who yelled at the medical transport driver and at me when I was getting into the vehicle. And I am also a victim of the go-go situation. I've been using them for three years, and I am very upset about having those cuts. So I really, really want, I'm so upset by the vote that just happened, I'm not being coherent. But I really don't want any tear gas, and I don't want any more, I don't even know what to say, non-Berkeley things in my image of Berkeley and why I came here in 1963. So I'm hoping you all will remedy what just happened tonight somehow and think about it more. Thank you. Over the summer, thank you. Thank you. So we did extend to 11-15, but Mark was saying that we need to stay for 15 additional minutes to hear public comment, so please go ahead. Hi, I'm not positive. Move the mic up. Good idea. So I'm not positive, correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, those Berkeley City Police that did the racist texts that got caught, as far as I can tell, some of them still work in the Berkeley City Police Department. You talk about trusting the Berkeley Police. And also, you've heard of the Brady's List? There's a list of police who abuse power to bad ethics. As far as I can tell, I mean, look into this, maybe I'm wrong, but it's hard to get a list of the police officers. That's a problem there, too. But as far as I can tell, there's Berkeley City Police officers on the Brady's List. I don't trust the police. I'm kind of scared to say anything about it, honestly, because I live here in Berkeley, and I want to stay living in Berkeley. Thank you. Is that.. Oh, okay. All right, we have some comments online. First up online is Cheryl Davila, former council member. So, you know, when I was young in, I think, sixth grade, we had a police dog. We had a police dog that bit every freaking person that came by the dog, except for us. And the dog was on a leash, and we would warn people not to bite him. I mean, not to pet him. And they would come by, and every time, the dog would bite. After a while, the dog stopped biting, but it was years and years and years. Police dogs are meant to be vicious, meant to control and dominate, as well as, you know, the police. So we don't need either one of them, really, but we definitely don't need canines, and we definitely don't need tear gas, because that is really terrible, and it's not meant for humans. That guy previously said he was in war, and they did not use it. You should be ashamed. Thank you. Your time's up. Palestine. Next up is Audrey Kramer. Hi, good evening, council members and mayor. This is Audrey from District 6, Cal student, and as a Cal Berkeley Democrat, I would like to reiterate and emphasize Councilmember Lunaparra's comment to think of the students. You held the FLOC meetings over spring break and finals week, and now this, and it is summer. You know, Derek and I are the only Cal Berkeley Democrats in this time zone right now. The Cal student body is doing amazing Berkeley things in D.C., China, Europe, everywhere. Students have always and will always.