Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2025-03-19 16:52:04 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_78add1ed-6b30-4e45-8c32-2a1eb96d7393.ogg

Segment 1

Okay, hello everybody.
It is 619, almost 620, so we are going to call this meeting to order.
Okay, thanks.
All right, hi everyone.
We're going to call to order the Berkeley City Council meeting Tuesday, March 18th, 2025.
It is 619 p.m.
and we're going to start with the roll call, please.
Okay, council member Kesarwani.
Here.
Taplin.
Present.
Bartlett.
Is council member Bartlett on? We can, I see him on there.
We could come back.
Council member Tregub.
Present.
O'Keefe.
Here.
Blackaby.
Here.
Lunaparra.
Here.
Humbert.
Present.
And Mayor Ishii.
And council member Bartlett.
Are you on the meeting currently? Okay.
Council member Bartlett is currently absent.
Council member Bartlett will be participating through AB 2449 under the just cause exemption, so we'll need to go through the script when he joins the meeting.
Okay, but we can proceed.
Okay, sure.
Let's see, so first we have our ceremonial matters and we have an adjournment in memory this evening, so I would like to read something for our adjournment in memory section for Sarah Reynoso and if her family was here, if you would like to come, you can come up here to the podium if you'd like.
Thank you so much for being here and I think her daughter may also be joining us online.
Oh, that's great.
She's joining us on Zoom from Seattle, I believe.
Thank you.
So I'm going to read this adjournment in memory and then if you all would like to say anything, I want to give you some time to say something as well.
Okay.
The City of Berkeley mourns the passing of Sarah Reynoso, a devoted public servant, wife, mother, and cherished friend who passed away peacefully at her Kensington home on February 20, 2025 at the age of 67, surrounded by her loving family.
Born in Oakland on August 3, 1957, Sarah was raised in a family that valued education, hard work, and community service.
She earned her law degree from UCLA Law after completing studies at Napa High and UCSC.
She dedicated much of her career to public service, making a lasting impact on the institutions and people she served.
In addition to her 27 years of service to the City of Berkeley, where she served as Staff Attorney, then Assistant City Attorney, then as the Director of Human Resources for two years, Sarah held a deep passion for social justice, labor rights, and mentorship.
She was instrumental in strengthening the City's workforce, ensuring fair labor practices, and fostering a culture of equity and collaboration within Berkeley's municipal government.
Beyond her professional life, Sarah was a devoted wife, a loving mother, and a caring friend to many.
She maintained an adventurous spirit, loved traveling, and cherished the natural beauty of Northern California.
An avid reader and talented cook, Sarah often gathered family and friends around the dinner table, where she shared not only meals, but also wisdom and laughter.
Sarah was known for her goal-oriented approach, generosity, humor, and reliability.
She was a trusted colleague, mentor, and advocate, always ready to support those around her with wisdom and kindness.
Her legacy of dedication, integrity, and service will continue to inspire all who have the privilege of knowing her.
The City Council and City staff extend their deepest condolences to Sarah's family, friends, and colleagues during this time of loss.
In honor of her many contributions to Berkeley and beyond, we adjourn this meeting in her memory.
Thank you so much for being here.
Would you care to share anything? Thank you, Mayor Ishii and Council Members, and all for arranging this.
We're saddened and at a little bit of a loss, but I appreciate the City's acknowledgment of Sarah.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you all so much again for being here and for bringing also her grandchild too, which is very sweet that the next generation could be here.
It's the baby's first City Council meeting, but not the last, apparently.
Okay.
Thank you all so much.
I appreciate it, and we will mention this again at the end of the meeting as well, but you don't have to stay for that part.
Thank you all.
Thank you all.
Thanks for giving us time to do that, especially with someone who has had such a long history of service here with our City.
I'm really glad we were able to honor her memory, and I also want to thank my staff, Julie Sinai, who brought this up in the first place to make sure that we honored her memory in some way, and Anthony also, and my staff who did a lot of work to make sure that her family was here and that we had something to read.
Next, we have City Manager comments.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I want to also thank you for adjourning the memory in Sarah's honor.
She was here for 27 years that had a big impact on a lot of staff here, so thank you for that.
I don't have any comments.
Thank you, and I know we don't have any City Auditor comments either, so I'm going to move on to public comments on non-agenda matters.
We just have two cards for in-person speakers.
We have Andrea Pritchett and Kira.
Okay.
Good evening, Council Members.
Your chamber is empty because there's a huge happening in San Francisco.
Council Member Humbert, can you hear the public comment? Great.
Yes.
Okay, and sorry, we're going to take your comments, and then I know that our Council Member Bartlett is here as well, so I think we need to read something off.
Just to check in, Mark, do we need to read the statement before since Council Member Bartlett is here? Council Member Bartlett is joining the meeting.
Okay, there he is.
Apologies to our commenter.
Vice Mayor Bartlett is joining the meeting remotely pursuant to the Brown Act as amended by AB 2449 under the just cause justification.
A quorum of the Council is participating in person at a physical meeting location that was properly noticed to the public, and Vice Mayor Bartlett, if you can just provide a general description of the circumstances relating to your need to appear remotely, but do not disclose any medical diagnosis or other confidential medical information.
I'm feeling sick.
Okay, is there anybody at your remote location 18 years of age or older, and if there are, what is their relationship to you? Just us Vice Mayors.
Okay, and Council Vice Mayor Bartlett will participate through both audio and visual technology.
All right.
Okay, I was just trying to see if there was two minutes.
Well, yeah, there's only two online commenters, so since there's less than five, you have two minutes.
Yes, thank you.
All right, thanks very much, appreciate it.
So I'm here to speak with SEU.
I'm concerned because my understanding is that the city manager has determined that the county would resume providing crisis mental health response as it is legally required to do, and that we would just terminate the special care unit.
I believe that that's a mistake.
I believe that there's still a need, if we go back to what created the SEU, was a need to have a non-police response to calls for help.
When Lisa Varughese was here, they targeted emergency mental health response because that was just one thing they knew how to do.
They said, we'll start from there and we'll build out.
Well, unfortunately, we should have built from the other end.
What we have now is we have, this city has paid for vans, decked them out.
The fire department is like, like it started to become a medical model.
That was a mistake.
What we need is something similar to Cahoots in Eugene, Oregon.
It's like, it's like the free clinic.
It's like the hippie van, but it's folks that people trust.
That when, when, when there's a call, when you need somebody, when a person is high on drugs and acting erratically, somebody might not call the police because they're afraid that somebody's going to get arrested or that there's going to be, that's dangerous.
We need a non-police response.
What if a call, why, why did they call the police department? Somebody's sleeping in my backyard.
We don't need an armed response.
Imagine how much money is somewhere upwards of 70 or 80% of the calls that the police answer in this city do not require a person with a gun, but they are willing to keep us thinking that we need cops to respond to those because that's part of their empire to keep us.
Oh, we're understaffed.
We're understaffed.
That determination was made by Jenny Wong in her audit.
We need to reread that.
We've got $2 million.
We can read, we can do this.
We could save this program and do this city a great service.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our next commenter.
I'm assuming the handheld bike's the better one.
Okay.
Good evening, council members.
My name is Cara Binns and I'm the chair of the Berkeley's commission on the status of women.
Although now I'm speaking to you as a private citizen and a mother of two young children.
I don't know the last time you guys left a five-year-old alone in a room, but bad things happen.
And I'm here tonight to urge you to take immediate action to protect afterschool programming that keep our children safe and support working families.
I'm aware this is largely an issue for the school board, but I believe the council also has a role to play in this issue.
The learns program, our primary afterschool program is already overwhelmed.
And this year, my family was one of the over 200 families that were left on the wait list without childcare and not informed until after the school year had already begun.
Yet rather than expanding capacity, the program now faces the possibility of staff layoffs.
Cutting afterschool coordinators when the demand is already outstripping supply is not just a budget decision.
It's a decision that will leave hundreds of children without a safe place to go when the school day ends.
This crisis disproportionately impacts working parents, especially mothers who are already struggling to balance jobs and caregiving.
The pandemic certainly showed us that.
Without a viable afterschool program, many will be forced to reduce work hours or leave their jobs entirely, deepening gender inequities in our workforce.
I urge the council, and specifically council members Blackaby and Taplin as the two-by-two committee representatives, to work with the school board and BUSD to defend learns from further cuts.
I also encourage all of you and the city manager to work with the Parks and Rec Department to expand city-run afterschool options.
Other cities, like our neighbors in El Cerrito, have stepped up on afterschool care where the school districts fell short, and I believe Berkeley can and should do the same.
Let's act before more families are left without options and kids are truly put at risk.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I think we have two folks online.
We have two non-agenda commenters on Zoom.
I think let's take this one person that's here in person since we don't have that many.
Yes, of course.
You'll have to hold the handheld mic though, is that okay? What? Can you hold the handheld mic? Do you need a chair? No.
Okay.
I'm definitely gimpy, but I'm not wimpy.
All right, but thank you, and thank you for letting me speak.
I really thank the police for the work that they do, and I wouldn't want their job, and they place their bodies at risk, and I care about them.
I care about everyone here, but there must be a way of seeing each other, because as I've dealt with women primarily my entire life in gangs, on the street, prostitutes, battered, abused, etc., police response is scary.
It's really scary.
So these alternatives that we've tried to create where, again, people that are trusted, which is the major thing that's lacking almost- We're making a pure fairy presentation.
What? Okay, sorry.
I really, again, Mayor, I thank you, because you really do have warmth and openness, because we're not going to be able to succeed where everyone is okay with all of their disparate and often conflicting needs, agendas, fears, etc.
We're not going to be able to resolve this without coming together, and I'm really concerned about women primarily, and elders, and disabled, because they are the most vulnerable and the most at risk in this city, no matter what we're talking about, no matter what, whether it's health, safety, traffic, walking, whatever.
So please, I am available to try and help us figure out what we can do so that the businesses, and the residents, and the children, everybody can be okay, because if we can't do it in Berkeley, how is the world going to do it? So here's to us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'll take those two public comments online.
Okay.
First comment is from an attendee with a phone number ending in 191.
You should be allowed to unmute.
Press star six to unmute.
There you go.
Hi.
Good morning.
The new mayor is fresh air.
She is really good.
Very decent woman.
Okay.
I have to comment very quickly.
I'll make them, and I'll make another one that consents to Canada.
The first one, over 400 innocent civilians were murdered, cold-blooded by Israel today, yesterday.
More will be killed today.
I mean, tomorrow, whenever.
The killings continue.
This is a bloody shame in all of humanity.
The blood of these innocent people, including today alone, over 200 kids, babies, in all of our hands.
This savagery has not been on earth.
The Kingdom's Khan army killed 11% of people on earth.
And how do we accept it? We shouldn't accept it.
We should rise to it.
My second point, actually, Johns Hopkins University made a DNA gene studies on Palestinian and Israeli.
Palestinian came to be 78% genes from all the Hebrew blood.
Israelis came 2%.
Most of the Hebrew-Europeans have nothing to do with Judaism.
Judaism is a beautiful religion.
Zionism is a hell.
And nobody, everybody has the right to live anywhere they want or wish.
Second, very quick, my assistant handed some benefits about Donald Trump.
This man is destroying the country.
He is concerned.
He is a frozen horse for prison.
He is—what they have done is impossible.
During my many decades of owning a big company, it's very difficult to fire an employee.
How dare this man fire all tens of thousands of federal employees, putting hungry people on the sidewalk or the street? Thank you for your consent item.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Amy Baldwin.
Hello.
Yes, go ahead.
Good evening, council.
I wanted to let you guys know that Berkeley Unified School District potentially has a solution to the Civic Center Park encampment because it is sitting on the old Oxford School site, which has been vacant for years now since it stopped being used for actual school.
And I think the city and Berkeley Unified School District need to partner together and turn it into a shelter.
And if the shelter was modeled like the Horizon site that was run by Dorothy Dayhouse at the Grayson Street Warehouse, then it would be really, really easy and fast to set it up.
It wouldn't take that much change in infrastructure.
I've talked to Robby Montoya about it, and she has nothing but good things to say about the Horizon's model, and she thinks that it could potentially work in a different building.
So there's a building sitting empty, and Berkeley Unified School District would like the encampment cleared, and they could also use some money.
So it seems like an easy solution.
So I just wanted to make sure that you guys are aware of that, and I would love for you to actually consider making that happen.
Thank you.
Thank you, Amy.
Arthur? Well, we do have one more.
Okay.
And that is Daniel Brownson.
Is this a public comment? Yes, for items that are not on the agenda.
Okay.
With Israel breaking the ceasefire as blatantly as they did, they violated it many times, but with them brazenly breaking it in their bombing of Gaza last night, I know Mayor Ishii has said that the PJC resolution will be agendized in the future.
I would just please, as soon as that is possible, it would be great for Berkeley to stand on our principles of peace.
That's all.
Thank you.
Yes, thank you.
I really appreciate that comment, and I have a few words to say about that.
I know that many of us held cautious optimism that the two-month ceasefire between Israel and Hamas would hold and that a peaceful solution agreeable to both sides would be achieved.
But as this previous commenter said, that Israeli forces launched the largest and most deadly attack on Gaza since the ceasefire with Hamas began in January.
And as I mentioned at the last meeting, I'm going to be calling a special meeting in April at a time that we'll be able to just dedicate to discussing this.
Our city clerk is working right now on finalizing the date.
We have to figure out some logistics.
Unfortunately, we don't have our own council chambers, so we have to see if even this space is available or some of the other spaces that are going to be big enough.
So I just want to make sure to be really transparent with folks where we're at.
And as soon as that date has been confirmed, we'll post that, of course, on the web, and we'll also announce it on our social media accounts.
And by that, I mean my mayor, Adina Ishii's social media accounts.
I also want to take this opportunity to reiterate that Berkeley is the home of the free speech movement, and we support the right to peaceful protest for all of our residents, domestic or foreign-born.
I urge the Department of Homeland Security to release Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident and former graduate student at Columbia University whose constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested for his participation in campus protests.
He's not been charged with a crime and due process has been ignored as he is in ICE detention awaiting deportation proceedings.
I want to say that I stand with our education partners in standing up for the right to free speech and academic freedom, and I just want to highlight again that he was a legal permanent resident here, and if that can happen to our legal permanent residents, what does it say about others who are here as well? So thank you for those who commented.
I appreciate being able to have the opportunity to respond to that.
We are going to be moving on to the consent calendar, so I will take public comment on the consent calendar.
Before we take public comment on the consent calendar, if there's Council discussion, if items need to be moved on or off of consent, we should do that before.
Sure, thank you.
Thank you for that.
Yes, so if Council members would like to move any items on or off the consent calendar, this would be the time to do that.
Oh, I see, and I'm sorry, for folks who are, our parliamentarian is working, but I can't really see our other Council members, so if you do need me, I'm going to have to keep peeking around, but Council Member Tragob.
Thank you.
I would like to see if we can move item 10, formation of a sex trafficking task force to address current sex trafficking in Berkeley, to the consent calendar for the purpose of double referring it back to the Commission on the Status of Women and to the Health and Life Enrichment Committee.
As a new-ish member of the Health and Life Enrichment Committee, I remember we had every intention of discussing it, but unfortunately, meetings were canceled as a result of city holidays.
It would be my intention and commitment if this motion passes to work with the committee to address this item expeditiously.
Can we just have maybe our city clerk explain what that would mean, if it's a double referral, just so folks are clear about what that would actually look like? Well, I mean, referring it back to the Commission on the Status of Women, that's part of the..
Yeah, and more specifically, I would be interested in referring it back to the Health and Life Enrichment Committee, but I understand there was also interest in maybe moving it back to the Commission as well.
So, if I can amend my motion to just refer it to Health and Life Enrichment, but as a consensus approach, I was open to referring it back to both.
Yeah, I mean, you could do that.
It would be up to the Commission to decide what further action they would want to take on the item.
Certainly, the Chair of the Commission could attend the Policy Committee meetings if there was any additional information that needed to be shared.
So, you could refer it back to the Commission on the Status of Women and to the Health and Life Enrichment Policy Committee.
There's no procedural problem with that.
Okay.
Council Member Casaruani, did you want to..
Yeah, I'm sorry.
You're calling on me, because I was going to speak up.
So, in the end, you are not doing the double referral.
You are just proposing to move the item to the Health and Life Enrichment Committee.
Is that correct? And the Commission on the Status of Women.
Concurrently.
Okay, so you are doing the double referral.
I am, but I would also be friendly if, like, my personal preference would be to move it to Health and Life Enrichment, but I'm also open to referring it back to CASEL if that.
I just heard previously that there was some interest in maybe doing the latter.
Okay.
So, I would propose..
I think it would get a bit complicated if it's referred to two bodies at the same time.
So, I would suggest respectfully that we only refer it back to the Commission and suggest that they develop a subcommittee to identify recommendations of sex trafficking prevention strategies and to provide those recommendations back to the Council.
And the reason why I'm proposing that is because I'm very concerned about the establishment of a task force that would involve members of our Police Department, that that would be a staffing imposition that I don't think we can take on at this time.
So, my proposal is move it to consent for the purposes of referring back to the Commission to develop a subcommittee.
So, was that a friendly amendment to..
I guess I have a bit of a..
I guess, Council Member Turner, are you amenable to that? We have to see what our colleagues think.
We're doing something a little bit unusual, so..
Yeah, I am.
I'm concerned.
The more we talk about it, the less it becomes a consent item, so maybe we just need to discuss it on action, but I do feel I have a high level of confidence that if referred back to Health and Life Enrichment Committee, the committee would be well placed to deal with those concerns, including around staffing.
And that's my bottom line of what I'm asking for, is that the referral at least include moving it back to that committee.
Okay, so I think I..
Sorry, Council Member O'Keefe actually has her hand up.
Oh, okay.
Thanks.
I'm worried this is going to get more complicated.
I really want to find consents too, but I would rather just move it back to the Commission on the Status of Women.
I think there's some interest there that I'm aware of, and I think we should..
I would prefer to do it with no direction.
I think they made it, they can figure out what to do with it.
Okay, so there's a couple of things going on here, so I just want to say you've made a motion, Council Member Trachub, and so I want to ask if there's a second to that motion first.
Oh, sorry.
Thank you.
I don't know who was first, but Council Member Humbert? No, I don't have a second to that.
Okay, and Council Member Block, do you have a second or just a..
Let's have a comment.
No, let's have a comment.
Okay.
No, it's not really a motion.
It's just, if there's not agreement to put it on consent, then it would just be on action because we..
Okay.
I guess I would just say I agree with Council Member Kaswani.
I actually also think that the Commission is going to have the ability to go out and do more of the detailed work that's necessary rather than staffing a task force, so I would support going back to CASA.
I support putting it on consent with the direction to refer it to the Status of Women Commission.
Okay.
I also support moving it on to consent, just sending it back to the Commission on Status of Women, and I just want to see if there are others who agree with that.
Okay, so it seems that there seems to be consensus about moving it to the..
Thank you, and I'm seeing a thumbs up from Council Member Humbert as well to move item 10 to the consent calendar to be sent to the Commission on the Status of Women.
Correct.
Yes.
Okay, so that is what we will be doing then.
Thank you.
This turning around thing is a little challenging, so thank you, Council Member Gunapara, for helping me.
All right.
Sure.
Thank you.
All right, so anything else that we want to move on? Oh, move on or off the consent calendar? Any other comments? Or any other comments? Thank you.
Oh, okay.
Council Member Blackbee.
Very quickly, I just wanted to comment briefly on item number seven, the FF Streets Oversight Committee composition.
A, I'm really glad to see this moving forward.
B, I had a very brief separate conversation with the City Manager, Deputy City Manager, and Director of Public Works in response to some outreach I've received from members of the disability community, and so I want to move forward with this item tonight, but I just do want to let colleagues know that I'll be bringing back in the next few weeks an amendment to the ordinance, potentially an amendment to this item to make a tweak to the Commission membership to allow a member of the Disability Commission or an advocate from the ADA and the disability community to participate.
I think that's an important voice in the process, and so, again, no action tonight.
I'm happy to move forward with this on consent, but I'm going to be coming back with something on that to address the composition in the coming weeks, but thank you.
Okay.
I think it would be important.

Segment 2

Councilmember Humbert, do you have comments? I do.
Just very quickly.
I wanted to say also about item number 7 that I'm really excited about it as we move forward to making our streets safer with Measure FF funding.
This is obviously a critical step built into the city's budget, but I think it's important to make sure that you're in touch with our clerk to ensure that that's allowed, given that that was a measure.
So I just want to make sure that we're in touch with the city attorney.
This is obviously a critical step built into the measure, and I'm thanking in advance those community-minded souls who will serve on this oversight body.
That's going to be really important work.
And then on item number 8, District 8 Office Account would like to contribute $250 to Councilmember Lunaparra's item.
Thanks.
That's it.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, Councilmember Trachub.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
So I would like to be recorded as abstaining on item 10, but I support it staying on the consent calendar.
Okay, thank you.
And I would like to contribute $100 for my G-13 account on item 8.
Thank you.
It's called a discretionary G-13 account, but from District 4.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Councilmember Lunaparra.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
So I'm excited for item 8, which is the citizen oversight committee for safe streets.
And I'm also excited for item 8, which is a discretionary item supporting Cal Triathlons Club annual Barathlon Triathlon.
The Triathlon has a longstanding history of fostering a welcoming environment for participants of all skill levels, and the race serves as a critical fundraising source for the triathlon team.
With the hosting of the cost of hosting the event rising since the beginning of the pandemic, the team has struggled to barely break even every year.
And so any financial support that we can provide will help keep this amazing event in our city where everyone wants it to be.
And I'm contributing the full $500 from my office's discretionary fund, and I'd be very grateful for any support my colleagues can provide.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Councilmember Chaplin.
Thank you, and I'd like to relinquish $500.
Thank you.
Okay, just want to check in with the other council members.
Oh, sorry.
Councilmember Humbert.
I forgot to take my hand down.
Thank you.
Councilmember Bakkevi.
250 from our office account for item number 8 as well.
Thank you.
Thanks to Councilmember Lunaparra.
Okay.
Any other comments from Council on this? Okay.
Oh, Councilmember Bartlett, I'm sorry.
Thank you.
I'd like to also contribute $250 to the California Triathlon Club, this item 8.
Very interesting.
And also, again, public support for item number 7, this Citizen Oversight Committee for Measure FF Safe Streets, particularly with regard to what we learned at the last meeting.
With the sheer amount of violence directed into this one part of town that was formerly redlined.
So I want to call that attention for the citizens on this oversight committee.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vice Mayor Bartlett and Councilmember Keserwani.
Yes, I don't want to be outdone and I must give $100 to the California Triathlon Club as well for my nondiscretionary account.
Thank you.
Okay.
Yeah, I think I have to give money to now because everybody else did.
It seems like I'm making a point or something, so I'm not $100 from my account.
Please.
Thank you.
Yes, I'll be putting $500 in from our account, so I'm happy to be supporting this and thank you for bringing this forward to our attention.
Okay.
I think that that's it for comments.
Is that correct? Okay.
All right.
Great.
So going back to consent.
Yes, I'd like to go to public comment now.
On consent and information items only.
Okay, we've got folks moving from from the audience into so on item 10 was already extensively developed at the commission on the status of women.
I speak as from the point of the, as the author of this recommendation in the former chair.
The only reason that this didn't move forward is because it was sent by the agenda committee to help life enrichment committee.
And that was in June, this recommendation passed in April, and because it was dormant there for scheduling reasons, it bounced back to council.
So it really is appropriate to go back to help life enrichment.
The concept of the task force in itself, all that can be worked with the composition.
Also, what there would be some changes needed has the composition of the commission has changed since that time.
But there was a commitment from chief Lewis.
To her, and I talked about this extensively to put the time into a task force, and there was also a discussion as to who would be the Berkeley police department.
Spokesperson on that task force, and so the police department already agreed to this.
Someone else who already agreed to this was a.
A person who is an expert that is about a new ran and Contra Costa County.
She came down and also spoke to the commission has decades of expertise.
She worked with BPD on 1 case, and she was referred to has the best they've ever seen.
And she would be our free consultant.
Berkeley's free consultant.
She continues to write to me monthly about what for an update.
When is this starting? Because she wants to provide information.
This has to be interdisciplinary.
It has to go behind beyond the commission itself.
To be really properly addressed.
And we had the, okay, we had several speakers come out between the FBI.
We have a minute from the audience extension.
Thank you.
We had the FBI agent come out to the commission who is over the city of Berkeley talked about the 12 operations he prosecuted in 3 years.
This is the FBI special agent.
We had again, this expert come out to Berkeley, the police department referred to as the best in the business.
We had a support organization out of Oakland come and talk to us.
We looked at models elsewhere in the country, so there was a lot of work done.
There was all that we could do up to that point.
The new commission can also still provide input.
It's a council appointments.
Appointee would be there is going to be very, very valuable on input and they can go to the health life enrichment committee.
But again, we have these rules about ad hoc committees.
You can't have non commission members on it and is just vital.
We have the people with the boots on the grass.
I'm sorry.
Your time is up.
Thank you.
I'm back.
Hi, everybody.
So, as I mentioned earlier, I am the current chair of the commission on the status of women and I'm speaking tonight to reaffirm our recommendation for the formation of a task force.
As was mentioned, this was a formally adopted before my 10 year, but I want to acknowledge Carol for all of her leadership bringing this forward.
While I was not chair of the time, and I do stand here to affirm the commission's continued commitment to this issue.
As we, I think, are all aware, trafficking, it demands urgent community driven solutions.
And our commission has identified both human trafficking and trafficking as key areas in our 2025 work plan, which should be coming to you guys next month.
If tomorrow night goes well, and multiple commissioners remain deeply committed to this work.
So, whatever you guys decide, I think you it is in your courts, but we are certainly.
Prepared to send to commissioners to the task force if the task force is so formed and would look forward to having continued input.
But as Carol mentioned, there's been quite a lot of work at the commission level on this issue.
So, thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Do we have other comments on consent items and information items only.
2 commenters on the zoom.
1 with phone number ending in 538 take away.
Yeah, my comment now is about the.
I have a slogan for many years.
Real men do not.
Visit prostitutes, and it's sad to do a fair also born.
It was.
All of them to college, all of them graduated all of them.
1 of them became the head of a big institution, 200 employees.
The education in this country is all of what is happening a lot of crimes.
This awful situation, but we definitely have to help this ladies.
Because you get totally, totally victimized by by the.
And other and my clients and made them die.
The state of affair in this country brought us Donald Trump.
A 6 criminal himself.
It was convicted of all kinds of crime, including this 1 where a woman got 5,000,000 or 20,000,000 for him.
We need to go forward want to have good brain, like our new mayor.
Like, what will be willing to the council meeting, but whatever we can do.
Please don't take it on the victim.
The prostitutes are the victim.
We need to create.
Jobs, lower rent, lower housing.
I said the housing about this morning with my assistant.
Now, with 2,000,000 dollars, what happened? You've been robbed, but this is called a new number of people that are a bunch of idiots.
Destroyed this country and that's why Donald Trump.
When he destroyed all of the millions of jobs.
Including electronic, electronic over 2,000,000 jobs were lost.
He also did all the damage to my business.
Then he destroyed my business.
Over 2,000,000 jobs were lost.
He also did all the damage to my business.
Then he went to Japan and spoke for 2 minutes.
I was handed a check for 2,000,000 dollars from Sony Corporation.
Very happy to talk to you.
I really could say more, but let's go forward.
Let's make Berkeley a better town.
Thank you very much and have a good night.
Thank you.
And the last speaker is Fern.
Fern Wild Truth.
Hello, my comment is on item number 11.
Is that right? Is that okay? I believe it is on the action.
Yes.
11 is on our action calendar.
Sorry, I'll wait then.
Okay.
Thank you.
Other comments.
That's it.
Okay, so I just want to clarify.
When we're moving item 10 to the consent calendar.
That we're not asking the commission to do more work to send it back to council again.
I believe that the intention is for.
The commission itself to have the task force.
As opposed to having it be a task force made up of city council members and police department.
Is that correct? Yes.
Okay.
That is correct.
Okay.
So, I just want to make sure that that's clear to our, to our chair of the commission who spoke earlier.
Okay.
All right.
Casper Blackaby has his hand raised.
Thank you.
And that was my clarifying question, which is like, and we'd welcome those recommendations from the commission on the status of women.
So like, look forward to seeing that.
So thank you mayor for clarifying that intent because that was my intent as well.
Thank you.
Great.
All right then.
Okay.
So we have a motion to approve the consent calendar.
Second.
Can you take the role, please? Mr.
City clerk on the consent calendar.
Council member.
Yes.
Kaplan.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Yes.
With the previously noted abstention.
On the one item.
Thank you.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
Motion carries.
Okay.
Thank you all very much.
I appreciate it.
Okay.
So we are moving on to our action calendar.
Right.
And the first item, our action calendar is a public hearing.
We went faster than I think they were expecting.
So here they come.
Thank you so much.
We have a presentation on the local hazard mitigation plan.
So I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr.
Mayor.
Okay.
We've been having problems with these mics.
So I'm hoping that this will work for you all.
And just make sure that the mic is pretty close to you and that you're speaking directly into it so that people can hear you.
Via zoom.
You can actually move the base of the microphone closer as well.
Thank you.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
Yeah.
Whenever you're ready.
All right.
Well, good evening.
Thank you.
Council members.
My name is Keith may I'm a deputy fire chief for the city of Berkeley.
I'm going to turn it over to Jamie Albrecht, our emergency manager for the office of emergency services.
And emergency services coordinator, Jamie.
Who's going to give you the bulk of the presentation.
Thank you.
Is this sound? Okay.
Great.
Thank you all for having me again.
My name is Jamie Albrecht.
I'm an emergency services coordinator with the city of Berkeley's office of emergency services.
My name is Jamie Albrecht.
I'm a deputy fire chief for the office of emergency services.
I'm here to ask council to adopt a local hazard mitigation plan.
And here to ask council to adopt a resolution.
Adopting the 2024 local hazard mitigation plan.
And amending the general plan to incorporate the 2024 LHMP.
The agenda for my presentation tonight is as follows.
I'm going to talk a little bit about mitigation plans and how they fit into the general plan.
I will give a brief outline of what is in the 2024 local hazard mitigation plan.
Talk about our community engagement process.
Then talk about the technical review and approval process up until this point.
And then talk about why we're here tonight to seek adoption and amendment.
And I will also give a little context for some related upcoming and current general plan updates.
So.
Local hazard mitigation plans are federal requirements.
Part of the disaster mitigation act of 2000.
Under the Stafford act.
The federal emergency management agency.
Also known as FEMA specifies exactly what goes into a local hazard mitigation plan.
California state assembly bill 379.
That's on here.
Requires local jurisdictions to adopt a local hazard mitigation plan.
And then requires local jurisdictions to adopt the LHMP into the safety element of the city's general plan.
To maintain maximum post disaster aid eligibility.
So.
This these federal requirements are very important for us to remain eligible for.
Disaster recovery money and hazard mitigation funds.
So in the event of a major disaster, having an up-to-date plan means that we are able to seek federal recovery dollars.
And what can be in tens of billions of dollars.
We are also eligible for what is known as hazard mitigation funds.
These kinds of funds.
Allow for programs such as our seismic retrofit programs that allow people to make changes to their homes to make them more safe in the event of an earthquake.
The local hazard mitigation again is an appendix to the safety element of the city's general plan.
This assembly bill does require that it is adopted into the safety element in order to maintain the maximum amount of federal recovery dollars.
We first adopted a local hazard mitigation plan in 2004.
It was adopted again in 2014.
And then again in 2019.
It is a federal requirement to do it every 5 years.
So we're back here for the 2024 local hazard mitigation plan.
The 2019 plan did expire on December 10th, 2024.
So we are currently out of compliance, which is why it's important to come here tonight and seek adoption and amendment into our general plan.
So a little bit about hazard mitigation.
Hazard mitigation is really designed to break the cycle of damage by taking action now to reduce impacts later.
It's the work that we do before a disaster that will provide some kind of passive protection when a disaster occurs.
Mitigation activities protect us by preventing damage from happening in the first place.
So in the event of a disaster, there's really nothing to turn on or nothing to do.
An example of this is a parking garage that has been seismically retrofitted during an earthquake.
This mitigation activity provides that passive protection during the disaster, and it provides that protection to the structure and to the people inside.
Oftentimes people confuse disaster mitigation and disaster preparedness, which is another key part of disaster readiness.
Preparedness is really around taking classes, doing trainings, giving emergency notifications.
So you will not find these kinds of actions in our local hazard mitigation.
The actions in this plan are really around this passive action that we can take now.
It's really focused on things like vegetation management, strengthening structures, kind of big infrastructure improvements.
We can make ahead of time.
Mitigation is really important and saves a lot of money.
So every dollar, there's a federal statistic that every dollar you spend on mitigation saves $6 later.
So it's a really important part of the disaster life cycle and something that we spend a great deal of time on in doing this plan and thinking about what steps we're taking to be committing to our mitigation programs and projects.
Again, to just reiterate mitigation activities, these are things like home hardening, strengthening structures, making land use decisions that will prevent us from building in vulnerable areas, reducing vegetation and high fire areas, dropping down water heaters.
These are all examples of things you'll find in the mitigation plan.
I reiterate all of this because oftentimes when folks hear the types of activities in the plan, they're like, what about this? And what about this? Those are all things that we're doing and the community is doing, but per FEMA's definition, they don't really go into this plan.
So to talk about our 2024 local hazard mitigation plan, here's an outline of what the plan looks like.
I brought it with me.
It's a very long 400 page document that follows the FEMA requirements and outlines for how it's supposed to look.
The first part is called element a, the planning process, which is how we created the plan, how we engage the public.
I'll talk a little bit about the public engagement process later.
Element B is really the bulk of the plan or one half of the bulk of the plan.
It goes into every hazard, that natural hazard and some man-made hazards that can happen in Berkeley, what the impacts may be, how it will, what it might cost, what areas of the city might be most impacted.
And it reflects the latest science and looking at talking with hazard experts in our office, it takes great pride in doing this work ourselves and to understand really the latest science around what our risk is in Berkeley.
Element C is the mitigation strategy, which is the list of actions that the city is taking to reduce risks associated with every hazard that's in the mitigation plan.
So that is really where you'll see what the city is doing.
Element D is the plan maintenance.
So how are we going to keep this up to date? Plan update is how we went about this update process.
Plan adoption is what we're doing right here, kind of how it gets adopted in the local jurisdiction.
Element G is, you know, we're Berkeley, so we always put our own spin on things.
Element G is community education.
This is not a federal requirement, but something that we took a great deal of time doing this round was trying to translate this plan to something that the community could really understand and take with in their own lives.
So it's focused on mitigation actions that households and individuals can take and do take every day to contribute to our collective mitigation goals.
And so it's a place where folks can go to get the latest recommendations on how they can make their household safer and in turn Berkeley safer.
So it's a great resource in the plan.
So the hazards of concern that are in our risk assessment of the plan are listed above.
There are quite a lot of them.
The two main ones that we talk a lot about are earthquake and wildland urban interface fire.
The starred hazards are new this year for the first time, which include air quality, high wind, sea level rise, utility interruption, and infectious disease.
As I mentioned, the focus of mitigation plans has often been on natural hazards, but we included a lot of kind of man-made hazards because they come up for a lot of people in their minds.
The last time we wrote this plan was in 2019.
We had a global pandemic.
We had a lot of utility interruption due to wildfire seasons.
And so we felt like those were important hazards to include as they do impact people's lives, and that's what they think about when they think about disaster mitigation.
So those are included for the first time in the plan.
Sea level rise used to be included in what was called the climate change section.
We now split that out, really focused on sea level rise, and then integrated climate change throughout every other hazard since they are all kind of interconnected.
To summarize our mitigation strategy, we have 34 actions in the plan.
The focus really is current work with funding secured that we can achieve in the next five years.
It really focuses on improvements to buildings, infrastructure, a lot of wildfire mitigation.
There are new actions and activities related to the new hazards, so poor air quality, infectious disease, all the hazards that we didn't include before.
You have to have an action associated with every hazard, so there are some new actions associated with those.
There's also some actions around the upcoming general plan updates to the safety element and the new environmental justice element, which are big, long planning processes that are just started and will be going on for the next couple of years, where there's a lot of work really around these topics and an exciting place to put a lot of vision.
To talk a little bit about our community engagement process.
We split this into a couple of sections.
This is a long planning process of about two and a half years.
In the drafting stage of the local hazard mitigation plan, we did presentations at the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission and the Planning Commission.
We went to both of those twice.
We did in-person outreach at community events like National Night Out.
We did presentations at community events.
There was a winter weather workshop, a tsunami workshop, and just a general mitigation plan workshop where we interacted with folks and asked them their thoughts on what belongs in the plan.
We did make YouTube videos associated with every hazard so folks could follow along in their own time and send comments via email.
We had a lot of conversations with external partners, hazard experts, and community organizations to develop and draft the plan.
For the first draft plan, it was open for public review from May to August 8, 2024.
We gave presentations at public meetings, again, at the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Council Public Safety Committee.
We held some public workshops at the Central Library and the South Branch Library.
We received over 20 letters with over 100 comments and questions.
And we had 50-plus comments at our public workshops.
I just wanted to say in this section, we devoted a lot of time to our community outreach process for this plan.
Not to say this about other jurisdictions, but I think we are very rare in that we are a small city that writes its own plan in-house.
A lot of other local jurisdictions hire consultants to write this plan.
And so we take great pride in doing it ourselves and having the connection with this work.
We also wanted to use this as an opportunity to not check a box, but also really be out there with the community.
A lot of local hazard mitigation plans use surveys as a way of interacting with folks, and we really tried to focus on a combination of in-person and virtual content.
So I'm really proud of that.
Some trends and resulting plan changes as a result of the public feedback.
There was a lot of commentary on hazardous vegetation.
So in the Wildland Urban Interface section of the plan, many commenters said that there wasn't enough attention paid to the hazardous vegetation that exists in Berkeley that contributes to wildfire risk.
In response to that comment, we did add a section into the plan about hazardous vegetation where we talk about the importance of vegetation maintenance, and as well as plant species that might be a little more burny than other types of plants.
But then also talk about how important it is to maintain our vegetation, as well as think about where it's placed in comparison to structures.
And so there is a new section that describes that.
And there are a ton of actions in the mitigation strategy around the work the fire department is doing to manage vegetation in the Berkeley Hills.
There were also a number of comments about concerns of evacuation in the Berkeley Hills, which is very understandable.
There is a lot of work currently underway that the city is doing on our evacuation time and response study with that report coming to Council, I believe, in mid-May.
And so I think this will continue to be a conversation in the coming months and years and is a big piece of work ongoing in the city.
There were also comments around land use controls impacts on emergency services.
So things like how does increasing density in the hills or adding high rises in the Berkeley Flats impact things like the fire department and emergency services? And so I wanted to acknowledge folks' comments on this.
And so we did add a new action into the plan that really reflects the ongoing work between the Land Use Planning Division and the fire department and really reiterates the role the fire department plays in having a chance to evaluate any type of land use control or density decisions that would impact emergency services and being able to provide the recommendation to Council and give input.
And then lastly, this plan is a long PDF document, so many comments on the first draft plan were that the maps were hard to read and people wanted to be able to zoom in and see where their home might be in connection to the various hazards.
So we put together a story map using ArcGIS that you can see on the website, berkeleyca.gov mitigation, where you can see a number of maps from the plan in a more interactive form if you're interested.
There is a on our website, berkeleyca.gov mitigation.
There is a summary of changes as a result of the first draft plan that you can see if you're interested in more changes.
There is a summary of changes as a result of the first draft plan that you can see if you're interested.
But those were the ones that came up a lot.
So to talk a little bit about the technical review and approvals process.
So this plan goes through a very thorough review by the California Office of Emergency Services.
Once we are finished with writing it, they take it for 45 days.
They approved it in November of 2024.
And then they take it for another 45 days to approve it.
In January, January 13th, 2025, FEMA issued us a approval pending adoption, which means they approve the plan in its entirety.

Segment 3

The Berkeley City Council has adopted the Cal OES plan.
And we're asking the local jurisdiction to adopt it for their local jurisdiction process.
So again, that's why we're here tonight to kind of finish the process, go back to FEMA and say that we've adopted it into our local jurisdiction general plan.
And then we'll go back to FEMA for final approval.
And then I also wanted to address the proposed technical amendments to the general plan.
And then we'll go back to FEMA for final approval.
And then I also wanted to address the proposed technical amendments to the general plan.
And then we'll go back to FEMA for final approval.
And then we'll go back to FEMA for final approval.
And then I also wanted to address the proposed technical amendments to the general plan.
As I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, to be eligible for the maximum amount of federal recovery dollars, you do have to amend this into your general plan.
It's a very small edit, which basically changes the year of the mitigation plan from 2019 to 2024.
So you can see the edit up on the screen.
And yeah, a really minor edit to the general plan that will make sure that we're eligible for those dollars.
And these are the findings associated with the general plan amendment.
So it's in the public interest.
Commitment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the general plan.
So it's consistent with the rest of the general plan.
So it's consistent with the rest of the general plan.
The potential effects of the proposed amendment have been evaluated and have been determined not to be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare.
So we're talking about public interest consistent with the general plan.
This is really all about ensuring that we have access to these funds and trying to mitigate our risk to disasters and natural hazards.
And that is the end of my presentation.
Happy to take comments and questions.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
I'd like to open this as a public hearing just to make sure that we do that.
And then take council questions.
I see that council member Taplin has his hand raised.
Okay, sorry.
Are there other questions from council before we take public comment? Okay.
Okay.
So, any public comment on this item? Only please.
Sorry, folks, I know there's some speaking in the audience.
If you could just maybe move your conversation outside or thank you.
Any, any public comments? Okay, anything online? No, no commenters participating remotely.
Okay, so then we need a motion to close the public hearing.
Yes, we have to close the public hearing.
Council member Sarwani.
Yes.
Taplin.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Dregub.
Aye.
O'Keefe.
Yes.
Blackaby.
Yes.
Lunapara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mayor Ishii.
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you so much.
Moving on to council deliberation.
We'll go back to council member Taplin.
Thank you very much.
Thank you all so much.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of this council and , and, and really learn something new.
I really appreciate it.
I appreciate integration of climate.
Climate change throughout the plan.
I appreciate the post and see level rise.
Promoting awareness around local hazards West and South neighborhoods is a huge priority of my alongside.
I'm sure our infrastructure resilient to disaster.
And with that I move adoption.
Second.
Thank you.
Okay, we've got some more comments.
Thank you.
I wanted to echo council member Kaplan's comments.
I remember reviewing that 2014.
Version when I was on the housing advisory commission.
And I feel like this is light years ahead, not to, not to minimize the effort that was done then.
I think we are in.
Very challenging times where.
We have to do more with less.
Every local jurisdiction is required to do more with less.
And I think you have far in a way exceeded that mandate.
You've taken it above and beyond.
So I applaud you.
I thank you.
And I'm happy to support.
I think the motion was.
Council member Kaplan is nodding his head.
Yes.
Okay.
So I know that council member.
And Humbert had their hands raised.
So we'll go to them next and then council member.
Great.
I'll be brief.
I just wanted to thank Ms.
Albrecht for all the hard work on this.
If I recall correctly from our briefing with our office.
In the city, we had a very good meeting with council member Davis.
With council members, Kaplan.
I believe Kellyat OES gave Berkeley and her particular kudos for the thoroughness and quality of the document of the report.
So that says a lot and really appreciate.
All that hard work.
As well as.
The work that you did.
And I know that.
I know how important this information is, you know, all of us in different ways, see it in our own districts.
Wildfire in the hills.
C level rise and other parts of Berkeley.
So just really want to, again, thank you and echo how important the work is and we appreciate it.
And it's our, our city is well served by the work you did.
And we appreciate it.
And I know that.
And I want to thank my fellow council members.
I want to thank.
Chief Sprague.
Chief may.
Jamie Albrecht, Lisa Shannon, all the members of the.
Core planning team and our disaster and fire.
Commissioners.
For this tremendous work that y'all put into developing and reviewing the plan and doing all the public outreach.
This plan contains a wealth of data.
Amazing.
Really.
We've got, you know, we've got, you know, we've got a lot of different sources.
You know, we've got wildfire.
We've got.
Tsunami we've got earthquake.
I mean, we've got the much more than a trifecta.
It's an incredibly comprehensive and sobering document.
And it's something we should really look at as council.
As we prioritize various policies and programs.
In the coming years.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I wanted to echo the comments of my colleagues.
And, you know, I'll probably know we had an earthquake.
Very.
A small earthquake very close by yesterday.
And every time that that happens, it always reminds me of.
How precarious all of this is.
And also how much work is going into.
Preparing our community in case of, you know, when.
Big disaster does hit.
And so thank you so, so much for, for everything that you're doing.
Thank you.
Council member Bartlett, you have comments.
I just.
Make sure I can't see you.
No, but thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah, so I just want to say, thank you to all of you for the presentation, just for all of your hard work.
Wanted to highlight that every dollar spent in hazard mitigation save $6 down the line.
That's amazing.
Definitely want to highlight that that for folks, I know there were some comments that were made, but I just want to say, thank you for all of your work.
I love that you're doing that.
And that you are not just taking fire danger in the Hills.
And also just love that the community education is not required, but that you all are doing it.
That it's so important that you've really done such extensive community education.
That is really important because what is the point of having these plans? If we don't actually make sure the public has them.
Or knows what to do or what they should be doing.
Thank you for that.
And there is a motion.
So I think that we've already had a first and a second.
So if you could please take the role.
Okay.
Mr.
City clerk.
To, to approve the recommendation.
Council member Kessler.
Yes.
Kaplan.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Very good.
I O'Keefe.
Yes.
Black could be.
Yes.
Luna para.
Yes.
Humber.
Yes.
And Mary she.
Yes.
Okay.
Motion.
All right.
Thank you all so much.
I want to just check in really quickly, but the council to see if you would like a break because we did a pretty quick break.
Yes.
I'm saying yes.
10 minutes, 15 minutes.
10.
All right.
We're going to take a 10 minute break then.
And we will be back in 10 minutes.
Thank you all.
All right.
Okay.
We are going to call this meeting back to order.
Thank you all glad we got a chance to take that brief break.
We are moving on just so folks know if you missed this earlier, we moved item 10 to consent.
So we are now moving on to item 11 and we have a presentation.
From our chief and Arlo.
So please, I'll let you.
Okay.
So I want to thank mayor and council for allowing us to come and consider this item and present on this item tonight.
And for your consideration on this item.
As I know we leaned into heavily and talked quite a bit about earlier today.
In our annual report presentation.
A strong commitment to providing the highest level of service.
Towards public safety.
So, I want to give a little bit of a timeline about how we landed at this place to make this recommendation in this item.
We'll talk a little bit about privacy and data protection.
And then I know I'm sure there's questions and we'd be happy to answer questions as they come.
So considering technologies, we've been talking about.
One is fixed surveillance cameras and one is automated light.
And in 2021 council first approved.
And item for fixed 10, fixed cameras.
And these locations were selected by the department in partnership.
Sorry, it's a little bit.
Is that okay? So yeah.
Okay.
We're selected looking at, at the time.
For the technology.
And we're looking at the new technology.
And we're looking at how we can improve our data protection in the future.
And we're looking at how we can improve our data protection in the future.
And we're looking at how we can improve our data protection in the future.
We're selected looking at, at the time.
They were going to be the only cameras providing this, this, this view and locations were selected based on major thoroughfares ingress and egress from the city.
So we set 10 locations with those, those parameters in mind.
To date, we've only been able to install one of those locations at six and university.
In 2023 council approved 52 locations for automated license plate registration.
And that was approved in January of 2023.
Again, we looked to thoroughfares.
Where would vehicles coming in would.
Travel through our city.
I'm used to that data in January of 2024, a second fixed camera item was brought forward.
That approved six additional locations using those same types of parameters.
As well as eight additional locations when funding allowed.
And that was approved in January of 2023.
Fast forward to November of 2024.
We roll out the live with our ALPR technology.
We learned a lot from that technology.
One, we learned that the efficacy was there.
We were seeing good results in short periods of time.
We're making a high number of arrests.
Linking or gathering evidence for search warrants and being able to make use of that technology.
We also learned that the ALPRs were the superior technology.
Along with the fixed cameras that we had created.
Inadvertently created some redundancies in technology.
We also discovered that the ALPRs were the superior technology.
We're gathering vehicle traffic.
They put a capture license plates, able to use that database to look at that data.
What we also realized was that we had a.
We also realized that.
The fixed cameras could be better utilized to capture pedestrian heavy areas.
Where there were both a lot of pedestrians and higher crime rates.
So we knew that then the two systems could work together.
And allow us to both have investigative and deterrent effects on both areas that were.
Vehicle have vehicle traffic as well as pedestrian traffic.
We also learned that.
The ALPRs could be better utilized to capture pedestrian heavy areas.
Where there were both a lot of pedestrians and higher crime rates.
So we're learning very strongly and spending money wisely.
Using technologies that are safe, that are the right technology for what we're trying to address.
And.
You know, learning from.
The challenges we had getting the technology in place.
So fixed surveillance cameras, we were challenged by permitting issues.
We were not using the right kind of camera.
For that location at the time, the technologies weren't the same place.
They are now.
Now we can look to solar powered cameras, smaller cameras.
Cameras that can integrate with systems that we already have.
So we have a better technology.
So as much as I regret that we have not fulfilled the council direction already.
In a place where we had a smarter use of both.
The resources that we had an existing funding.
So the item in front of us in front of you tonight.
Asks for a couple of things.
1 week.
Pursuant to the surveillance ordinance technology ordinance, which is a codified BMC 2.99.
In order for us to seek grant funding for technologies like this, we need permission.
So we're seeking council permission for us to try and get some of these technologies paid for via grant funds.
We're also seeking permission to adjust the locations that were originally approved in the fixed camera items.
To new locations that we've proposed to looking at.
A number of different things.
One is a transparency hub data around where we see crimes most occurring.
Where we know anecdotally and historically, and from conversations with our business districts and observation where pedestrians gather.
In higher volumes.
And kind of pulling those information together, both community meetings, business district meetings.
We're also seeking permission for us to look at surveillance technology ordinances.
You know, calls for service data, all driving this, this, this need.
And then the other thing that we seek is.
Mission to enter into the surveillance technology ordinance process.
To switch from the existing vendor that we have for fixed cameras.
To explore the flock technology.
That is compatible with our readers.
As a replacement technology.
We're also seeking permission for us to look at.
The surveillance technology ordinance, which includes significant review time.
And conversations with the police accountability board.
And then ultimately.
A referral coming to council to review and approve with an acquisition report for technology, a use policy for how that technology is used.
Before we were able to move to next steps.
I'm going to turn it over to Arlo.
To talk a little bit about how we protect and secure our data, how we use our data, how we share our data.
And so.
Arlo is going to speak to the, some of the data protection pieces.
Yeah, absolutely.
A part of community safety is a safeguarding privacy.
Especially from misuse by the federal government and immigration.
Enforcement.
And so.
In some statewide context, first.
California state law under Senate bill 54.
Explicitly prohibits sharing surveillance data for federal immigration enforcement.
Our policies align fully with this law.
And we have auditing procedures in place to, to make sure that we are complying.
With the federal law.
And so.
We do a lot of data sharing with federal federal immigration agencies.
And the federal authorities ever request access.
They will give us a notification immediately.
So that gives the city an opportunity to intervene.
And bring community oversight to that request.
And the security extends to the technology itself.
And so.
We do a lot of data sharing.
Both in transit and at rest.
Using some of the most secure methods available.
The data is stored on AWS gov cloud.
Which is a platform that meets the strictest government security standards.
And importantly, the data is not kept indefinitely.
So we set a retention period for the data.
Which reduces any risks with any.
So we are doing our due diligence to make sure that these.
There is.
The capacity for data privacy.
With this technology that we're requesting and requesting to, to start this STO process.
And so we'll have multiple opportunities as well to.
Like request more detailed information from flock or other vendors.
And get whatever assurances that we need as a city.
To make sure that the data.
Protected and stored in a secure way.
Anything else you want to add? I just want to make sure.
Okay.
No, I'm sure there's questions.
We're happy to answer that.
Okay, great.
So we're going to take some initial clarifying questions from folks.
And I'm gonna start with council member.
Thank you.
Can you say a bit more about why you chose the new locations in particular? What kinds of.
What kinds of things are we seeing that would inform the selection of those locations? Yeah, so the locations from the original item were based on ingress and egress routes to the city.
Now that we have those.
Those ingress and egress routes covered by LPR is to capture the vehicle traffic as vehicles moving out of the city.
We.
And we.
We saw that we will get more value out of surveillance cameras.
In locations where there's a high pedestrian value.
Volume.
So we used a crime data.
To look at crimes committed against pedestrians or.
Crimes that are typically occur.
Out in the open in streets.
So.
We're going to be looking at cameras from our business districts and our community liaisons in the police department.
Where we know that there are moments of.
Pedestrian volumes on certain occasions, like.
Events or game.
That where those cameras are going to be able to provide the most public safety value.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So.
Are there any.
Other options regarding how the data is stored for instance, is it possible to configure it so that.
The data stored on a local server instead of in the cloud.
Well, one of the.
Advantages in fact, of this vendor is that we have the option to store in the cloud because of the maintenance that local storage would require any additional costs.
So.
A is expensive.
B requires a regular upkeep.
And C prevents also its own risk of failure.
If those exact.
Servers are good damage.
So we, we actually see the cloud storage.
Option as an advantage.
So.
The requirements that.
The, the limitations that we outlined in the item around.
Our contracts with PG and energy requirements of the camera as large part of the energy requirement are those servers.
Thank you for that.
I mean, I hear you saying you prefer.
Sounds like your official positions.
You prefer the cloud storage, but is it an option? Like, is it possible? That's my question.
I, we could certainly check in with.
And see if that's something that they offer.
Okay.
Thank you.
And I have a second question.
Forgive me if you mentioned this in your presentation, but.
Will there ever be like live monitoring? Like a person watching the screens or is it just to record and go back or.
Or do you for use with the display readers? Yes, it's a, it's an interesting conversation.
And, you know, a lot of agencies and jurisdictions are looking at real time monitoring and.
And, you know, we have a lot of information that we can share with you.
Currently we don't live monitor any of our materials and our, our policies actually forbid that.
And interestingly enough in a companion.
Memo that the police accountability board wrote.
For our 1st.
For the 2nd fixed camera item.
They did kind of point to that and suggest that live monitoring would be the way to make these cameras more effective.
And I think, you know, I think that's a good point, because I think we're still looking at it for both the technology and how it's held.
I still think I'd like to see parameters around the way we would monitor it.
So we would want to see crimes in progress and event occurring some connection to it.
Versus the idea that we would ever.
Be in a city where we would just actively monitor cameras without some reasonable suspicion or information based need to assess it.
Thanks.
So just for clarity.
I'm just wondering if the original.
The original regulations that would have to come through council.
You don't.
You're not currently allowed to do live monitoring.
Is that correct? Yeah, the way the original camera item was written included a provision against that.
Okay.
So that would.
I'm just, I mean, I want, I think I knew that, but I want this for the public to be understand that if that rule were to change.
It would have to come before this board.
Thank you.
And then I also see council member black could be, and then we'll go to council member trade.
Thank you.
I have one question.
The.
The years that you reviewed when selecting these proposed locations were 2022 to 2024, right? For the crime data.
My question is in today's special meeting presentation, we're using the 2022 and 2023 data.
With 2024 returning to historical norms.
I'm curious why we're using the 2022 and 2023 data.
When it is, isn't necessarily representative of the standard.
Well, the volume certainly is different, but the composition of the crimes in the geographical distribution of the crimes hasn't.
Changed greatly.
So.
I would expect that we would be using a little less.
In a little less variance than we would expect of just looking at a single years.
Worth of data.
But the, the analysis wouldn't change if we just looked at 2024 data.
Thank you.
I also know that.
With South side specifically noise disturbances.
Are a high number of the reason why people call the police department in the first place.
Is there a way to access that data? As part of the data.
Yeah, we, as part of the data consideration, we filtered for specific crime types.
So not even just calls, but confirmed.
Case reports.
That we felt would be.
Potentially captured by a camera.
So that would be more like a physical disturbance or an assault or.
Robbery and burglary.
Is there a way to access that data? Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Moving on to council member back.
Two brief ones.
I really appreciated your comments on the data minimization, the data retention component.
Because if we think about this, you know, there's obviously the security of the data that's been collected and the storage of that data.
There's the sharing considerations, which we're expressing.
But another big factor here is just, you know, if you look at the data that's been collected over a certain time period.
There's not like a treasure trove of data being archived for infinity.
Right.
It's like, it's very limited.
So that's also a really important prong here.
I just wanted to highlight.
Can you remind me under the.
Policy in the previous fixed policy.
What is that data retention length and what you anticipate changing that.
Moving forward.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, you know, it absolutely just limits the overall liability in the worst case scenario.
Right.
So currently the retention period for LPR data is 30 days.
And the retention period in our policy for.
For camera data is 180 days.
And what we're balancing here is, is the evidentiary value.
Of of the information that we're collecting versus that risk mitigation.
So, you know, the more information that we can go to find the leads that they're looking for, or put together the case that they're working on.
The more public safety value we're going to get out of, of having those cameras in the first place.
But obviously, like you said, the, the counterpoint then is how much.
Liability are we actually exposing ourselves to it in the worst case scenario that there was some breach.
Right.
And there already is a provision that if it's part of an active investigation, you can hold it.
Right.
If it's not being used in an investigation that you have to.
Erase it.
Right.
Yeah, that's correct.
But it could be that a detective is.
It becomes aware of a series.
Yeah, I understand.
Comes with new information and they need to go back and find that.
That makes sense.
And just to clarify that further too, if we had information, it was either on an LPR system or a fixed camera system that we learned became part of evidence of a crime.
We would take that data off of that location.
We would take that data off of that location.
And we would upload it into our evidence collection system.
And then it wouldn't, it would not be retained indefinitely on.
On those.
You know, on the flock system or the other system.
We take it and hold on to it.
So kind of then connects to council member O'Keefe, which is that you would move that into a local environment, even if the cloud environment is then deleted after that 30 days or after that 30 days.
And then also, as far as sharing data with federal authorities, I also just want to confirm that there is some value.
Like coordinating some of this with our neighboring jurisdictions.
So I also just want to be mindful of.
We don't share with ice.
We don't share with authorities outside the state of California.
But if you're tracking a suspect going from.
Emoryville to Berkeley, we don't share that data.
So I just want to be mindful of that.
Okay.
Thank you.
So, if you're tracking CDRs or other kinds of surveillance technology.
Can you just help us understand how that kind of sharing process does or doesn't work with.
Kind of trusted local neighboring jurisdictions, which again is distinct from.
Ice and some of these other pieces.
Yeah, that's great.
That's one of the sections that were given by the direction of the state law.
Right.
That says this is the way that you can and can't use that, that information.
So, we have the ability to talk to our neighbors about.
Suspect descriptions, vehicle descriptions.
Information around crimes that allow us to make connections and eventually solve.
And have chargeable cases.
And.
The benefit we have is that a lot of our surrounding agencies raise up the same.
Protections that are city values and our policies value.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council member Bartlett and just a reminder for folks, since not everyone can see your head nods and movements and things, just make sure you, if you could verbalize your guests so that folks.
Online can hear as well.
And.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
So.
I know that we have been spending.
A lot of time on this.
And I wanted you to.
See if we can get confirmation on a couple of things.
One is, could you comment on.
If there is currently.
A policy should these cameras be.
Implemented.
And if so, could you provide a notification that these are in fact, camera assigned.
Camera locations.
Sorry, it was the question.

Segment 4

Somehow, will there be noticing available as to the locations? That's correct.
So the cameras are up, there are signs below it that said this area is under active or, you know, fixed camera surveillance.
Yeah, those signs will have been placed already at our 16 University location and would be at any location where we put a camera.
Okay.
Can you speak to the best of your knowledge of FLOC's current policies around who handles the data once it grows on? It is compartmentalized in FLOC's database.
Yeah, once it's the system set up, like I said, the data is encrypted as it goes from the cameras to the servers and then once it's there, there's not any to my knowledge, any active ability of FLOC to go in and access that data.
Okay.
And lastly, can you just confirm if this item was to move forward tonight, this would only be the first step? And could you detail the additional steps that would then need to be taken? Yeah, that's exactly right.
This would just be the beginning of us embarking on the surveillance technology ordinance process which requires us to put together an acquisition report, a use policy, and that includes details in the specifications of the technology as well as how we would use it.
So that would go, we would work with the police accountability board on those reports and then that would come back to council for final approval before we would even, you know, begin to negotiate a contract with FLOC.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Council Member Bartlett? Thank you.
This reflects, of course, Council Member Taplin leading the charge in this issue over like four years now of meetings and I think that the privacy doctrines that the city's adopted tend to be robust.
But of course, like everyone else here, I see the writing on the wall, the current administration in D.C.
has some troubling tendencies that we want to be certain that our cameras aren't misused against the people.
So I'm curious to hear about as well about the on-site storage, the possibility of removing from the cloud and storing in a container that we can control.
I think that's a strong defensive mechanism that could be useful.
And the state sounds great, but what we've seen, these corporations, they are often buckling under the pressure of the administration.
And from media to security to technology, particularly AWS and Amazon and Google and Meta and our other Silicon Valley giants.
So I'm not exactly certain that we can trust the provider to be able to stand that kind of pressure.
So we should take steps to protect ourselves.
Thank you.
Are there any other questions? Oh, yes.
Council Member O'Keefe? Thanks for coming back around to me.
Just two questions.
And I want to say, I want to acknowledge what I think, what I hope is clear is that the use, when we're talking about the use of these cameras, the use policy is going to come back.
So we're not deciding that tonight.
But my questions are kind of around that anyway.
Technology and use policy.
Do these cameras have the ability to record sound? Or is it just- Yes.
They do.
Yes, they do.
Okay.
And can you turn that off? I mean, is that- I would imagine so.
I haven't confirmed, but yes, I would imagine that's a standard feature we could turn off.
Okay.
That'll be a conversation for the use policy.
And then can you just state what is the policy on like AI facial recognition, which is also not part of this, but part of the general surveillance ordinance? Right.
That's not a technology that we're seeking for this.
It's currently prohibited by the policy.
Thank you.
It's prohibited.
It's actually prohibited.
Thank you.
Okay.
I think some of these questions are also to kind of get certain information out there.
So I appreciate that.
And I think I want to open it up to public comment now that we've asked our questions.
So is there any public comment on this item? If so, please walk up here to the podium.
Come on, folks.
Who's coming up? Come on up.
Council members, I hope we all know what time it is.
I think it's just fooling yourselves to think that if you collect, if you allow the collection of this data, that it won't be accessed by the federal government.
And to think that FLOC is going to somehow defend our rights is just sort of magical thinking.
If you read the Guardian article from March 11th, 2025, ICE accessed car tracker information in sanctuary cities that helps in ICE raids.
March 11th, the Guardian, just a week ago.
It's already happening.
We don't have to wait, but if we gather that information, we're doing ICE's work.
We're doing the work of Homeland Security.
We're doing the work of the Secret Service.
And this detail, this idea that it's in the cloud, but then we'll download it and somehow they won't have access, they're going to go right to FLOC.
They're not going to ask you and they're not going to ask the state of California.
I mean, look at who got deported this weekend.
Sorry, your time is up.
Illegal deportation.
Thank you for your comments.
I've been ceded time by Jack.
All right, sorry, close.
Okay, so you've got two minutes.
Go ahead.
So I'm confident that the council will vote to remove the telegraph intersection from the list of camera locations tonight, as you voted unanimously to do last year.
I'm sure you'll do this because you want to keep your word to your constituents and because you want to respect the requests of your colleague.
So I'll focus on the larger issue of the entire program of government surveillance on civilians.
The opponents are as concerned about crime as anyone.
I'll say that studies have not shown that cameras are effective in preventing crime.
It's nice that the data will be encrypted.
It's nice that the city will not give it up willingly, but to think that this protects our people is to live in a fool's paradise, no offense.
But look, everyone knows that there's no check on the Trump administration.
Everyone knows they have no regard for either the law or the constitution.
And to them, data and information, often misinformation, is their most effective weapon.
Undocumented immigrants will now have to register.
Users of social security will now have to come in person to show up to get their benefits.
Edward Snowden warned us in 2015 or earlier that bulk data collection was rampant in the national security state of that time.
That's what this is.
All the security that the department laid out in the presentation would be laughable as this was not such a serious issue.
The feds will roll over you the way they are rolling over Columbia University, the Washington Post, Washington, D.C., the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S.
Peace Office today, and practically every other institution nationally.
A retired librarian you may be familiar with has explained what her colleagues did when the FBI came around asking for records of people who checked out controversial books.
They simply stopped saving the checkout data.
Simply put, if you build a database, they will come for it.
Councils should be asking, how can we protect our people from the – I'll use Kamala Harris's word – the fascist administration.
It's time to pick up what civil liberties advocates in Berkeley struggled for throughout the 2010s in Berkeley.
That means to stop engaging information with the Intelligence Fusion Center and NCRIC, stop working with UASI, and if you collect information via bulk data wherever you store it, it will go to MAGA.
There was no way to do that.
There was no period.
There was no way to do this safely.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Folks who are new to coming to Council since I've become Mayor, I'm very strict about timing, so you'll notice that I try to be really consistent about that.
Hi.
My name is Ben.
I'm a UC Berkeley student, and I'm coming here to oppose the camera at the Telegraph and Durant intersection, in part because it's against the wishes of the vast majority of students at Berkeley.
We don't want to be recorded all the time, and I'd also like to add about the program in general.
While I value public safety, civil liberties like the right to privacy are fundamental, and we have to balance those against other needs like that of public safety.
I know that the State of California has a law that says that I think private people cannot just record someone without their consent, and if a private person can't record someone without their consent, I don't understand why a private corporation should be able to record people without their consent, and going out in public is not consent.
Thank you.
All right.
Hello.
My name is Evan Flores, and I'm a resident and employee of a non-profit organization in Berkeley's District 7.
I understand that in the City of Berkeley, safety is one of our priorities, but the ordinance to put up surveillance cameras between Durant and Telegraph is an overreach of the City's power.
It's an intrusion into the privacy of our City's residents.
Privacy, especially during these trying times, is crucial to keeping people safe.
What is most worrisome is that these cameras can fall into not the hands of the UCPD or BPD, but into the hands of federal government and ICE, who under recent legislation seek to root out and detain citizens, documented and undocumented people.
These cameras are not keeping the residents of Berkeley safe, but are putting our residents in danger of federal and immigration official intrusion, especially as the federal government seeks to override state law and possibly seize the City's surveillance information.
So I ask the City of Berkeley to change their mind on placing cameras in between Durant and Telegraph.
If you want to truly keep our residents safe from Trump's tyrannical policies and the dangers of ICE, you should not let these cameras be installed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Generally, I favor cameras.
It has a law enforcement tool.
I see it has DNA that it actually proves or exonerates the innocent as well as proves the guilty.
However, we are clearly moving towards a dictatorship.
I mean, we have a president that doesn't honor court orders and deports people without due process.
So I am deeply concerned.
Are we going to be able to have the safeguards or can the doge kids that are high tech but soulless hack into us? I mean, we all get hacked all the time.
Is this really hack proof? And I'm concerned about the sound factor that was just announced because I don't see how that's legal to have speech recorded that may be otherwise privileged.
So.
Thank you.
Our next commenter.
I have another minute too.
Yes.
Two minutes for the speaker from someone in the audience.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Lindsay and I'm a current UC Berkeley student and the current president of the Cal Berkeley Democrats.
Specifically, I'm deeply concerned and disappointed by the inclusion of the Telegraph and Durant intersection as a surveillance camera location like in this proposal.
And I'm a D7 resident and I live right near this proposed location.
And so because of that, I encourage the council to either remove this site from the list of cameras or just vote no on item 11 overall if it can't be removed.
Students, particularly students of color and immigrant students, among a lot of other groups, have previously expressed their opposition to this type of surveillance in July when the council ultimately removed a similarly located camera like a couple blocks away from at Telegraph and Dwight intersection.
This time, no students were consulted, which is unacceptable when the proposed camera locations are located in high student locations and specifically like this location in a 95% student council district.
I can personally say that this proposed camera location makes me feel more unsafe and I reject the claim that surveillance is necessary to increase public safety.
As a student activist, I feel that these cameras are another tool to suppress student voices contributing to the troubling national trend of increasing surveillance and criminalization of peaceful protests under the Trump administration.
I personally do not see a need for this Telegraph and Durant surveillance camera location.
And I do admire the proposal's inclusion that bans live monitoring by like a human person.
But I am a little troubled by the chief of police's apparent desire to implement live monitoring in the future or like if the proposal were to be changed.
And the communities are disproportionately targeted by systemic violence should not be made to feel even more unsafe in their own neighborhoods.
This erodes trust in institutions that claim to serve and protect us and it brings us one step closer to living under a full Orwellian surveillance state.
At the very least, I urge you guys to please remove the Telegraph and Durant intersection from the list of proposed cameras.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Go ahead, come on up.
Hello, my name is Peter Toma.
I'm a PhD student in mechanical engineering at UC Berkeley and I've come here to speak against the proposed camera installation.
Our society has been moving into a form of techno-feudalism where tech corporations control everything around us.
Our lives are not our own and I assure you that there's details about this system that the company is not telling you about that could potentially steal our privacy and our lives.
I urge you to vote against techno-feudalism and not install this camera system.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Ashmita.
I'm a public health student at Berkeley and I just want to say that cameras don't keep us safe, we keep us safe.
A surveillance state and police state are not what makes our communities safe.
This is going to endanger the immigrants in our community and it will also help with the Trump's administration's crackdown on free speech like what happened recently with Mahmood Khalil.
He is a legal resident but even our undocumented community deserves to be protected and over-policing and over-surveillance are going to put them in danger.
If you stand against Trump's anti-immigrant police state and we Berkeley residents do, then you're going to vote against this.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Lily Simonson.
I'm from District 3 and I think it's clear we all value a right to privacy and we all value public safety and so we really need to consider potential trade-offs between the two.
And I am not going to reiterate what all the fellow commenters said.
I really appreciate the chief sharing the timeline and I just think we should consider where we started, which was looking at vehicle-related crime and traffic and that getting in a vehicle is already a highly regulated activity and so that is a certain level of surveillance that we all kind of inherently consent to.
But going out on the street in our own neighborhood, we aren't inherently consenting to be surveilled and I just think maybe we should return to without redundancies finding vehicles, you know, looking at that.
Thanks for your comments.
I think that your minute was given to George.
You of course can speak.
Yes, I just wanted to make sure it was clear.
Go ahead.
My name is Lauren and even though you guys are worried about the camera thing, I think you guys can use that money or in a whole nother matter that's really a problem and people are not safe.
The people that are unhoused and the homeless and so forth and that should be used for that matter, not invading people's privacy.
It's not going to do anything.
You have enough cameras as is and it's nothing being done so use it to what it's worth and it's really people are unhoused and they're going.
There's a lot of women that have died being on the streets.
There's a lot of people that have been hurt on the streets and so that is an issue that I think should be addressed and if you're going to use the money, use it towards that keeping people safe.
That's the problem and I think that needs to be addressed rather than a camera in an intersection.
So I hope that makes any sense.
So that's all I have to say.
Yes.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Are there comments online? Yes, there's currently 16 hands raised.
Okay.
First is Nathan Mizell.
Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council.
Can you hear me? Yes.
This is Nathan Mizell, former PAB member.
I would just ask the Council to honor much of its word last year and to remove the camera on Telegraph and Durant.
Certainly if you'll keep having to remove one Telegraph and Durant, I think removing one Telegraph and Durant is understandable.
You know, 30 seconds, I can't get into all the implications.
We know the times we're living in, folks.
All I will say is that courts that have looked at this, you can look at United States vs.
Cuevas Sanchez.
It's 821 Federal Reporter, page 248.
There's a lot of case law about even in cases where a warrant is procured, how invasive this type of surveillance can be.
The court there used the word Orwellian to describe 60 days of video surveillance of a specific suspect.
180 days of video and audio surveillance of any Berkeley and Durant and Telegraph is incredibly invasive.
Next is Wren Fitzgerald.
Hello, this is Wren Fitzgerald, chair of the Berkeley Transportation Infrastructure Commission, but speaking on my behalf tonight, I strongly oppose the use of surveillance cameras across our city, particularly at the intersection of Durant and Telegraph.
The Berkeley Police Department is attempting to install this camera through shady, secretive means with no input from the community or understanding of our safety needs.
In selecting this intersection to install a camera, BPD is blatantly disregarding the will of the surrounding community.
Just months prior, you, a council, voted not to install a camera at Telegraph and Dwight, only two blocks away from the current proposal.
The decision to include this intersection disregards the authority and decisions of you, the council.
I also have concerns regarding the collection and use of data around these cameras.
BPD is claiming that they've experienced no data breaches with existing cameras, yet the vendor's own website discloses multiple breaches.
I'm concerned that the department is not investigating the impact of these potential breaches on our residents or disclosing the information when asked.
Lastly and most importantly, this proposal cannot be considered without acknowledging the national threat of fascism's impact on local security.
The Trump administration is taking great strides to coax local law enforcement into supporting deportation efforts.
Next is Bryce.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Can we take a pause for a second? Because there are a lot of things that have been asked, and I just do want to address some of them before moving on, because I feel like we're going to kind of lose track of them, and I don't want to stack up a lot of things at the end.
I just want to clarify that there was a question about how many, basically, there are many cameras.
I just want to confirm how many cameras are actually currently out there.
Could you address that, please, Chief? There's currently fixed surveillance cameras at the marina at San Pablo Park.
Those are long-time cameras that have been approved for fixed surveillance that we report on annually in our surveillance technology report, and we have that one camera at University in Sixth.
Okay, so I just want to make sure that folks know that.
And then, I'm sorry, I know I'm taking privileges in being in my seat to address some of these things, but I want to make sure that we address them before moving on, in case some of the commenters are curious about some of these other things.
So there was a good comment, there have been a couple comments about a private company doing the work, doing this work, and if you could just briefly speak to why it's a private company that we're working with to do this, as opposed to maybe doing it in-house? Well, we need to contract with a private company to procure the equipment, the cameras, and the services of maintaining the database and giving us access to that information.
So, I mean, that's a lot of technological capacity that we just don't have in-house, and I don't think many city governments do.
Thank you.
And there was some concern around the legality of speech being recorded.
Could you speak to that as well, please? Yeah, there's prohibitions in state law around recording someone without their knowledge or consent.
And one of the things that you do when you put a sign up saying you're by being in this location, you are understanding that you are being filmed.
That's what that sign does, is prevent that unknown recording from occurring.
What I want to point out, what's written in our current use policy around the fixed camera that we have specifically calls out that we do not record sound.
And it also specifically sets out the times and the ways that we access that data, not live monitoring.
That's all built into the use policy.
So the places and spaces where we define how we as a city want to access and hold and use that technology really gets baked in as we work through those processes.
Okay.
And there are a lot of concerns about the federal administration getting access to this data.
If you could please just address when perhaps the right time would be to be looking at protections, because I think that right now we're having a conversation about accessing potential grant funding and moving forward on this process, as opposed to talking about policies and protections.
So I am definitely concerned about those things as well.
Yeah, absolutely.
So like we mentioned, this is the beginning of a longer process through our surveillance technology ordinance.
So council will have another opportunity to see the use policies that will propose an acquisition report with all the technical specifications of the technology that we're asking for.
And that will come with a recommendation from the end of review from the police accountability board as well.
Okay.
And just to confirm also, if we're not happy with that, if we don't feel that it fully protects our people, will we be able to scratch this plan and not put the cameras up? Absolutely.
And you could have a use policy in front of you and say the specific language.
We don't, you know, could be struck.
The language that we currently have in our fixed surveillance use policy around sharing with federal government talks about video surveillance systems and recordings are subject to Berkeley Police Department's immigration law policy and hence may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials.
So we put language like that within our use policy.
We uphold and point to state law.
We also build into the contract very specific expectations which FROC has as part of their normal operating agreements in terms of agreement that it's not shared for those purposes.
Thank you.
I really appreciate that.
And I also just want to clarify that, Chief, that you were saying if there were live monitoring that you'd want to see additional parameters and not that you're advocating for live monitoring.
I just want to make sure that's clear.
Yes, that's absolutely correct.
And like I said, again, within our use policy right now, it specifies very specific times and ways that we use it.
And if we were to step into the space at some point in time in the future for live monitoring, it would be, you know, my expectation would be with the same kind of parameters of safety and need and reasonable suspicion to be clearly identified to our public and for council and the police accountability board and the police department to be able to talk and have conversations about what we, what balances and limits we want on the ability to have that kind of access.
Thank you.
And that really highlights another thing I wanted to just touch on before we finish the rest of our public comments, which is that there are many more steps left here that we will get opportunities to review and that, you know, you will also be speaking with CAB and other members of the community before we're moving forward and actually placing these cameras up there.
So I just want to make sure folks understand that it's not that we're trying to pull one over on anyone, that, you know, this is just part of this process and that we have a very strict process in place to protect people's rights.
So thank you.
That's correct.
I apologize for taking us off track a little bit, but I did want to make sure in case folks had questions on the Zoom that those were answered.
Mr.
City Clerk, I'm sorry.
Can we go back to public comment? I just wanted to give you an opportunity to address some of those things.
Bless you.
Someone in the audience is sneezing.
Okay.
Next comment is Bryce Miller.
Good evening, council.
My name is Bryce Miller.
I'm a student and the president of Telegraph for People on campus.
I'm speaking on item 11 about installing surveillance cameras.
Telegraph for People asks that all of you vote to remove Durant and Telegraph from the list of locations for installing surveillance cameras and vote against any proposal that includes a camera at this location.
Telegraph for People's core mission is spelled out in our name, to create a telegraph that serves people.
We believe that cars do not belong on Telegraph and neither do surveillance cameras.
There are a million other solutions to public safety, like actually investing in disinvested communities and engaging in harm reduction.
Not a single student group was contacted during the alleged outreach process, which is appalling, and we are telling you now that we do not want surveillance cameras in our district that is 95% students.
No level of data security or privacy or noncompliance with the Trump administration will make these cameras a good idea.
Please remove Telegraph and Durant from the list of sites or vote no on item 11.
Thank you.
Thanks, Bryce.
Okay, next up is Dino.
Dino should give out a talk.
Thank you very much.
I just wanted to voice my support to allow law enforcement to be able to do their job.
I'm wholeheartedly in favor of making sure that we put safeguards in place to protect immigrant communities and people that should not have access to this information at the federal level.
However, I do support the idea of safety and security in our downtown area.
I'm the franchisee of the McDonald's at the corner of University and Shattuck, and I would love to be able to continue to provide a safe and secure environment for both our customer, our crew people, and citizens that pass by.
So I'm in support of giving law enforcement the tools that they need to do their jobs.
Thank you for your comment.
Okay, next is David Bullitt.
Yes, hi.
Dave Bullitt from Heroic Italian.
It's disappointing to me that, I guess, for three plus years we already have a program for cameras and only one has been deployed.
So a lot of the work has already been done.
You shouldn't have to redo it all for new cameras.
You know, we can talk about where they should be placed, but I'm in full support of adding cameras.
We should support the police and give them the better ability to track and support those people who are doing things that are inappropriate in our city.
And this should go forward, find some nuanced adjustments, but full support for cameras to reduce the crime in the city.
Thank you.
Okay, next is John Koehner.
Hi, Council.
This is John Koehner, Downtown Berkeley Association.
BPD is asking for 16 cameras.
The city of San Francisco now has 2,000 cameras.
Oakland has 500 plus cameras.
They're adding more in Heggenberger.
This is a standard of technology that's been used to deter, to capture, and prosecute criminal activity.
Not only is this protecting our property, it's protecting our merchants and our visitors from bodily harm.
We're having merchants assaulted regularly, their employees, they're afraid to hire new people, and we need protection to make our downtown and our commercial districts safe.
Please, please, please provide tools for the BPD to do their job.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, next speaker is Daniel Brownson.
So, I would just like to echo what George and Andrea said earlier.

Segment 5

The federal government these days is blatantly ignoring federal courts.
You think they care about the rules and policies of the city of Berkeley? Also, you know, you saw how all the tech barons were lining up to kiss the ring.
Every corporation so far has folded like a damn deck chair.
Furthermore, any data we store in the cloud can be accessed just by the federal government demanding it.
The corporations will give it to them.
The only way it's safe is if it has is a local server with a kill switch.
And we shouldn't be giving BPD any more money until we get to the bottom of texting.
Your time is up.
Thank you for your comment.
Next speaker is Fern Wildtruth.
Thank you.
So I don't believe it would be justified to increase allocations for this project with no empirical evidence yet of public benefit.
And there's great risk of public harm.
I'm also concerned about this project being overseen by unelected officials.
And I'm concerned that I didn't see clear justifications for placing cameras in these particular areas and why they are needed.
And I feel strongly that we shouldn't be funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to edge work and flock that are private out of state companies.
They use surveillance technologies that we know can disproportionately misidentify people based on race.
And I'm alarmed given the rapid movement of our federal government towards authoritarian, repressive, rural and fascism.
Increasing surveillance is exactly what we do not want to do at this time when any existing information might soon be exploited and used to attack political dissent in unanticipated ways.
AI surveillance would especially be easy.
Thank you for your comment.
I'm sorry you're out of time.
Next is the speaker with a phone number ending in 538.
Actually, in our business, we're going to photograph caught one murder and one stabbing.
This was about 10 years ago.
There's a police should have tapes.
We actually, of course, we have the tips to the police DVD or hard drive.
Not only that for both people.
One was a murder.
One guy was killed another guy from bleak, which used to be in business.
Then the other one, just some guys are studying people all over the place.
And both are more caught and prosecuted.
What's worse was that I got a call from the lawyers, you know, submitting me to try again.
Anyway, cameras are a mosque.
Privacy come next to safety.
And by all means, we have to keep that in mind, especially with so many students.
With so many students, so much clients will need cameras.
Please vote for it or anything else.
Vote for pray for peace and it'll stop.
Israel is the worst genocidal.
I wouldn't call it a country in history.
And it is the last.
It'll be the worst loser.
I'm sorry.
Your time is up.
Thank you.
Next is Maria Haseed.
Hello.
My name is Maria Haseed.
I'm the executive director at the David Brower Center in downtown Berkeley.
At the David Brower Center, we're open to the public.
And as a valued member of the downtown, we welcome all types of people through our front doors.
This means we occasionally have to deal with erratic behavior, violent visitors, threats of violence, or even criminal incidents.
I know from our own experience at the Brower Center that after a concerning incident, our camera systems have been invaluable tools.
They've allowed us to identify people of interest and focus our efforts on managing these threats specifically and keeping our building open to the public.
Camera footage allows us to work directly with BPD, providing them with actionable evidence that identifies people who pose legitimate threats to our building and the people in it.
Our downtown community is vibrant, diverse, and includes students, small businesses, nonprofit workers, tourists, visitors, unhoused neighbors, and countless community members.
In the past few months, we've seen an uptick in break-ins, violence, retail theft in our neighborhood, and it's impacted our ability to attract visitors, clients, and tenants to our center.
I'm sorry.
Your time is up.
Thank you for your comment.
Could you tell me just how many comments we have left just so I can keep an eye on the time? Seven more.
Seven more.
Thank you.
Okay.
Next is Beth Rossner.
Good evening, Mayor and Council.
This is Beth Rossner from the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce, and I would like to express our strong support for the resolution to transition the external fixed video camera program over to Flock Safety.
This proposal is a positive step toward enhancing safety in key business districts.
By focusing on high pedestrian areas, it addresses crime trends and retail theft while also responding to feedback from local businesses.
The new camera placements at critical intersections will help improve safety for both businesses and the community.
And we also appreciate that the plan accounts for logistical challenges and includes efforts to secure grant funding to minimize costs.
So on behalf of the chamber and the business community, I ask that you please approve this resolution and support efforts to make Berkeley safer.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Next is Kelly Hammergren.
Thank you.
Policies may come with the best of intentions, but the police department, the city of Berkeley, do not have the ultimate control of the data.
Policies do not protect the data that is stored by an external company.
It seems foolish to believe any collectible surveillance data is not gettable.
If they want it, they can get it.
If property owners want to have security cameras, let them.
But I hope that you will say no to this fixed surveillance program and put it on the back burner while we really figure out what's happening at the federal government, because none of that looks good right now.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Next speaker is David Sherry.
Hi.
So I share the concerns that a lot of people have tonight about data security.
I don't know exactly how FLOC works, but I want folks to understand that there are ways to encrypt data such that it does not matter if FLOC hands over the data to the feds because they would be handing them gibberish.
And so it could hypothetically work such that the data is encrypted by one key that FLOC has and decrypted by another key that someone on city staff has on like a little USB drive in their pocket.
And there is no way to access the data.
A thousand years, you could not break the encryption unless you had that little USB key in the pocket.
So I don't know if FLOC works that way, if that's an option.
But, you know, I hope that we will take, I'm sure that we will take data security very seriously.
And, you know, there are technical solutions.
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
All right.
Next speaker is ODPA.
I think that's our Office of Director of Police Accountability.
Good evening, Mayor, Madam Mayor and Council Members.
I appreciate the opportunity to address you as the Director of Police Accountability.
Please note that the PAB has not met on this.
They're meeting tomorrow.
So there will be a discussion, but I just wanted to flag that at the core of this, I think we do have a process issue that just requires careful scrutiny here.
The City has encountered significant implementation barriers, as you heard from the Chief tonight with Edgeworth integration.
The issue before is not simply about replacing a vendor.
It's about fundamentally changing the nature of the surveillance system itself.
FLOC has capabilities that Edgeworth doesn't.
So the current proposal conflates two distinct issues.
The need to replace a vendor due to installation challenges and the selection of a new vendor.
FLOC safety that offers materially different surveillance model.
I know there was questions about AI facial recognition, but there are other AI driven analytics and automated license plate recognition integration that wasn't contemplated when you accepted both of the proposals from the police department.
Your time is up.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
The next speaker is Alex Knox.
Good evening.
This is Alex Knox from the Telegraph Business Improvement District.
I want to thank BPD for focusing on strategies to address safety in business districts and retail crime.
As we've seen in Berkeley and beyond, attacks on and around businesses can close the doors permanently and threaten the success of our downtowns.
We interact with BPD regularly and frequently and trust their commitment to the principles of community policing, operating with transparency and honesty as they've shown us.
The Telegraph District has also some of the busiest and highest traffic spaces in the city.
We urge the council to ensure that public safety resources are delivered that are always delivered in an equitable and effective manner across the city.
And thank you for your commitment to doing what you can to improve safety in our communities.
Okay, thank you.
Next speaker is Ellie.
Oh, wait.
Hold on one second.
Ellie is the next speaker.
Hello, council.
Can you hear me? Hi, I just wanted to speak on behalf of Berkeley students as a student myself.
I am a rare attendant of council meetings, but this issue was important enough that I wanted to come and say, students do not feel safe with this policy.
The role of the Berkeley Police Department is not to incite fear in the population it claims to protect.
This camera puts students at risk.
It puts our, sorry, it puts our international students at risk.
It puts immigration policy at risk.
This is not a secure system.
You cannot promise the data will be secure.
And quite frankly, the federal government has been steamrolling any government that tries to stand in its way.
The City of Berkeley will be no exception.
A vote to put these cameras in place, a vote to endanger students in an already fragile community that exists in Berkeley.
Thank you.
All right.
Next speaker is Steve Ravalette.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Steve Ravalette.
I'm the president of SafeBears, a 501c3 nonprofit organization with 2,000 parents, students, and community members working to make UC Berkeley safer for students.
In late October of 24, a gunman pointed a handgun at several UC Berkeley students at the intersection or near the intersection of Telegraph and Durant and told them to run.
The gunman proceeded to shoot ballistic rounds haphazardly, one round penetrating the student dormitory building, striking the inside of the bedroom with the student sleeping.
The suspect then fled the area while shooting five more times on Oxford and Shattuck streets.
Berkeley investigators utilizing the new public safety cameras along the escape route were able to identify the suspect, arrest him, and his San Francisco home days later.
Police found 11 weapons, three AR-15 style weapons, five semi-automatic weapons, three revolvers, and 15,000 rounds of ammunition, including kits to make ghost guns.
Only six of those guns were registered.
This is just one successful conclusion of crimes that have been committed in Berkeley.
Sorry, your time is up.
Thank you for your public comment.
Next is Bruce Bauer.
Mr.
Bauer, you should be able to unmute.
Can you hear me now? Yes.
Okay.
I'm Bruce Bauer.
I'm also a member of Safe Bears.
I wanted to thank BPD for the installation of this system, and I'd like to advocate for the camera at Durant and Telegraph.
I'm a retired detective with UCPD, and I can't express how many cases we could have solved with something like that.
It's just a tremendous piece of technology, and I hope it's successful.
Okay.
Thank you.
Next is BSC President.
BSC President, you should be able to unmute.
Let's try it again.
BSC President? Can they raise their hand on the new device? Is there another comment that we can take while we're waiting? Yeah, there's one more commenter.
The name is CYN.
Like CYN.
Go ahead.
Oh, that's the same person.
Okay.
Thank you so much.
Yeah, hi.
My name is CYN.
I live on Southside, and I'm a Cal alum.
I just wanted to express that I do not want this and hope that our public officials can respect that public comment time is our time as the membership of our city.
I think one of the concerns that hasn't really been addressed appropriately is the fact that we know that, or we aren't completely certain that we can turn off the sound on these cameras, and we seem to not really have a problem with that.
If nobody here on the side of folks that live here find that to be an appropriate method, and I found the leading questions to not be super helpful from our representatives, so I please ask for more intention behind this.
The poorly timed aspect of this entire conversation is extremely disappointing.
I myself have been harassed by the Berkeley police many times, and this doesn't make me feel any safer.
Also speaking on my own behalf, but as the president of the Berkeley student co-ops, where we have two co-ops within walking distance, this is extremely frustrating and doesn't make us feel safe.
Thank you for your comment.
Oh, we do have one more commenter.
If you want to speak and you're on the Zoom, raise your hand now, or this is the last speaker.
The speaker is Anais Shergill.
Hi, my name is Anais Shergill.
I'm an undergraduate student at UC Berkeley, and I am also the ASUC External Affairs Legislative Lead of Policing.
So, I monitor a lot of the policing issues, and I'm also a liaison for other organizations on campus who have policing issues.
I just don't really see the need for these surveillance cameras, as quite honestly, we have UCPD right on Sproul, and we have Berkeley PD not too far off.
So, it just doesn't really seem like a very productive use of funds, and I also don't really see how useful it will be for deterring crime, specifically considering the fact that we physically have two police departments within proximity of several of the areas where they want to implement cameras.
So, as the Legislative Lead of Policing and also just as a student who is concerned about their safety on campus, I think that this would not be a very productive implementation, not only fiscally, but also just for safety-wise for the students, and I could very well see it being used for more harm than good.
So, yeah, I would very greatly, as a community member, oppose this initiative.
Your time is up.
Thank you for your public comment.
I want to go back.
I know that our police accountability board, our director, was here speaking on public comment, so he was only given that one minute in his public comment, but I heard him mention something about process concerns or something to that effect.
So, I would like to bring him back if he's still here to be able to finish what his comment was.
Hansel, if you're still on, there you are.
Okay.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I promise I'll be quick.
I'm not trying to take up time.
I know you have a lot of deliberation on this item.
So, what am I concerned here is that the BMC 299, it contemplates a very deliberative process.
I understand and respect the cities and the police department's concerns that there are installation issues with the selected vendor, and I'm not trying to re-litigate the concerns about the external camera program.
That's something that the PAB went before the council.
What I'm just concerned right now is that we're conflating the need for a new vendor in a very specific vendor that they have identified already.
I know that, Madam Mayor, you asked the chief, if you're not satisfied that they could potentially reject it, but why not expand our search on the vendor to others that may potentially come in? FLOC isn't the only vendor that could potentially have the technical capacities that's still within the confines of the use policy that you already approved last year.
So, those are some of my basic concerns.
There is, I think, a substantial difference between these two vendors.
And the other thing, I think that we just still need to do more assessment.
I know that the police department was there for their presentation on the annual report, and I commend some of the strategies that they're utilizing, but when they were discussing their FLOC program, one thing that I think is important, they do have on their transparency portal some of the data regarding how much vehicles are being detected, and it has capabilities that I think are just noteworthy.
In the last 30 days, half a million vehicles have been detected through the FLOC cameras.
I assume that if that's the capacity, that we probably detected over a million vehicles since their implementation.
So, those are things to think about, the capacity for this technology to be able to do this.
And just one last point, when the PAB did note that in the literature review, we kept citing the urban industry report as part of the conversation the city council did.
And the point that the PAB was trying to make there was that they weren't advocating for continuous monitoring.
They were saying the literature, even the urban institute report that was cited, was saying that external cameras are only effective or the most effective when there's continuous monitoring, which is something the department is not doing.
But now, FLOC could potentially enhance that capability through all the AI features that they have in place.
So, those are the kind of things we would be discussing through the vetting process.
Okay.
Thank you for your, thank you.
Thanks for coming back.
All right.
So, I know that Council Member Humbert, I'm sorry, let me just make sure.
Are there any other public comments? I think you yielded your time already.
I'm so sorry.
So, yeah.
Okay.
So, I know that Council Member Humbert has his hand raised and then Council Member Trako.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I support this proposal because I think it represents a necessary pivot in our strategy for deterring and solving crime.
I also support additional authorization for the four locations mentioned should funding become available.
And those are Ashby-Domingo in my district, Ashby-San Pablo, Ashby and 6th, and Ashby and University.
A lot of Ashby's in there.
The previous approach to cameras and the associated vendor do not appear to be workable because it would require the installation of new electrical infrastructure at a very high cost and in a manner which PG&E, which is known to be dilatory, might not be able to immediately accommodate.
We're also seeing dividends from the installation of the FLOC, ALPRs.
I think this shows this approach has a good technological foundation.
And I think we have to act on this because we were already still dealing with the heightened crime since the pandemic.
But now we've had some additional really very brash smash and grabs at our beloved local businesses.
And I know the issue of Telegraph and Durant has come up repeatedly.
And what I would say about that is it's a critical location, I think, very different from Telegraph and Dwight, which was excluded last time, much busier.
And in fact, the site of much violent crime, including in 1922, a murder in October of 2022, there was a murder right at this intersection using a firearm.
All this said, of course, I agree it's very important that we seek to guard civil liberties and meet the requirements of the surveillance technology as we move forward.
For this reason, I support Council Member Trigov's additional language, which he can put up on the screen to ensure the protection of this data from acquisition and misuse by ICE and other agencies outside the City of Berkeley.
This measure is intended to keep our residents and visitors safe, not for any other purpose.
When this returns to us for final approval, I think it will be important to closely review the provisions related to civil liberties and preventing misuse of any camera system.
But as a general step forward, I support this proposal and will be voting to advance it tonight.
In fact, I'm going to want to make a motion to pass Item 11 on the action calendar with the additional language to be put up on the screen by Council Member Trigov regarding the protection of data and specifically authorizing all of the locations mentioned in the item, including the four additional locations mentioned, which I listed.
And that's my motion pending, great, pending CM Trigov's putting the extra language up, which I think is critical.
Sure, yes, Council Member Trigov, will you please put that up on the screen and then it's your turn for comments.
Although while you're putting that up, if you wouldn't mind, I'd love to give our City Manager an opportunity to speak as well.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I just have one also slight modification to the result to the reso.
So, after the now, therefore, let it be resolved that the City Manager is hereby authorized to, I want to add in pursuant to BMC 2.99.
Uh, BMC 2.99 colon and the rest of those things, just it's sort of belt and suspenders, but just to make it abundantly clear that that's what we've been talking about all night.
So, just add it in there.
Yes, I think that clarification is very important.
So thank you for bringing that up now as well.
I'll go back to you Council Member if you're prepared and then also, would you mind just.
Making it a little bit bigger on the screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That's fine.
Sorry.
I was trying to make it easier for folks to read it.
Okay, go ahead with your comment.
Okay.
Thank you.
I will start out by saying.
I'm, I'm grateful for everyone who came here tonight and spoke so eloquently, whatever side you spoke on.
As a native of Ukraine, I now like the democratic process is more important now than ever.
So I appreciate it.
We are in times that require us to hold a multitude of truths.
One truth is a country that is careening towards fascism.
And there are legitimate concerns, and I will come back to that because that is what has prompted my effort.
Over the past several days to craft language that.
Attempts to have among, if not the strongest language in the nation around data privacy.
Another truth is the 1 in my district.
And while I have received eloquent comments on both sides, there is a sizable majority of constituents.
Both those who live in district 4, and those who own small businesses in district 4 that have passionately argued for the presence of cameras.
And I.
When I spoke with, because I took the time to speak with everyone in the district who opened their door last year.
Public safety kept coming up as the top issue at the time.
I was skeptical.
Around the presence of certain cameras, but as an engineer, I, I like data.
I followed the data.
And the data is overwhelming that flock cameras do help us.
Combat many different types of crimes that otherwise would continue unabated.
You see that my district includes the majority of the proposed camera locations.
That is no accident because part of the previous work session, we know that my district also has the highest number of calls for service.
And so.
In attempting to find a balance.
Between those 2 truths, I've worked closely with the city attorney's office and with the police chief and several privacy activists also provided consultation to our office on language.
And I also appreciate council member black of the stock partnership on this.
And so I will read the language council member.
Would you just mind taking it out of the nighttime mode or something? So it can be viewed a little bit clearly and then just make sure if you could read it out loud to folks to make sure it's how do I take it out of nighttime mode? I need I need help from my fellow millennium millennial friends.
I'm Jan X.
I'm out.
Yeah, well, is it a nighttime mode? Yeah, does it do that automatically? I think so.
Okay, that's okay.
I don't want to take too much time to do that.
So, if it's not quick, I'm just going to lead it into the questions.
I can read it again, but this would be a new resolved clause, which would say, be it for the result.
That flock safety will be directed to not share information data or other assets from the external fixed video surveillance camera program with any personnel or agencies outside of the city of Berkeley, including in response to an administrative subpoena or other request from another government.
Agency, unless compliance is required by court order or other appropriate directive violation of this provision shall be considered grounds for termination of the contract flock safety will inform the city of Berkeley immediately upon receiving any legal or other orders from other jurisdictions.
And I will just add, I have also been consulting with other jurisdictions, including the city of Oakland, which does use a camera and they have identified no privacy concerns because state law prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data with agencies that are outside of the city of Berkeley.
And I will just add, I have also been consulting with other jurisdictions, including the city of Oakland, which does use a camera and they have identified no privacy concerns because state law prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data with agencies that are outside of the city of Berkeley.

Segment 6

And that flock is fairly transparent about the data that they collect, including having a public-facing dashboard.
So again, that not the data itself, there's a dashboard.
I want to also just remind the public that this is the first step in what is going to be an intensive process for good reason.
I was one of the 85% of the Berkeley community that supported the formation of the Police Accountability Board.
This will be going to the Police Accountability Board, and then it will be going back to council for final dispensation after that.
And lastly, I will just note that while I'm very passionate about the needs in my district, I'm also very deferential to the needs of my colleagues on the dais in other districts.
And so to the extent that some of my colleagues may have concerns about cameras being in their district, I would be deferential towards such a request to exclude cameras from those districts.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council member Lenapar, I know you had your hand up earlier.
Yeah, thank you.
I think the parliamentarian system isn't working again.
Thank you.
I know that we're balancing a lot here and that we all care about public safety and that we all care about privacy and that we care about our vulnerable residents.
But I want to make it very clear what we are risking, and I want to make it clear that this is a risk.
And I have a couple questions for the city attorney to highlight this risk, but first I want to talk a little bit about the lack of engagement with the student community that we see over and over and over again.
This item was written in consultation with business districts and in community meetings, but in my conversations with the Berkeley Police Department, they did not talk to a single student group.
This is really, really concerning.
Students make up 38% of our city's population.
That's not okay.
I just want to make it very clear because this is something that is really close to my heart.
And I just want to make it very clear that this is something that is really close to my heart.
Just as it would make no sense for me to call councilmember Traygov's parents to hear his thoughts on the item, only consulting safe bears, which is a parent group of people who don't live here, mostly don't live here, but not students themselves, is offensive, it is infantilizing, and it makes no sense.
And I just want to make it very clear that this is a very, very serious and dangerous item, and that is why we're hearing so many people who live and work and study in the area, oppose this camera.
They were not consulted in the first place.
Because of UC Berkeley's nonviolent encampment last year, Trump has outwardly and explicitly identified UC Berkeley as a target.
And that is why we're hearing so many people who live and work in the area, oppose this camera.
The only way, the only way that we can keep our city a sanctuary city is by not collecting this data at all.
I want to clarify something with the city attorney's office.
If this data is subpoenaed in court and by a judge, the city has to relinquish it, correct? If they receive a court order issued by a judge, then there may be ways to challenge it, but most likely, yeah, that would be legally required for us to comply at that point.
So, I understand that everyone wants to make sure that there are guardrails in this policy so that we don't, are not putting people in harm's way, and I really, really appreciate that, that we're putting it at the forefront of this discussion.
And at the same time, I want us to understand fully that this policy does not come, even with the increased language, does not come without risk to our vulnerable communities.
And like I said earlier, I know that we're balancing a lot of things, and I know that we're balancing a lot of constituents who have differing opinions on how we should address public safety.
And I completely understand that and completely understand where people are coming from.
And I think that it is also our responsibility to make sure that people both are safe and feel safe.
And it is, it has been made very, very clear, I think, many times over that residents of Southside, the majority of residents of Southside do not feel more safe with these cameras in the district.
Even if I had full faith that this data could never be shared.
With the federal government, which I don't many of my constituents would believe it to be true and perception in this case is reality.
And even if these cameras were fully safe from ice.
Many of my constituents would frequent this intersection less often, which again makes the intersection less safe in a perfect world.
These cameras might keep us more safe and I'm not trying to say anything about the, our police department.
I'm not, I don't think that our police department is going to misuse this, but the existence of this data in the 1st place.
Leads to the opportunity for misuse.
In actuality, it will make my constituents less safe.
For that reason, I would like to make a substitute motion.
I would like to make a substitute motion.
To with the same the same as the original motion while excluding telegraph and Durant from the list.
Like I said, I have many concerns about the camera system as a whole.
But I understand that the complex issues that we're dealing with and I ask you, I plead with you that we can keep.
The camera system as they come, which are different in different parts of the city.
Yeah, thank you.
That's my mission.
So, actually, council members could be in Bartlett had their hands raised before and then council member taplin apologies for that.
I know the most.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Yes.
Does someone have a 2nd.
What's the motion it's the same as the previous motion just without the telegraph and Durant location.
Okay, all right.
So we have 2 motions currently.
On the floor council member black could be council member Bartlett and then council member taplin.
Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you.
Madam mayor.
And can I just say, I really appreciate the eloquent words from customer Luna para and the passion and the, the care that she's given to these issues and I appreciate her concerns.
Uh, very much.
So, thank you for speaking out with such eloquence on those issues.
I like to thank my colleagues for this discussion and think every member of the public who's come out to talk about this issue tonight.
Something that these are very difficult issues in terms of the balancing between safety and privacy and concerns about federal government overreach.
And so, again, I appreciate that this is a place where we can have these sorts of conversations in a civil way and respectful way in a way we can try and hear each other and learn from each other.
So, thank you.
I'll say, you know, where I'm coming out on this is in an environment where our police department is still striving for full staffing and we wish we could have more police and community safety officers in places.
We wish there were a lot of things that maybe we could do differently, but I think kind of given the reality of where we at and the effective use of cameras that we've seen in the recent past, I do support moving forward.
I support the use of this technology to keep our community safe.
I also want to acknowledge what others have said that this is the 1st step and there are more steps in the process.
This is not a final product.
And through the, again, I served on the PAB and value the role of that institution in kind of going through this in a very detailed way on the surveillance use policy and the acquisition policy.
And so I support moving forward with the process, but also there's more steps here before it comes back to the council for final consideration.
Many commenters have raised really important points that I think we do need to consider when it comes to that use policy around privacy and around federal government overreach.
I think where the data is stored, and whether it's local or in the cloud, as Council Member O'Keefe mentioned and others, I think that's worthy of consideration.
How long the data is retained to me is also really important.
And it may be that if we do have concerns about who might access and under what conditions we would be obligated to give access, we may come up with very different decisions on how long to retain data, because we do not want to hold on to data for long periods of time if that data is going to be potentially misused.
I also appreciate the comments on the encryption protocols, and this should be a very important part of the discussions.
How flock does the encryption and what are our options to basically bring that to the highest possible standard? One other thing that hasn't been discussed that I'd be very interested in, and I think we've done this in previous technology use policies, is making sure that we bake in frequent look back reports.
And again, we won't necessarily obligate it or set it now.
I look forward to setting that in this process, but whether it's every 6 months or whatever, or even potentially more frequently as resources allow, the effectiveness of the cameras, the tradeoffs, the costs, and the benefits around access and their effectiveness at deterring or solving crime, I think those sorts of reports and analysis on a frequent basis back to PAB, back to the Council would also be really important.
To make sure that the cameras are doing what we expected them to do, and that they're working properly.
One of the comments on the concerns about federal government overreach, and again, with respect, and I understand the concerns, I also think that if the federal government at some point were to seize illegally data that is owned by the city of Berkeley, even as sensitive as that information might be, we'd have much bigger problems on our hands than just giving them access to this data, right? That's DEFCON 1 in terms of sort of local control of policing and local control of our data, data that is legally ours.
And if they work around the law, circumvent the law, seize it illegally, you could bet that the state of California and this Council in the city of Berkeley will push back with full force, and I think it would spark more than just a discussion about the particular use policy of this technology and their access to the technology.
So, again, I share the concern, but I also think there'd be much, it would raise, we'd be at DEFCON 1 on a whole variety of other issues besides the particular data.
And then the last piece on the concerns about particular locations of technology.
Again, I appreciate the heartfelt concerns here.
I do think that as we go through this process, we need to include the viewpoints of students, student organizations, and whether it's with this and also for future decisions like this, we need to do a better job of that.
So, I appreciate that issue being raised, but also feel with respect, this should be a citywide decision, and it should be a citywide process since all of our residents live and work and travel all over the city and outside the city with no respect to district boundaries.
And so, again, with respect, I think if the decision is this is a place where we think the data shows and our belief is from a law enforcement perspective, we need a camera and it's good for public safety as a city as a whole.
I think to me, that's the, to me, that's the standard because I don't just live and work in district 6.
I live and work and spend time all over the city and I think that's true of everyone and people have certain expectations of public safety wherever they go.
So, that's kind of where I'm coming out on all this.
I appreciate the work with Council Member Trageb on the amendment.
I appreciate Council Member Humbert offering the motion and I will be supporting the primary motion.
Thank you for the time.
Thank you.
Council Member Bartlett.
Oh, thank you.
Thanks so much, Madam Mayor.
And it's been quite interesting, this debate tonight and on the one hand, in my district, where one of the cameras will be moved to is a site of 3 shootings over 2 months.
And another area with tremendous requests from constituents living there for the cameras.
And as tonight, we know earlier from our first meeting, BPD is just really on the good foot right now.
They've really shown themselves to be excellent partners with community, embracing constitutional policing and the equitable elements that we fought for for so many years.
50 something years and really, really manifest.
And so, you know, I actually have very little doubt that BPD will handle this information.
However, on the other hand, it is extraordinarily clear to me that the federal government is going in a direction that will threaten our civil liberties.
And it's happening at a breakneck clip.
And I have no doubt in my mind, zero doubt that they will seize whatever data is on that company servers related to us without a doubt.
And so, you know, this process will go on and we'll go back to the to the PAB and and develop it.
But I would like to say, for the record, I want to make a motion now, but I have language to add to Councilor Traigub's language in the contract.
I can read it or I can just put it for the record or try to make a motion.
I can't assess the room since I can barely breathe, but I can just read it if you want to hear it.
Okay, so Council Member Bartlett, I would like Council Member Traigub to pull up the language.
And then if you have some language that you're proposing, I think it would be best if you sent it to us so that we could read it unless it's quite short, just because I want to make sure we're all clear about what we would be voting on.
Sure, let me email it to you.
Okay, so in the meantime, yeah, Council Member Taplin.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I just want to say a few things.
This is already going to PAB.
The murder that happened in 2002 weighs heavily on me.
Those of us who were here when we adopted the surveillance ordinance, if we stood by it then, we should stand by it now.
Those of us who were here when we adopted all of our sanctuary city policies, if we stood by them then, we should stand by them now.
That being said, is there a way to sever the location of Telegraph and Durant? Can we just sever that one? Mr.
Clerk.
I think that was the motion, the second motion that's on.
There's a substitute motion, but I would like to sever.
I guess that's technically, yes, perhaps, but are you voicing your support then for the substitute motion? I am voicing my support for the main motion, but I.
I would prefer a severance, no pun intended.
I'm sorry, a severance of what? The Telegraph and Durant location, which I guess is the same as this.
Okay, so that is okay.
So you're voicing your support for the.
Substitute motion, sorry, for the main motion? I am supporting the main motion.
Okay, I am supporting Humbert's motion.
Okay.
All right, but do you recognize that the motion that was made by Councilmember Lunaparra is essentially just removing that intersection? Is that correct? If Telegraph and Durant.
Yeah, no other changes.
Okay.
Okay.
Councilmember O'Keefe.
Thanks.
Okay, I have a little speech, of course, but I have a question for City Attorney first regarding the judicial warrant scenario.
So, tell me what would happen if, let's say we keep the data for 30 days and then it's automatically deleted.
They come in with the warrant.
We're like, oh, no, this sucks.
We have to give it to them.
Unfortunately, we try not to, but we have to.
Can the police choose to just.
Stop recording at that moment? Do they, like, can the federal government compel us to continue the surveillance? Because I would think that would be a good time to press the off button on the surveillance and then they only get 30 days.
Is that how can you say how would that work? Yeah, I don't think that the, I don't think the court could require it to continue into the future, but.
But any records that we do have, I understand we can't destroy that's destroying evidence.
I understand we can't, you know, they can get 30 days, but.
I guess what I'm saying is we do have agency.
My understanding is that we do have agency and not succumbing to this federal.
Surveillance state that none of us wants should this happen.
So, I mean, it would be a bummer if they got 30 days worth of data, but.
That would be it, I think is that is it fair to say that I mean, I was just going to say we can terminate the contract.
Can you stop recording data? Yeah, like, do they have to come to us and get permission? Can they just do it? If they want, I mean, they're contracting with us, so we get to tell them what we want, right? I mean, in terms of our rules, like, is there anything stopping chief Lewis from saying, oh, hell no.
And just, like, literally just stopping the software from running operationally.
I don't see why we couldn't do that.
Okay, unless you're aware of some reason why we couldn't, I mean, no, I tend to agree.
We're not required to come to counsel to ask permission to terminate the contract, especially with the language.
It's proposed by council member trigger that that clearly spells out.
But that would be an automatic grounds for termination.
And that would be something that I think our values and our community values and our city policy and the state law would would ask us to do as well expect us to do.
So, yeah, I suspect that's a unanimous sentiment.
So just just to, you know, the scary scenarios are scary, but we still have agency no matter what.
That's my belief.
So, that said, here's how I feel about this.
This this item has come before us as part of the process set out by the original recent surveillance ordinance that was passed.
I believe last year.
Is that right? It was less than a year ago.
It was very recently, but a couple of figures.
Oh, okay.
Well, anyway, it was pretty recently.
This is a law that was passed.
By this council, some of some members of this current council were on the council.
Then we outlined this policy.
We did.
This is the 1st step in a.
In a process that was outlined by our law, so.
It seems it seems ridiculous to me to just immediately subvert that process that we've just agreed to.
And I want to say that.
Like, the process is actually fairly cumbersome.
I've been looking into it and I want to say just while I have an opportunity to not to say this without violating the Brown act that I'm actually working on an item that will actually make the process better.
And easier, so we're looking at cleaning it up.
If anybody wants to talk to you about that later.
2 of you can, but anyway, it's just it's not I think it's I checked.
I can I can tell you guys that so I'm interested in improving this process, but this is what we have now.
They have to come here and ask us for these locations and this technology and then go out and see if they can make it work and then come back and do the use policy and all that.
So, I just wanted to say this is I'm in favor of this process because we need to have a process and this is step 1.
so I'm supporting this.
I'm supporting the emotion.
And, you know, I do have, I'll just say, because everyone's talking about, I do have questions about data storage and the vulnerability, even if there's 30 days, I do have those concerns.
I want to talk about them when we talk about it later, and I teach data privacy at Berkeley high school.
I do know something about this and I, I actually don't think it's as simple as.
The encryption is such that it would take 100Billion years to crack it.
I actually, it's a little bit more complicated than that.
And I am the encryption thing is not quite enough for me.
So, I'm going to support the main motion.
And I actually just want to say 1 more thing.
Have I got over 5 minutes? No.
Okay.
You know, a lot of the speakers who came tonight were reading their comments off of smartphones.
And I just want to remind the public I bet every single person in this room has a smartphone.
And I just want to remind the public that we are already being tracked.
I regret to inform you.
And now I know it's not by law enforcement.
I know it's not the same.
But, you know, you talk about the evil big tech companies who are cozying up to Trump.
They can already track you and I don't like it either, but that's the reality we live in.
I personally am okay being surveilled by a group that I trust who is trying to keep me safe who are not closing up to Trump and literally just want to keep us all safe.
I am personally comfortable with that.
Most of my constituents are and I feel very comfortable voting yes on the motion.
Okay, Councilmember Casarwani.
Thank you.
Thank you everyone.
Thank you.
Councilmember O'Keefe for saying what we're all already thinking in terms of the use of the cell phones.
So, I have always been a supporter of using technology because our police officers can't be everywhere all the time and I think Councilmember Blackaby talked about that.
We talked about that at our 4 PM meeting, the recruitment work that we're doing so that we can have our officers have shorter response times to those serious calls.
And so I think it is important for us to use these vlog cameras.
We see the evidence that these cameras help us solve serious crimes when members of our community are victimized.
So, I am in strong support.
I just want to clarify, you know, the 16 locations and these 4 additional locations, how were those selected? By looking at data and where crimes that could conceivably be captured by the cameras occur at the greatest frequency.
Okay, so, you know, I appreciate Councilmember Lunapatra's points about the location in her district.
I just think that.
And I think others have already made this point that 1 intersection isn't just used by.
A certain segment of the population, we all travel around.
Our entire city, we have people coming from outside of our city to visit and everybody wants to know that wants to have the comfort of knowing that if God forbid they are a victim of a serious crime.
That we have done everything possible to try to bring accountability for that crime.
So, I think we need to approve all of the locations and begin this very cumbersome process to acquire this technology.
I also want to say that it has been an extremely scary and stressful time since January 20th with this administration.
It feels like every day it gets ramped up further and I totally understand the fears that people are feeling in terms of the federal access to our data.
We, you know, I think.
The safeguards, the language that Councilmember Trago has proposed is very good.
And I would actually ask if that could be shared again, because I was not tracking this piece that.
That that became.
Sort of became exposed with Councilmember O'Keefe's questioning.
I didn't realize this language.
If I understand now correctly that it actually provides for.
Discontinuing the contract in the event that the federal government is seeking the data.
Is that correct? Okay, so I feel very good about that.
I didn't realize it was.
It was stating that I'll look at it again.
So, so I, I want the community to know that.
So, so we would essentially have a pause and indefinite pause if that were to occur.
So, so I think that's very important and and that that does give me a lot of comfort with this.
And when I was hearing that concern about federal agents seeking this data, I'm, I'm also.
We also have to balance that with the reality that crime does happen.
In this community, right? We also want to keep our community safe.
And so we have to sort of balance these risks and I think the language from Councilmember Trago does that effectively in my opinion.
And so that's all I have and I'm prepared to support the main motion.
Thank you.
Yeah, so Councilmember you're on my list and then I'm not sure if Councilmember Humbert, if you have your hand raised from before or if it's a new comment.
Oh, okay.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Councilmember and then Councilmember Bartlett.
Thank you.
I have 1 quick question.
How long do we keep data? Is it the data is it 30 days or is it.
Longer our current policy is we keep our data 30 days and the fixed cameras for 180 days.
The fixed cameras for 180 days.
Okay.
Thank you.
I'm glad that we could clarify that.
Um, thanks, I, I want to push back on something that that was said earlier about about us being in a really in a really dangerous position that that this would not be the biggest problem on our hands if we were to keep data for a longer period of time.
And so I don't think that we necessarily that we're necessarily super far off from the federal government.
Illegally, obtaining are this kind of data.
And so I don't think that we necessarily that we're necessarily super far off from the federal government.
Illegally, obtaining are this kind of data.
I also want to say that, you know, when somebody when somebody uses has and uses a smartphone like somebody said earlier, they are consenting to being surveilled in that way versus walking around on the street.
I mean, technically, if there's a sign there, technically, they're also consenting, but it is obviously entirely different.
I also I understand what people are saying about what my colleagues are saying about crime.
You know, everybody goes to every part of the city and crime is not.
It's not siloed in in districts and I understand that I also, you know, if you walk around telegraph at any point.
During the day at any day, it is disproportionately students and young people that are there.
Like, that is just a basic assumption, right? And that population is disproportionately.
Immigrant much more likely to identify as as transgender, much more likely to be a part of an activist group to be protesting.
And I want to highlight what the we received a letter from the student government leaders over half of the senators and most of the executives who represent an elected body of UC Berkeley students.
And they expressed that the student body, especially those who are black, brown, indigenous and or immigrants have overwhelmingly expressed opposition to the use of surveillance cameras for public safety.
Many feel that these cameras do not make them feel safer.
In fact, they feel less safe.

Segment 7

I'm so glad to be here.
And I'm so grateful that you're here.
We're all in this together, and our communities are all secure, knowing that they are being surveilled.
Our immigrant, transgender and activist student populations, already burdened by violent institutional attacks, should not be made more afraid to walk, live, study or protest in their own neighborhood.
Our communities, whether politically active or not, are disproportionately impacted by surveillance, further contributing to the mistrust and alienation from the same institutions supposedly designed to protect us.
We are balancing a lot right now, and I want to just make it very, very clear that this intersection and this area, again, is predominantly used by students and the people who live around it are young people.
And I also want to point out that the item that we are, that we are looking at tonight explicitly says that part of the.
The, what went into this decision making process was, was collaborating with community groups, which is what I was what I was highlighting.
That was not.
That was not done with the student community.
I want to reiterate that my motion is the exact same as the main motion simply with this 1 camera removed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council member council member Bartlett.
Oh, yes.
Thank you.
Madam mayor.
So, oh, oh, that's right.
That's that's where it should go.
Has agreed to to to post language and adjacent to next as we can see it, but essentially.
This is the sort of language.
That comes with during our talk, and basically it establishes liquidated damages.
Which is a financial penalty of a certain amount enough to be a disincentive for the vendor to sell us out and which gives us the right to get out of the contract.
And if we leave it, they have to give back all of our data and all that business.
And then the 2nd, part of it is the external fixed video surveillance camera program shall be exclusively owned and controlled by the city of Berkeley.
And shall be stored in a secure on premises or city managed physical store system, not in a cloud based or 3rd party controlled environments.
Block safety shall have no independent access to control over a rise in the data beyond what is explicitly authorized by the city of Berkeley.
So, that's the that gets to the, the.
The data protection aspect of it, because the cloud is, it will be accessed by the administration promise me.
So, this could be a subject to review by legal, but at least want to make this intent very clear for anyone listening.
That this is a serious issue that that.
My office takes seriously as well.
Thank you.
Council member of vice mayor vice mayor Bartlett.
I will get that.
I'm hoping our city attorney could speak to this.
I, I am very concerned about bringing forward language on something that's quite sensitive without having their review.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm not sure I'm not sure I can answer that.
I'm sorry.
I'm not sure I can answer that.
I'm sorry or perhaps I should ask the question.
Have you been able to review this data? Or this I'm sorry, this language I'm sorry, it's already been a long night.
No, not not this this new 1.
I'm sorry to follow up on that.
Could you speak at all.
provide some background proof explanation for that.
And just to show why there aren't any major legal red flags that are about operationally.
But, um, but, yeah, ideally it would take a look at it before kind of Green lighting.
It.
Mr.
City manager.
Thank you.
I, you know, if this is something you want us to contemplate or negotiate or discuss with the contract with.
There'll be fine to refer that as a discussion point for us if it's qualified in here as, as it is, without further legal review.
But, um, I don't know if we can do that.
I don't think we can do that.
So it would be better if we had the opportunity to talk to him about it.
So, can you maybe tell us how we could include language that would capture this while still giving you the ability to have those conversations and maybe it says something to the effect of the city, you know, shall discuss with flock the potential for this stuff.
So, can we have council member adjust the language so that I would be correct given what we've just discussed and.
And just to clarify, because we have 2 motions, so are you offering a friendly amendment to council member motion then.
I think I think it's its own motion.
I don't know if we'll agree to this 1.
I'm getting a head shake from the city clerk.
So if the city clerk or the deputy city clerk could speak to this, please and then I will come back to the comments that I see the comments in the queue.
I think we already have 2 motions on the floor, so we can't add an additional 3rd stand on motion.
Okay.
So it would be a friendly amendment then to council member.
Humbert's motion council member Humbert.
Do you want to speak to that? Yes, I don't accept that as a friendly amendment.
Thank you.
With all due respect to my to the vice mayor.
Oh, okay.
Or actually, I should say council member Bartlett if you would like, you could also make this as a friendly amendment to council member Luna powers motion as well.
Okay, yeah, so that's this could be a friendly minute to.
Council member Humbert, do you want to make a friendly amendment to council members motion to refer this to the above language to the city team to to discuss with the vendor any of the any vendor? Yes.
Oh, wait with the flock safety.
Thank you.
All right.
So, council member Humbert, did you have another comment that you wanted to make? And then council member black could be and then tap them and I'm sorry to interrupt.
Was that also accepted by the 2nd or of the? Oh, yes.
Thank you.
Yeah, I'm friendly to that as long as we're very clear that this is a referral.
It's not part of the amended language before.
Yes.
Thank you.
Okay, council member Humbert, did you have another comment? No.
Okay.
Council member lack of be very quick is with or without the language.
We could still negotiate this with or without the referral.
We could still negotiate this in the acquisition agreement and the contract.
Right? There's like, this does not have to be present tonight to still achieve this goal.
Right? I just want to be clear on that.
That's correct.
Okay, because I, because there are some operational things and I tend to think that again, I know this is a referral, but I tend to think that the local control of data is probably better, but I'm not 100% sure.
So there are some operational things in there that were that I just, I would just be more comfortable working that through in the process because we do have more steps in the process to really hammer these pieces out.
Thank you.
Yes, thank you.
Council member Chaplin.
No, okay.
Are there other comments from folks? Okay.
Council member apiece.
I just want to say plus 1 to what Brent just said.
Okay.
Okay.
So I have some comments myself.
I think, first of all, I know this happened a long time ago at this point, but I just want to again, thank you for your presentation and also appreciate my colleagues comments and questions.
I thought that they were very important and also the responses from our team over here.
And.
Yeah, you know, I do want to make a comment that I think is really important that we include students as we're having these conversations, especially when we're looking at an area where there are so many students.
I definitely can understand why students would be upset at not being included in these.
So, you know, my ask is that students are included moving forward when we have these educational opportunities or opportunities for feedback.
Yeah, thank you very much.
I want to acknowledge that council member is graciously offered to make a lot of those connections for us and looking forward to those future collaborations.
Thank you.
I really appreciate that.
And thank you.
Council member for bringing that up.
I think you're a great advocate for your district.
So I also have a lot of concerns about the.
Wording just, I think what's most important to me is that I want to see a really robust safety plan for the data, including information about hacking.
If the federal government can access it in any way to make sure that students are included in those conversations.
What does that look like? What would happen if the data is violated? To me? It's not enough to just say that the contract is ended because it's kind of too late at that point, because that data would still exist.
So, and 1 thing, though, just taking a step back that I want to comment on is that I think it's important when we're talking about concerns of what the federal government could get that we have some hypotheticals about what it is we're worried about them getting.
Because, for instance, if it's just video footage of someone walking down the street, and then they don't get it until, like, a few months later after we fought them in court or a year later, then is that data actually going to be useful and deporting someone? Anyway, I just want to make sure that we're really going through the hypotheticals.
So we're really clear about what it is that we're concerned about.
And, yeah, I just want to again reiterate that stopping the recordings won't solve the problems of the recordings being used.
However, I do appreciate council member keeps kind of line of thinking because we do have a certain amount of days that the footage is available.
And if the footage is deleted, and it takes such a long time for the federal government to access that that data, then that could also potentially solve our problems.
So I just feel like that there's a lot of information that needs to be kind of gone through here.
I do really hear everyone trying to balance public safety and also the rights of our undocumented community communities of color, LGBTQ folks.
Especially the trans community.
So I really appreciate all of that.
There's a lot of pieces to take into account here.
And I also hear the business community and community members who feel that these cameras will be helpful in both deterring crime and also making sure that we're able to have have evidence when crimes occur that we're able to bring bring some justice here.
So, I am in support of the main motion and I want to just briefly say why I think that if we're not confident that this data is going to be safe enough for Durant and Telegraph, then we shouldn't be confident enough that the data is good enough for the whole city.
So I would rather keep all of the cameras together and I've said it already.
So you already know, I'm very concerned about the data piece of this, especially as we are moving into the fall of 2021.
And so I really want to make sure that from a legal standpoint that we have all of our bases covered.
And so, as we go through the process, I will be asking questions about that.
That's very important.
So, we have 2 motions and so we will 1st vote on yes, council member.
I have one.
Yes.
I know it's under our surveillance ordinance.
We keep.
Data for 180 days, you said, right only for 180 days.
That's occurring use policy for the surveillance cameras.
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you.
And is the.
Contractor also required to get rid of the data after 180 days.
Yeah, and they have very detailed and robust.
Like, deletion protocols, thank you.
Okay, so we are going to take a role for.
I see a hand up from council member.
The only thing stopping us from changing 180 days, anything else is just our own decision making.
So, in the use policy, we can decide it's 330 days, 15 days, 60 days, 2 days.
I mean.
It's up to us.
Yeah, that's correct.
We would have to look at it in balance.
What we wanted to do to protect the privacy and also continue to hold data for long enough to have that of an injury value.
Okay, thanks.
Absolutely.
I do know that it can take time sometimes to realize which.
Which information you need, and by the time you get back to it, if the data has been deleted, it's not helpful for our purposes.
Council member Humber.
We have until 11 council member, so I don't think we need that.
No, we had until 10.
I could be wrong.
I know I know pretty early, but, but, yes, we have until 11.
Okay, good.
Thank you.
So, if I can have our, our deputy city clerk to take role on council member, then a part is motion seconded by council member.
Thank you.
All right on the substitute motion.
Council member no.
Yes, I.
Okay, no.
Yes.
Yes.
No, I mean, sorry.
No, Mary she.
No motion fails.
Okay, we will now be taking role on the original motion, which I believe was made by council member Humber and seconded by black be.
And, and just to make sure it's clear that that does not include the language from council member Bartlett.
Yes, it does.
It is council member.
Yeah, because council members Humbert's motion was that we use the language that you brought up.
So, great.
Just wanted to confirm on the record.
Thank you.
Okay, on the main motion council member customer money.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
I.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, motion passes.
Thank you.
Thank you, everyone.
I really appreciate all the comments and questions and thank you again for your presentation.
I know that you will be considering our comments as you move forward in the process.
Thank you.
Okay, we now have another time for public comment for items not listed on the agenda.
I just want to check in.
Okay.
Yeah, if it's not on the agenda, you can make a comment.
Okay.
Sorry, but we have a comment that's coming up right now.
So it'll give you time to get the other person that you are waiting for.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I just want to say that cahoots in Eugene, Oregon is a non police model.
Of crisis response, but they do partner with the police and this is the model that Berkeley was supposed to be working with what it is is they don't always respond, but they're in partnership with the police.
And what's happened is, because we removed that in Berkeley, our was just not responding.
And often it was, it fell upon the police and the fire department to do it.
That was really not sufficient oversight over the in the same fashion.
That was not the same kind of skilled dispatchers that the Berkeley police department has.
What cahoots does is they actually act in partnership with their police department.
I mentioned the CIT international conferences.
I've heard them.
Their cahoots model and the police at a CIT international conference together presenting his partners, but they triage so that they often do go out without the police.
A few years ago, it was quoted at 16% of the time they referred to the police for for backup.
And there are times where it's appropriate for a call response.
Certainly we would never want domestic violence to be responded to by lay people alone.
And there are times that the police don't the police don't want to go out to a lot of situations that don't require the police.
And then it's not as if they want to force themselves into the situation.
So, my understanding is staff is looking towards the county cat model, which will actually be more efficient and still allow an appropriate situations for a non police response.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other public comments online.
Thank you, mayor.
We have 2 hands raised online.
1st is the caller with the number ending in 211.
Caller with the number ending 211, you should be able to speak.
I just like to add another comment on cameras.
This is actually public comment for items not listed on the agenda.
So we've just finished this.
This is about cameras.
This is very important.
I'm sorry.
Cameras cameras cameras are very important.
Anyone who's already spoken at the beginning of the meeting is not able to speak again during this portion of public.
Thank you very much for clarifying that.
Yep.
All right, we'll go to the next hand raise Brianna McGuire.
Thanks for the opportunity to give public comment.
Mine is brief and lightly orthogonal to a piece that was on the agenda, but not totally related in the 2024 hazard mitigation plan.
There's a section on community readiness and the 1st item in that section is the community resilience center program.
I just want to briefly point out that the community resilience center program no longer has a city website page.
There are still links referencing the community resilience center program throughout the Berkeley city website, but those links are all dead, which means that there is no longer a list of available to those seeking them.
And I just want to point out that 2024 was the hottest year on record.
So I think it's important that we get more information out to the community on things like cooling centers.
And so I just want to raise that concern as we think about the hazard mitigation plan to please restore information about community resilience centers on the city website.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for that information.
I'm sure we'll take note of that as well.
I think that that was our last race hand on zoom.
Oh, sorry.
That was our last race.
Okay.
So I think that that concludes our public comment for items not listed on the agenda.
Is there a motion to adjourn? Second.
Can you take the role, please? To adjourn.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Thank you.
No, just kidding.
Okay.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Thank you, everyone.
The meeting is now adjourned.
I'll come speak with you.
I know you didn't get a chance to speak.
Thank you.
Recording stopped.