Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2025-07-23 17:31:19 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_5d140ed5-2f8a-460b-8f4c-ae5f765fdbea.ogg

Segment 1

Thank you everyone so much for your patience.
I really appreciate it.
We both had a closed session meeting and then we had technical difficulties, which if you've been tuning into these meetings, you know that that's been going on for a little while.
So I do apologize for that.
I am going to call to order the Tuesday, July 22nd, 2025, Berkeley City Council meeting.
And we will start with a roll call.
Okay.
Council members Kesarwani? Here.
Taplin? Present.
Bartlett? Council member Bartlett is currently absent.
Tregub? Present.
Tregub is present.
O'Keefe? Here.
Blackaby? Here.
Lunaparra? Here.
Humbert? Here.
And Mayor Ishii? Here.
Okay.
All right.
Now moving on to ceremonial matters.
We have a number of adjournments and memories, as well as one proclamation, which I will read.
It's a request from District 2 Council Member Terry Taplin, so thank you very much for that.
We are, oh and actually we have representatives, so please please come up to the front.
Thank you so much.
Recognizing Port Chicago Remembrance Day.
Where is the Port Chicago Naval Magazine located approximately 20 miles northeast of Berkeley, where African-American sailors were exclusively assigned to the dangerous task of loading explosives onto cargo ships.
And on the night of July 17, 1944, a catastrophic explosion resulted in the deadliest homefront disaster of the war, killing 320 people, most of them African-American sailors, injuring 390 others, and inflicting widespread damage on the nearby town of Port Chicago, California.
And where is 258 surviving African-American sailors, citing unsafe conditions, protested the order to resume loading ammunition, drawing national attention to racial discrimination and hazardous working conditions in the military.
And 50 of those sailors, known as the Port Chicago 50, were wrongfully charged and convicted of mutiny.
And whereas on July 17, 2024, following persistent advocacy from the City of Berkeley and others urging action, President Joe Biden authorized Naval Secretary Carlos del Toro to exonerate the Port Chicago 50 and all 256 sailors involved, affirming the injustice they suffered and recognizing their actions as a pivotal moment in civil rights and military history.
And whereas the City of Berkeley holds a unique place in history, having welcomed the Port Chicago sailors during World War II, hosted liberty parties, supported rescue efforts, and contributed legal leadership through Berkeley NAACP President Walter A.
Gordon, and with the continued engagement of community partners like the Port Chicago Alliance and commemorative events such as Port Chicago Weekend, this legacy will be preserved and honored.
Now, therefore, be resolved that I, Adina Ishii, Mayor of the City of Berkeley, do hereby declare July 17th, 2025, as Port Chicago Remembrance Day in the City of Berkeley, an annual observance to honor the victims, recognize the bravery and legacy of the Port Chicago sailors, and educate future generations about this defining chapter in American history.
Thank you.
Can I say a few words? Good evening.
My name is Yui Padmore, and on behalf of Port Chicago Alliance and the descendants and families of the sailors who served, I thank you for this proclamation recognizing July 17th as Port Chicago Remembrance Day here in Berkeley.
The official day of remembrance does more than mark a moment in time.
It acknowledges injustice and it affirms the dignity of those affected.
It sends a lasting message to future generations about the power of collective action, the importance of speaking truth to power, and the courage it takes to demand justice even in the face of adversity.
Thank you all for your commitment to truth, to memory, and to advancing justice through remembrance, integrity, and leadership.
And I want to close by saying that Port Chicago Weekend 2025 was a tremendous success, and it wouldn't have been possible without all of your generous support.
So thank you so much.
Thank you so much to Councilmember Terry Taplin.
Thank you to the mayor.
And thank you all very much, very much.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
All right, we are moving on to adjournments in memory, and I'm going to pass it over to Councilmember Trageb.
Thank you.
I have three adjournments in memory tonight.
The first one is honoring the life and legacy of Marie Gunter.
Today we honor and celebrate the life of Marie Gunter, a visionary leader in sustainability and climate justice, who sadly left us far too soon on Saturday, May 10, 2025.
Marie's legacy is profound, far-reaching, and enduring.
With over a decade of experience in advancing equitable energy and climate solutions, most recently she led solar development at Grid Alternatives Bay Area, managing residential and commercial clean energy projects, serving multifamily affordable housing, nonprofits, and frontline communities.
She championed grid's equity, diversity, and inclusion, and women in solar initiatives, advocating for representation and justice in the clean energy workforce.
Marie's impact extended across sectors, consulting for startups and pre-IPO companies, leading nonprofit boards, advancing environmental policy, and mentoring BIPOC women seeking careers and sustainability.
As co-lead of the Alameda County Climate Policy Squad through the Climate Reality Leadership Project, Marie shaped local and national conversations on environmental equity and holistic sustainability.
Marie was a former board president of the Peninsula Chapter of Links, Inc., the largest global nonprofit women's organization serving African-American and African communities, and actively contributed to several other justice-focused organizations for leadership and service, and for a special congressional recognition for outstanding and invaluable service to the community.
Marie will be remembered not only for her groundbreaking work, but for her radiant spirit, fierce determination, and boundless curiosity.
She is deeply missed.
She will never be forgotten.
May that spirit, that determination, and that curiosity continue to live in all of us.
And I think we have some speakers for this.
Good evening, mayor and council members.
My name is Thomas Schilling, and I was Marie's partner in life and spirit.
Thank you for honoring her tonight.
Your recognition means so much, not only to those who loved her, but to the broader sustainability and equity community she served with such passion.
Marie and I met through a shared commitment to sustainability.
From the start, it was clear she didn't just care, she was committed.
Marie was a visionary and a builder.
She followed her conviction with rare integrity and grace.
Her work brought together climate justice, equity, and community, especially empowering women of color and indigenous people.
She loved broadly and listened deeply.
She believed in a future that was just, inclusive, and sustainable, and she dedicated her life to make that real.
One of her final projects focused on home electrification in California, a powerful and practical step communities can take to fight climate change.
She also helped envision a local sustainability speaker series here in Berkeley to build connection and inspire action.
Marie lived with remarkable resilience and presence.
She was one of the most thoughtful and courageous people I've ever known.
She brought care and beauty into everything she did.
Marie had a gift for deep listening to make people feel seen and empowered.
That's how she built trust.
That's how she built community.
I feel deep sorrow that she can't continue the work she began, but I and many others carry her vision forward.
To honor Marie is to live the values she embodied.
Courage, care, justice, and sustainability.
Let us commit to those values and keep building the future she believed in.
That is how her spirit lives on.
Thank you, and thank you Councilmember Igor Trejkov.
Thank you very much.
I think you've got another adjournment.
Thank you.
Two more, and I would just like to ask everyone to stay for photos after.
We're going to keep going through these.
George Lightman is the next adjournment in memory.
Today we honor the extraordinary life of Professor Dr.
George Lightman, a distinguished member of the Berkeley community and a beloved educator who passed away on May 19, 2025, just shy of his 100th birthday.
George's journey was one of remarkable courage and resilience.
Fleeing Nazi-occupied Austria in 1940, he carried with him the memory of a family tragedy, yet found purpose in service as a U.S.
Army combat engineer and special agent in the Nuremberg Trials.
At Berkeley, he became a pillar of excellence.
Joining the faculty in 1957, he pioneered the field of optimal control and dynamic game theory.
We have some dynamic game theories here sometimes.
Anyway, authoring foundational texts that shaped space flight, economics, environmental science, and even epidemiology.
He served in numerous administrative roles, associate dean, department chair, and the university's first ombudsman during the turbulent 1960s.
His achievements were recognized with the highest honors, election to the U.S.
National Academy of Engineering, honorary doctorates, the French Legion of Honor, the Austrian Cross of Honor for Science and Art, the Bellman and Oldenburger Medals, and many others.
George made a lasting impact not only in Berkeley, but on the broader movement for knowledge, justice, and human dignity across the world.
Though he has departed, his spirit remains woven into the fabric of our city and university.
Rest in peace.
You are an inspiration to our community.
Thank you.
Hello.
Hello.
Yes, we can hear you.
Yes.
Hi, I don't know if you can see me.
But greetings from Ground Zero, Washington, D.C.
To begin, I would like to thank Councilmember Tragub for sponsoring this adjournment in honor of my father, George Lightman.
Thanks go out to fellow Councilmembers, Mayor Ishii, and esteemed participants of today's Council meeting.
And in the audience, we have two good friends of my father who will follow me with brief remarks, Professor Shankar Sastry and Dr.
Santiago Chen.
In the audience also is my sister, Elaine Parker, Mark Asta, the interim dean of the College of Engineering, and Santiago's wife, Anna.
And, of course, great appreciation to friends and family who are sharing this tribute with us online.
Professor Lightman was many things in his long and celebrated life.
A Holocaust refugee, a decorated soldier in World War II, a rocket scientist, a mentor to generations of students, a leader in the fields of game theory and optimal control.
A loving husband to his wife, Nancy, of 70 years.
A world traveler, a connoisseur of wines, an art collector, and a swimmer.
His contributions to science and academia were monumental, but beyond all the accolades and achievements, he was above all my father.
Sadly, all of that ended when he left us on May 19th, just days short of his 100th birthday.
This evening, I would briefly like to highlight a less known dimension of his multifaceted life, my father's role as part of the Berkeley community.
He and Nancy were active supporters of the Berkeley Rep and the Aurora Theater, volunteering and raising funds over many years.
George contributed numerous paintings and other works of art to the University Art Museum.
He supported Nancy in opening a small business in the community, a store called May Launch, which had shops on Shattuck and Solano Avenues.
As Cal's first ombudsperson, he monitored and reported on incidents of police brutality and student unrest in and around the University.
As a citizen, he was politically and culturally active.
I remember him taking us to our first anti-Vietnam War demonstration in 1965, as well as to a Jefferson Airplane concert on the Faculty Glade.
George was also a believer in public education.
I attended Hillside Elementary, Willard Middle School, West Campus, and Berkeley High.
These and other examples of his contributions to Berkeley imparted in me a sense of civic responsibility.
I worked in the city of Berkeley's low-income energy assistance program before joining the Peace Corps.
I interned with Oakland's city manager while doing a master's degree, and I completed a doctorate in city and regional planning at Cal.
As we honor my father at this adjournment, we do not mourn the loss of his presence.
We celebrate the legacy he leaves behind.
His spirit lives on in the community that he served, the students that he mentored, the knowledge that he produced, and the family he so dearly loved.
He set an example for all of us of brilliance, humility, and warmth.
Dad, thank you for everything, for the lessons, the laughter, the love.
You will always be with us, guiding us forward, reminding us to seek knowledge, to embrace life fully, and to hold on to the bonds that make us who we are.
Rest in peace, knowing that your work, your wisdom, and your love will never be forgotten.
And now, over to Professor Shankar Sastry.
Thank you very much to the council and the mayor for recognizing truly a giant.
George Lightman was certainly my colleague when I was dean.
He was my partner in international partnerships, and I'm going to touch on that.
But he was also in the same research field as me.
And I can attest to how the work he began really right after he came back from the Nuremberg trials really came to be this theory of games and optimal control that you mentioned.
It's really still the mainstay of a lot of the research that's going on in my lab in across the world.
It's in the legacy of another very famous emigre called Johnny von Neumann, who actually came to Princeton.
So I think we owe George this scholarship.
But the other thing that he brought, even though he'd had this traumatic experience of fleeing Austria, fleeing Nazi persecution in Austria, and the loss of his father, he brought a love for bringing the world to Berkeley.
You know, he was my partner in international partnerships, and none of his experiences embittered him towards partnerships in Germany, in France.
And it's not a surprise that he was recognized.
You know, the French president actually was on his way to come give him this legion of honor, but something detained him.
And so the consul instead came and sent an honor guard to the Berkeley Faculty Club of French officers to do this.
But he—and I'll just say one little story.
You know, it's a serious thing, but he brought a group of all the rectors of the major German universities to Berkeley one time, and it was led by the rector of the University of Aachen.
Aachen was the head of the Holy Roman Empire.
So the way George introduced him as saying, he's the second most powerful man in Aachen.
But, of course, there's no Holy Roman Emperor, but he was certainly talking about that.
The last piece I want—a lot of this has been said by Joe already, but, you know, his love of wine, the good life, and sharing that art with everybody else was truly exemplary.
So in the university, it was with the community.
And to me, I'll conclude by saying that at this time now when American exceptionalism is really in the balance, I feel that George exemplified American exceptionalism at its best.
And you can see it in what his children do, you know, in the Peace Corps, in the World Bank, all the things that he did.
So I think we will miss him tremendously, but as was said, you know, he represents a lot of what is great about Berkeley and the university together.
So thank you very much.
Thank you.
You have another adjournment, final adjournment in memory? Yeah, one—oh.
Okay, maybe after this.
Good evening, everyone.
I'm Santiago Chen.
It's a great privilege and pleasure to speak to all of you at the Berkeley City Council.
Yeah, may I say—well, I started at UC Berkeley in the 70s.
My wife and I were Berkeley citizens then.
Could I say once a Berkeley citizen, always a Berkeley citizen? However, I never thought I would one day have an opportunity to speak at the council.
But here I am to tell you my aspect of beloved Professor George Lighton.
In the summer of 1970, I traveled from Buffalo, New York to Berkeley on a ground bus to continue pursuing my graduate study.
Here I destined to meet Professor George Lighton and subsequently build an extraordinary relationship across 54 years.
In 1971, I started taking George's courses.
I remember his pristine lecturing, booming voice, and big smiles.
His warm personality and his subject of optimal control attracted me.
After I passed the PhD qualifying exam in 1972, I asked and he gracefully accepted me as his PhD student.
In the following years through my PhD program, he and his wife Nancy treated us and his other PhD students as family.
Year after year, they invited us to their magnificent home in Berkeley Hills to celebrate holidays with them and their families and their friends.
There, we also met Joseph and Elaine, who were teenagers then.
And every year before we sent out Christmas, New Year greeting cards, the first one we received was from George and Nancy.
With Nancy's elegant calligraphy, this tradition continued for decades.
After graduation, I worked in the industry rather than pursued an academia career.
And so I didn't have much contact with George and Nancy.
Decades later, our relationship seemed to thin out and fade.
But life is mysterious.
By the end of 2019, Anna and I rekindled our relationship with George and Nancy.
We mailed them personalized New York greeting cards with our family photos to wish them Happy New Year.
Unexpectedly, we received a handwritten letter from George telling us they had moved to Berkeley Belmont Village Senior Living and invited us for dinner.
We were so moved by his and Nancy's kindness and excitedly looking forward to meeting up with them.
But I realized I didn't really know George that much, besides his lecturing, the socialization at his home decades ago.
And really, knowing that he had fought in Second World War and actively facilitating international relationship between UC Berkeley and the universities in other continents, I thought I'd better do some homework before meeting with them.
Thanks to Google Search, I found and read many articles about him and watched the UC documentary video of his receiving French Legend of Anna.
After the joyful initial gathering, George and Nancy generously continued inviting us for dinner and their invitation extended to our daughter and son's family.
We became very close.
One day in 2020, George emailed me asking if he and Nancy could be our clan's honorary grandparents.
What an honor and privilege that was.
During this time and the subsequent COVID-19 period, I had such a privilege to profoundly learn much more about George through a bit of involvement about the transcript of UC's oral history interview of him.
Digitizing hundreds of photos in George and Nancy's family albums and producing an almost two hours long slideshow video, spending George's entire life up to 2023, titled George Lightman, Family, Friends, and Events.
Facilitating inputs from a dozen of George's great old international friends, whom he maintained lifelong contacts to create an important section in the above mentioned video.
Help him prepare and post his Wikipedia article.
Facilitating interviews of German DM reporter and a German university professor and show them around the area during their visits.
I'm so sorry.
I just want to check in because we do have quite a long meeting ahead of us.
Are you sort of..
Yeah, I'm all about that.
Yeah, thank you.
Thank you.
Among George's lifelong achievements, I'd like to especially pay tribute to his invaluable contributions in his research and push the envelopes of optimal control game series, etc., engineering science subjects.
Resulting in 314 plus publications, five books, and some multiply translated, serving in over 37 professional capacities, receiving over 36 prestige awards.
Attracting so many renowned American and international scientists to finally collaborate with him and nurturing, flourishing in numerous doctoral students.
Personally, both George and Nancy will always be our family's great teacher of life, setting examples for us to learn.

Segment 2

Learn how to live our lives and treat people.
Be always open-minded, kind, generous, for justice, caring for people coming across our way.
Treating them equal.
They broadly elevated our prospect of our life, and they introduced us to their so-called great friends, as George always liked to introduce good people to good people.
Anna and I thank George so much, miss him dearly, but he is always vividly with us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The final adjournment proclamation today is in memory of Rita Moran.
Today we honor the life and legacy of Dr.
Rita Moran, a distinguished international human rights scholar, educator, and public servant whose work left a lasting impact on Berkeley and the global community.
Born in Manhattan and shaped by the events of World War II, Dr.
Moran's early understanding of injustice led to a lifelong commitment to peace and human rights.
Her activism began in Europe when she worked with war resistors and Quaker organizations.
After moving to Berkeley, she earned a Ph.D.
in international human rights law and went on to teach at both UC Berkeley and the University of San Francisco.
Dr.
Moran was a founding board member of Human Rights Advocates, an NGO accredited to the United Nations.
She became a leading voice against torture, organizing international forums, and speaking across Europe, Africa, and the U.S.
Her book, Torture, the Role of Ideology— Howdy.
Hey.
Could you hear me? Oh.
Okay.
Her book, Torture, the Role of Ideology in the French Algerian War, is widely regarded as a contribution to human rights literature.
She was a peace and justice commissioner for the city of Berkeley.
I had the great privilege of being able to overlap and serve alongside of her.
She was a senior Fulbright fellow teaching in Indonesia and worked with both the U.S.
State Department and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in post-conflict Bosnia and Kosovo.
She also helped establish a human rights organization that continues to operate today.
Dr.
Rita Moran will be profoundly missed.
Her contributions to human rights, her dedication to peace, and her mentorship of generations of students and activists.
At one point, I too was a student who had the privilege of being mentored by her.
That will continue to shape Berkeley and the world.
May her memory be a blessing and an inspiration.
I think we have speakers in the room and online for two minutes per speaker.
Sorry, can I ask that we keep it to one minute because I think that we have quite a lot to cover on our agenda.
Thank you.
Apologies.
Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members, and especially Council Member Tragoza.
You already mentioned so many of the things that were on my notes, so I can keep it shorter.
You know, it's somewhat of a luck of a draw who is a resident in this city.
It's a crapshoot, and yet you have some fantastic people here.
Rita was attracted to this city for so many reasons that are related to what Council Member Tragoza said.
She was a champion of human rights.
She was an idealistic pragmatist who grew up, as you said, with the background in the war, her volunteerism to help people in need, to recognize people were struggling.
She was a true humanist.
She was brilliant and analytical, and to deepen that, as Council Member Tragoza said, she went through her bachelor's degree in political science.
She was working at the law school here in Berkeley at the time she did her PhD.
She worked with Amnesty International.
She has a tremendous background, as he said already.
She was a scholar and author.
She was a teacher to many people in many schools and around the world.
She had these networks, and there were many, many people who knew her and who were interested in her.
She had these networks, and there were many, many people who knew her and who were interested in human rights and torture and women's rights came to her, and she went to them to spread her message and her knowledge.
So she was truly outstanding in that way.
She addressed the City Council very frequently at a microphone like this.
She was a gadfly.
She was an activist.
She led many, many resolutions and demonstrations around the city, and then she joined UNA.
I've known her for 25 years of the 97 years in her life.
She's been in Berkeley for 40 years, and we have a number of members from our UN Association where she was a longtime member, the president of the local chapter.
She was a leader nationally.
She was the first person in the United Nations Association of currently 200 chapters to win the award as the outstanding advocate to try to lobby for these interests in human rights with members of Congress.
As you said, she was a mentor.
She influenced every generation.
She will long be remembered.
She is a treasure to this city.
It was a crapshoot, and my goodness, she certainly found a wonderful home here, and we pay tribute to her with this lasting memory.
Thank you very much.
Mark, do we have Sandra Williams on Zoom? Sandra W., you should be able to unmute.
Sandra, you're unmuted, you should be able to start your remarks.
Yes.
Hi, my name is Sandra Williams, and I am with the United Nations Association East Bay Chapter, and I want to concur with everything that Herb said about Rita.
There are others in the audience who are part of our chapter.
If they can just quickly stand so that you can see them.
Thank you.
We stand in solidarity and support of Rita's legacy, and as well as a—Rita was an outstanding human being who fought for human rights for everyone all over the world.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you all so much.
And I apologize.
I hate to rush folks.
I just—we have to move on with our meeting, but I really want to say just thank you all for being here, and may we all live full and amazing lives like these people did.
It's very impressive.
We're so lucky in the City of Berkeley that we have so many wonderful people here.
City Manager, did you have any comments? One comment, Madam Mayor, which is that we need to move item 11, which is the surveillance technology ordinance submission for the Berkeley Jail from consent to action pursuant to BMC 2.99.
It's a little bit of a gray area, but I think out of an abundance of caution, it would make sense to do it that way.
So if that's possible, I'd appreciate it.
To the action calendar? Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay, and I think our City Auditor—yes, here you are.
Our City Auditor has some comments as well, and I think a presentation for us.
Thank you so much.
Good evening, everyone.
And I'm here with Audit Manager Kaitlin Palmer.
So tonight, I just wanted to present our audit plan for fiscal year 2026.
This plan outlines the key areas of focus for my office for the coming year, including completing ongoing work, new audits and initiatives, and our continued efforts to ensure transparency, accountability, and effective governance.
This evening, I will cover our audit selection process, our accomplishments from the previous year, and planned audits and engagements for this year, as well as an update on the whistleblower program.
To develop our audit plan, we gather stakeholder input to prioritize audits that address Berkeley's most critical needs, especially during this difficult budget time.
We gather audit ideas from community members, elected officials, department staff, city management.
We also assess past audits and Berkeley-specific risks.
We analyze findings from other government audits to anticipate emerging issues.
And when prioritizing audits, we take into consideration many factors, including risks and perception of risk to the city identified by management, city council, and community feedback, economic factors like potential financial impact, organizational changes, such as management or information systems, and the length of time since the last audit was completed in that area.
We also consider staff capacity.
We are a small office and have limited resources to conduct audits.
This plan builds on accomplishments from our previous year.
In fiscal year 2024, we released an audit of restaurant inspections.
Since the release of that report, the division has staffed up the food safety inspection program by filling vacant inspector and supervisor roles and inspected very high-risk facilities that had not been inspected in 2023.
We also released a follow-up report on our 2009 leases audit.
We reopened eight recommendations from this audit, including clarifying roles and responsibilities for lease oversight, updating the lease policy, and developing a complete central list of leases and licenses.
We also continue the implementation of our new whistleblower program, launching the program internally and educating staff on how to identify and report concerns.
We also follow up on recommendations from previous audits to ensure departments stay accountable for their corrective action plans.
As of July 1st, 2025, there are 65 open recommendations from nine audits across five departments, as well as the library and mayor and council.
Of those 65, 41 recommendations have already been partly implemented.
In fiscal year 2026, we plan to initiate audits or continue work in the following areas.
Homelessness, we will present to council on July 29.
Contracts, which is currently in process, rent stabilization board, fiscal condition.
In this area, we are open to council, staff, and community ideas on areas where the city can enhance revenue or decrease costs, as the city has a big challenge in addressing the structural deficit, as you're all aware, and how to conduct its operations most efficiently and effectively during this challenging economic time.
We'll also be doing follow up or recommendations from previous audits and other short term projects as needed to deliver timely and relevant information and analysis from the community and the whistleblower program.
Of course, this audit may change based on evolving risks and staffing needs.
And as we conduct our audit plan and conduct these audits, community members are encouraged to contact our office with audit ideas, which we will consider.
We want to thank you again for the opportunity to share our audit plan for fiscal year 2026.
I want to thank the department, the city manager, want to thank council for supporting our mission to promote transparency and accountability in our audits.
And then finally, I wanted to just talk a little bit about another item on the agenda tonight.
It is an information item from the environmental health division of health and human health.
Health, health, housing and community services that provides an update on steps they've taken to implement the recommendation from our audit of restaurant inspections.
We issued this audit about a year ago in July 2024 since then, environmental, the environmental health division has made some good progress on several recommendations.
As I mentioned earlier, they filled 2 crucial vacancies.
They've also inspected the high and very high risk facilities that have not been inspected in 2023.
The division has also developed new policies that include revised inspection targets for periods of short staffing and a baseline of 1 inspection per year.
These policies help to ensure that they will sustain improved coverage of inspections throughout the city.
Unfortunately, the division has also removed the inspections data from the.
Online open data portal, we therefore change the recommendation status from started to not started.
Waiting until a new inspection system is implemented to make this information available means the public does not have easy access to inspection results a year after audit was released.
Berkeley, unlike Alameda county does not have a placarding or grading system to easily inform the public whether a restaurant has been inspected the data from the open data portal that was removed months ago was the only information on the city's website.
During our audit that contain inspections information by restaurant or food facility, as we stated in our report, removing the data decreases transparency and the division did not provide any indication during the audit.
That adding the required information would not be feasible.
We hope that there will be a solution to make this information accessible to the public as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Thank you auditor.
Thank you both for coming.
I appreciate your presentation and see next on our agenda is public comment on non agenda matters.
Which would be just on AP C.
We have 4 cards, 3 cards, one's a duplicate.
Start my time agenda please.
Jordan h Cheryl and Glenn Turner.
I saw that dirty look you gave me get him correct studied other a German in memory and I hope you guys will do that in the future because on the 19th we lost Joanna Macy and she deserves an adjournment in memory.
She was a longtime Berkeley resident and amazing human doing the work that reconnects.
So someone should put in an adjournment and memory for her.
And today children are dying of starvation in Palestine.
Can you look at me at least pay attention like you care.
I know some of you have children.
Some of you don't.
But you know children are very important in life.
And these children are losing their life because Berkeley didn't do anything about a ceasefire.
I blame you because Berkeley could set the time.
I know my time's up.
And I went to the city council meeting in Albany.
They give people three minutes.
I'm sorry.
Michelle former council member Davila to you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Three minutes for public comment.
Thank you.
So disrespectful.
Sorry.
Hold on.
We've we've lost our quorum.
So Okay.
Sorry.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
My name is Jordan.
I used to be a Berkeley resident.
I've been involved in Berkeley politics my whole life.
A pattern that I've seen with Berkeley City Council is that we'll have a consent calendar that is jam packed with items.
And some of the items people want to talk about separately and want voted on separately.
And as it currently stands, we need one of you guys to pull the items off consent.
And I wanted to flag that the city of Richmond, which has an incredible city council, a lot of great progressive policies, and a lot of that has been made possible by the fact that constituents are able to pull things from consent.
So in Richmond, you only need one person and I understand we're a bigger city, but I would just think that maybe we should consider having way for us as constituents to pull something off consent so that we're not forced to kind of like, sit helplessly and watch like 20 important things all get passed at once.
So maybe we can think about it.
Thank you.
My name is Glenn Turner.
And my father was born in Berkeley and went to school here where grandparents went to school.
My parents met here in Berkeley.
My kids and my grandson are in school here.
I'm a lifetime, many generation Berkeley people.
I've been disappointed in the way Berkeley has lost a sense of transparency.
And, you know, speaking out, but I want to thank Julia Wong for actually doing something good.
And in the Berkeley Times, just this week, there's an article about audit reveals opportunities for a homeless response team.
Well, I take that as meaning they fell down on the job.
And there's lots of work to do here.
And I agree.
And I was horrified to find out there was only 56 beds for like over 300 homeless people.
So they keep sweeping people out.
And then what do they do? No, sorry.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
Alright, so now it's time for non agenda public comments for people that are participating remotely.
So if you'd like to provide non agenda public comments, please raise your hand.
And we have Daniel Brownson.
There have been reports lately that regardless of local laws about it, police departments have been sharing information with ice to assist them in deportations.
And this is concerning because some of those cities had policies that prohibited them from doing so.
And they did anyway.
And I think the city of Berkeley needs to consider that the what to do if that happens if it happens here.
That's all.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
No other hands raised.
Oh, okay.
All right, then.
Let's see.
We are moving on to the consent calendar.
All right.
Are there any council members who have comments on consent? Okay, I don't know if our, our system is working again.
So Council Member Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I just have have one comment or set of comments on Council consent item number 14, which is a resolution in support of California Senate Bill 81.
The author of which is Senator Jesse Arrigan.
And SB 81, which is 81 would mandate health care facilities to develop protocols for monitoring and receiving visitors as well as designating certain areas as non public in order to maintain a secure environment aligned with the facility's mission and commitment to patient care also would prohibit immigration enforcement agents from entering non public areas of a facility without a valid judicial warrant.
And also also protect and bar the disclosure of a person's current or past immigration status or places place of birth for purpose, purposes related to immigration enforcement.
And I think this is a critical bill.
And I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that this item is on consent tonight.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member.
Are there other comments? Council Member Castromani.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
I wanted to request that we first I want to thank the auditor for her update on all of the audits and for the restaurant inspection audit status report that we have from the city manager.
I wanted to request that we move that to action because I did have a few questions for our HHCS director about the status there.
So that's my request.
That's all.
Thank you.
I do understand.
I think two others need to also make that request for it to be effectuated.
So I yeah, to my colleagues for that.
Thank you.
Like there are two other folks who are three other multiple other people who will join you.
So that's happened.
Okay, great.
Thank you so much.
Anything else you want to share? No, that's all.
Thank you.
Okay.
And then Council Member Trachup.
I was going to support that request, but also want to thank the mayor and my colleagues, Council Member Humbert and Luna Parra for co-sponsoring the resolution in support of California Senate Bill 81.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any of the council members online have any? Oh, sorry.
Council Member Blackaby, I can see your hand.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
Couple of quick questions, a couple of quick comments.
First one is item 13.
Just wanted to draw my colleagues attention to the very impartial policing implementation report.
Just wanted to note that appreciate the work of Chief Lewis and the department as well as the Police Accountability Board.
They've unified on an agreed upon set of follow up recommendations there.
So the item is actually a supplemental item.
I just encourage my colleagues to see that it's a shorter list that both the department and the Police Accountability Board agree on.
And subsequently, we'll close out any additional action items on the fair and impartial policing task force.
The reporting of the data will continue, the tracking of all the information and implementation will continue, but we'll kind of formally close out that process.
I just I want to acknowledge the work of the department and the Police Accountability Board and working together on that, as well as a couple of other items on the agenda, we're going to be hearing on this MOU agenda item later on.
And just wanted to again, compliment the work of the two organizations.
There's an oversight function, and there's a department function and, and acknowledging good work when they're able to work together on things like this to advance, advance, advance the effort.
The only other thing I think I wanted to mention is that also on item 10, the military equipment report, again, thank you department for producing that.
People will note that this is sort of there've been two reports on controlled equipment, military equipment.
Again, coming through the Public Safety Committee is an effort hopefully, authored by Councilmember O'Keefe and Councilmember Humbert to try and harmonize some of that next year.
But I just again, acknowledge receipt of the report and thank folks for their work on that.
And that's all I have.
Thank you, Councilmember.
Councilmember Lunapara, I know I can't see you.
So you'll have to chime in if you've got comments.
Will do.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Okay.
All right.
It sounds like that is it then for Council comments.
So we'll close that and open to public comments on consent or information items only keeping in mind that items 11 and I think it's 17 have moved to action.
So folks have any? 17? Yes.
11 and 19.
19.
Thank you.
Yes.
11 and 19 have moved to action.
Okay.
Yes.
Hi, I'm Gordon Gilmore here.
And I just wanted to number 12 was the election of Ian Hunt to the Berkeley, the Mental Health Commission.
And I just wanted to commend him.
I think he's wonderful and support.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is this where I can comment on item 11? No.
So 11's moved to action.
Okay.
Thank you.
Other comments on consent or information items only? Anyone online? Yes, we have four commenters online.
And just before they start, just as a reminder that item 11, the surveillance technology ordinance submission for Berkeley City Jail surveillance system has been moved to action.
So now is not the time to comment on that item.
And 19.
And 19 as well regarding the restaurant inspections.
But our first speaker on the consent and information calendars online is John Lindsay Poland.
Good evening, council members.
My name is John Lindsay Poland with the American Friends Service Committee.
I'm commenting on item 10.
The military equipment report under state law is required to be posted on the law enforcement agency's website.
As of tonight, it is not.

Segment 3

In addition, the law enforcement agency is required to hold a community engagement meeting hosted by the law enforcement agency, at which the public may ask questions and express concerns.
That is not a Brown active meeting.
90%, at least, of the law enforcement agencies across the state hold such a community engagement meeting after they have published and posted online, a community engagement meeting that is in violation of AB 481.
They have published and posted online their AB 481 Annual Report on Military Equipment Use.
So BPT is not in compliance with the state law.
I would ask you to instruct the department to post the report online and to host a community engagement meeting as the state law requires.
Thank you so much.
Thanks for your comment.
Next is George Lipman.
Yes, good evening.
I don't know how long I have, but Moni Law has pledged a minute if necessary.
George, you have a minute and is Moni online? Yes, she is.
Two minutes.
You have two minutes.
Thank you.
I'd like to speak about item 13, the fair and impartial report.
There's a lot of good in there, and I'm glad that, as was mentioned, that the department and the board have been able to work together, and there's a lot of fine stuff in there.
I disagree with closing the referral.
And the reason is that we have come some distance.
We have a lot left to do.
We know about a number of activities that have actions that have been traceable to various police teams and or individual officers.
And also the report from the PAB displays, just sort of summarizes what is left to be done.
And it's a lot.
Racial disparities decreased slightly.
A number of these projects are underway.
The EIS, early intervention and so forth, is in the very early stages.
And we all know the history of the Downtown Streets team.
And I'll just say in my remaining moments, we have people in this country saying some variant of, hey, that never happened.
Two, or I didn't do it.
Three, I didn't know about it.
Four, it wasn't that bad.
Five, and we don't do it anymore.
In Berkeley, we don't want to follow that example.
We want to follow this story through to the end and keep the focus on and be a beacon of light for the entire country.
Follow this story.
Keep the pressure on.
Celebrate the wins, but keep the focus on the problems.
And this time we could go backsliding at any time.
Let's go forward instead.
Please keep this open.
Thank you.
Next is Aaron Lechuga.
Hello, folks.
Thank you for this opportunity.
So I'm calling it in regards to item number six and the youth equity partnership funds.
And I'm asking to reallocate a portion of the funds being returned to Longfellow Identity Affirming Programs for fiscal year 2026-2028.
And I just wanted to say, you know, the young mentors and the Raza Yu Concilio.
So Raza Yu Concilio is a Latinx affinity group.
Young Mentors is a mentorship program for black and brown young men.
And what we really do is work to change lives, save lives and give our students opportunities where middle school students mentor other middle school students, as well as elementary school students.
High school students come and mentor middle school students who participate in the program and in college, after college and in the community.
You know, I have college grads, students attending USC, UCLA.
They come, they're in biotech field, they're barbers, they're electricians and they come and mentor.
You're over your time.
Thank you so much for your comment.
Next is Will G.
Hi, my name is Will Greenberg and I'm a software engineer living in North Berkeley.
I'm here to comment on item number 17, the installation of FLOC safety surveillance cameras.
Sorry, you're actually speaking on the consent calendar.
This is consent and information items only.
So when we get to the action calendar, then you'll be able to talk about item number 17, but I just said expectations.
It'll probably be much later since our action calendar is growing.
No worries.
Thank you.
Okay, next is Meredith Ross.
Greetings all.
Can you hear me? Yes.
Great.
Thank you for your time and service.
My name is Duffy Ross and I'm the executive director of the Berkeley Public Schools Fund.
We champion equitable public schools so that every kid in Berkeley can thrive.
I'm speaking on behalf of these two extraordinary programs at Longfellow Middle School that Mr.
Lechuga just spoke to, Raza Youth Concilio and Young Mentors.
Honestly, of the thousands of projects the school's fund has supported over decades, these are hands down among the most impactful and far reaching.
Both serve very talented, full of promise Latinx and African American students who are not yet being well served by our district.
We've funded these programs for four straight years and we are so grateful that they continue to be funded now by the YEP program.
We thank you for your support of this very modest reallocation of YEP funding.
It's big gains for the sustainability of these programs.
They still have one of the smallest YEP budgets and they still mean net savings for the city.
So it's a win-win.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
Last speaker is Alana Auerbach.
Hi, good evening, everybody.
I would just like to underscore John Lindsay Poland's comment about please let the community know when that equipment report will be up online and available publicly and when the police department will be having a public forum to review that.
I also want to, we have done analysis of the racial profiling.
It might have gone down a little bit, but it's huge.
If you are black, walking, biking, or driving in Berkeley, you are multiple times more likely to be pulled over than white people.
So we need to continue the fair and impartial policing task force.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there, are there any more comments online? No, no more commenters online.
Okay, thank you.
Mr.
City Manager, could you just address the comment about BPD being out of compliance, please? Yeah, actually, I'd like the police chief to come out and be able to speak to it.
I'll look and see if it is online.
We generally do post those AP 481 reports.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Do you want to, should we wait for her? Okay.
Okay, great.
So I know the chief is speaking later, so let's move on.
Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar? So moved.
A second from Councilmember Traigub.
And can you please take the roll, clerk? Okay, to approve the consent calendar, Councilmember Casarwani? Yes.
Taplin? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Traigub? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? Yes.
Lara? Yes.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay, motion carries.
All right, very good.
Let's move on to our action calendar.
So we have a number of items that have moved over, but I'd like us to address the restaurant inspection audit status report item that moved, it's item number 19 that moved from information items.
And I'm going to ask that Scott Gilman, our health housing and community services director, come forward.
Thank you.
Trying to give you some time to make it up here.
Good evening.
Thank you.
Good evening.
I believe there were some questions for us.
I did want to address the auditor's concern though regarding posting online.
After we began our plan of correction, we discovered that fixing the software that posted the results online wasn't feasible.
One of the problems that we had with our audit was that our software was at end of life and essentially had bugs and had been crashing on us.
So fixing what was posted online wasn't possible.
We also found that posting online is not a requirement.
But if you do post online, it better meet state requirements, and ours did not.
So because it was flawed information, it did not meet state requirements, and having this information online could really impact a business' business if it's wrong.
We felt that the decision to pull it down, you know, was warranted at that point.
We're going as fast as we can.
We said in our plan of correction that we weren't going to even start addressing that issue until July of 26.
I'm going to have it hopefully will be finished with that issue and have it fully implemented by July of 26.
And what that is is the new software will be in place.
And phase one of that will include our ability to do the inspections, bill for the inspections.
It will have a consumer portal.
Phase two will be we will build the geomaps.
So what Berkeley will have will be geomaps.
Somebody can go online.
They can move their mouse around over to where the restaurant is.
They can click on that, and the inspection will pop up, and they'll have the results.
In the meantime, as an interim solution, what we've done is added language to our website so that the public can request a full copy of the inspection report anytime they want.
They can either call Environmental Health, or we have a link on the website that they can request the most current inspection report that's been done over the last year.
Thank you so much.
And were there questions, Council Member Casarwani? Yes.
I want to thank you, Director Gilman, for that update.
I wanted to ask you, you know, and first I want to just commend the work that's being done to respond to the audit.
I know that the information report notes that the inspections that were not completed for 2023 that were high or very high risk facilities have now been completed, correct? That's correct.
So what I'm concerned about is, you know, catching up is one thing, and it's very important, but then keeping up and being able to inspect all facilities annually, right? That's our goal.
How are we doing in terms of having done that in 2024 and now 2025? Can you speak to that? Sure.
We're moving closer towards the best practice, so the city actually has the authority to set policy for how frequently we go out.
So the audit report, to get caught up, we wanted to do the most good that we could and get eyes in every restaurant.
So we did one inspection on everything and caught everything up.
The best practice has low, medium, and high rankings, and so for the higher rankings, it can be three or four or more per year that our staff go in there.
This year we've set that for two for the high rankings or the high risk, and if the staff have any concerns or problems, they go back and continue until they're satisfied.
We're moving then on a fee study that will help offset any additional costs that we have.
Our fees haven't been reviewed in environmental health for 14 years.
We just discovered that today, and once we have that done, I'll be able to give you a calculation for exactly how many FTEs it'll take to meet the best practice standards and the fees to back that up.
So hopefully we'll have that information to you shortly after the break.
So we are meeting current expectations, current policy the way that it is, and are catching up with staffing and a lot of the other issues.
Okay.
Actually, I did want to ask you about staffing, Director Gilman, because I see in the report there is mention that we have hired, we've done some hiring.
I don't have the number directly in front of me, but can you speak to the hires that have been made and how many vacancies we currently have? Sure.
We hired the supervisor for the program.
It's a full-time registered environmental health specialist that is supervising the staff now.
Ron is the director of the program, and we've also hired an additional inspector.
What we have vacant right now is one full-time vector tech, and that individual focuses strictly on the vector program, and then we have an office assistant that's vacant.
Just the two.
Okay.
So there's only two vacancies.
Are those positions that have been frozen as a result of the budget, or do you have the ability to hire the vector tech? We have the ability to move forward on that with the appropriate approvals, but yes, we do.
We're negotiating with the county right now our contract and making sure that we have a cost-settled contract for that program, and we just finished that.
And so now that we know we have the funding secure, we're going to move forward with the hire.
Okay.
Thank you for that.
And so going back to the online portal, I just want to thank you and appreciate that what I heard is a commitment to have it up by July of next year.
And I know that this audit status update, the information report notes that you will update the council.
The next status report to council is anticipated in fall 2026.
I want to ask that you update us.
You said you were going to have an update after the break.
Can you give us a comprehensive update in six months, so let's say January 2026? You can tell us where you are with everything related to this audit in terms of responding to the recommendations? Absolutely.
Okay.
Because I do want to make sure that when our residents have an interest or a question about inspections of a facility that they can access that information, I also recognize that that is not really a user-friendly way of providing the information.
And I have said this in the past, I want to repeat it, that my hope for our city is that we could be like other jurisdictions that do an inspection and then provide a placard that the restaurant or the food facility can display.
That, I think, is just more user-friendly so people can just visually see as they're making a decision about where to eat.
They can see that it's been inspected and have that peace of mind.
So I think we have several steps to do to get there.
You know, staffing, getting this data system up to date, doing the inspections regularly, and then we could think about that best practice that I hope we can get to.
Absolutely.
Okay, thank you very much.
I'll turn it over to my colleagues.
Council Member Trakob.
Thank you, Director.
Three questions.
That software update, can you just confirm that's the one I recall we approved recently that ties into this? Yes.
And July 26 is still the planned date? Correct.
Okay.
Can you confirm, I think I heard you say that there will be two inspections for all high-risk facilities this year? Yes.
And I can ask Mr.
Torres to go into more specifics about that, but that is the, yes, that is the current requirement.
Two or more, depending on what they find.
And is there a way that the Council can receive that information? Like a summary of activity? Summary, yeah.
High-level summary.
I sure believe so.
Yeah.
Yes.
Yes, we can put something together.
You want like name and the frequency of inspections? I think that will probably suffice.
I will defer to my colleagues to see if there's anything else.
But on that, I was actually wondering if an update could be sent out to the full Council about this, you know, this is the interim approach.
I understand this has been of high interest to, certainly to my constituents.
I imagine others as well.
And I think we would benefit from sending something out to the community about how to request inspection results and so forth.
Sorry, Council Member, you're wanting to get information to the community about how they can request information on inspections? Yes.
I think that's on the website currently.
Okay.
It might be helpful to do, like, if we can get a high-level write-up from staff.
What we could do would be to give you something that you could put in newsletters to inform people that's what you're looking for? Yes.
Absolutely.
We can do something like that together.
Yeah, and I just want to confirm.
So it is on the website.
So folks are interested in requesting reports.
It's there for folks.
Yes.
Yeah.
Okay.
Council Member O'Keefe.
Thank you, Mayor.
I'm pretty fascinated by this portal software situation, if you don't mind, I have a couple questions.
Well, first of all, actually, my biggest question right now is if people can request a report, why can't you just put that report online? Help me understand.
It has to be.
Whatever they receive should just be online, right? Yeah.
To be completely transparent, I'm going to tell you because IT told me it was impossible.
I'm not a techie person.
It's all fed into our software program that drives all the billing.
So and then it translated into a summary report the way that the software presented it.
So it wasn't a link to each of the reports.
The new software that we have that we're building will do that.
It'll be a link.
They can hover and then they can get the actual report.
Okay.
If I requested the report, I would receive what? You would receive the actual, the full report, not the summary that was going on the software.
Okay.
And what format would it be in? I believe it's PDF.
So why can't you put that PDF online? I'm confused.
I was going to ask what workarounds you tried because that's actually my curiosity.
But like this one seems forefront.
Yeah.
We had to prioritize what things we were going to focus in on.
And so that would have also included pulling staff offline to work on that.
And this was several months ago when we considered whether we were going to do that or not.
If that's something that council wants us to pursue or to look at, I'd be more than happy to do that.
Yeah.
Unless there's a reason I'm missing, I think you could do that.
I think you could probably do that in about an hour, post a PDF.
I mean, like I said, I haven't seen it.
Maybe it's big or something.
I don't know.
But please do that if that's possible because I think that's so much better than having people have to go through this step to request it.
I think putting it online is putting it online and you should have that.
So that's my main question.
But then I'm also curious just about this, the timeline.
What is the current status of the Hunt for New Software? Do you have a vendor already identified? You approved something, right? Yes.
Yeah.
So why will it take one year to get that up since you already have that figured out? It won't.
We'll be in our original management response to the audit.
We were going to start on this project.
We had different phases and we were going to start on this project in July of 2026.
And what I'm saying is that we're going to finish it in July of 2026.
We recognize this as a priority, so we fast-tracked everything that we could.
So we found the software.
We've got the data migration happening.
And the new software, the first phase will go live this November.
Okay.
Still seems like a long time to me, but I guess I'm not in the project.
But if you already have the software identified, hopefully you're probably paying a lot for it.
They should be able to put it up quickly, I would hope.
But anyway, until that happens, please put up a PDF.
I think that would be much more user-friendly.
So can I make a recommendation, Council Member, that we make a request to Paul to do that? Oh, yes.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
That's my feedback, which I'm directing to Paul.
Yes.
And also, if you have comments, I'd love to hear them.
Yeah.
Well, no, thank you for that.
We'll take that as a referral to staff to figure out if there's a way to upload a PDF or some other documentation that people can look at online.
I know staff has worked with IT, and they've tried to figure that out, and they've had some glitches.
But we'll look at it, and we'll get back with you.
Okay.
Thank you, Paul, for taking my request.
Sorry about the breach of etiquette.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Did anyone else have comments? And anyone online? Our Council Members? Okay.
Oh, Council Member Bartlett, I see your hand.
Thank you.
I'm having some internet issues with my reactions here.
Thank you for the report.
This is something we follow with great interest, the restaurant reports.
And I think we could take this moment as we figure out this posting situation in our software cycle of life to maybe kind of hone in on this process and let it be kind of a teaching moment for the organization as a whole, in terms of kind of upgrading its interface with the community and kind of stepping into a more, you know, more life, digital atmosphere for this kind of thing.
Those are my comments.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member.
Anyone else? Okay.
I will just say thank you.
Thank you.
I know this is a lot of work, and I appreciate you all and hiring up the staff and bringing this to us.
So thank you.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Very good.
Okay.
Moving on.
So I would like us to do this public hearing for item 15, which is the ordinance vacating a portion of Carlton Street from Westerly Terminus, extending 381.23 feet to Easterly.
Are we not having public comment on that item? Oh, yes.
Apologies.
Thank you.
All right.
Do we have a comment on that item? This is for item 19, restaurant inspection audit status report.
Oh, this is for something else.
I will make a brief public comment.
Yes, go for it.
I will say I don't know what the situation with this one, but as someone who works with data, you know, having a PDF isn't going to be a panacea because people may need a spreadsheet or, you know, they may be or maybe it's something where it's constantly updating.
You know, I don't know all the ins and outs of this data, but I definitely appreciate everyone's efforts to make things more transparent.
And I just I have to mention this tangential issue about city data that I've mentioned before, but on the open data portal, there's a coming soon open budget app.
It's been there for probably five or six years.
Now, if you click through, you get to like a password thing and it just says access denied.
But I just I encourage, you know, I know everyone there's not enough money, there's not enough staff and everyone is really doing their best, but definitely more transparency with the numbers and everything is appreciated.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Is there other public comment on this item? We get two whole minutes.
Thanks.
So, yeah, I've gone through like five conversions of software in my career and.
I know that the city of Berkeley is a little bit pathetic in the way that they run their conversions because all the items that the council put through when I was on council aren't available online.
And the links that I had to them are no longer.
Is this about the food inspection? Yes, it is.
I'm talking about data.
And you know what? I'm really effing tired.
Are you interrupting me? Just because you don't think that I'm staying on task, but I am.
I'm talking about conversions and they were talking about conversion.
So get with the program there.
But now that you interrupted me, I should get my time back.
But the point is, it's not rocket science.
When you convert things, you need to make sure everything is transparent.
You need to make sure that all the data is being moved and a PDF.
You can have a PDF.
That's a good idea.
A spreadsheet can be a PDF.
So there's ways to get around these things.
And Berkeley needs to do better in so many areas, including the rudeness and disrespect and not listening to the constituents or paying attention or being on your phone or all this other crap that you guys are doing during the council meeting.
And don't look up the marionettes constantly looks like a marionette puppet just sitting there, not blinking, not moving.
So, yeah.
Be nice.
Free Palestine.
Are there any other comments on the food inspection item? Anyone online? There's are you talking on the food inspection item? Item 19, the specific item on the agenda, item 19 regarding the food inspection audit.
Hi.
Hi, my name is Sunny.
I was wondering if that goes with like food concession carts.
Is that our carts like food, food service carts or like mobile kitchens involved in that? If there is anybody who's a thought thinker about mobile kitchens, I would love to be able to speak with them.
Maybe they can answer my questions.
Thank you.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
There's 1 raised hand.
David Levine.
This is public comment on item 19.
Yes, can you hear me? I hope.
Yes, yes, thank you.
Okay.
So David Levine, I'm a resident of district eight, and I just wanted to underscore.
I do think that getting this information out would be really, really helpful.
I appreciate the constructive comments of the members of city council, as well as the staff members on this.
And I really, what I wanted to focus on is, I think we're missing a link.
I think we're missing a link to the color coded system.
So I think having restaurants have a.
Page that they could post that just has a QR code.
Just if you want to know more about the inspection system in Berkeley, here's what you do, because to say, oh, it's online.
You can find it without that kind of knowledge.
I think we're missing a link.
Ultimately, I hope that we get to the color coded system.
Thank you.

Segment 4

It would be really, really helpful.
And again, I thank you for working on this important issue.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That's it.
Okay.
Very good.
All right.
That was technically an information item, so there's no vote needed, but we can move on to the next item, which is item 15, the ordinance vacating a portion of Carlton Street from Westerly Terminus extending 381.23 feet easterly.
All right.
I am going to open the public hearing for this.
Do we have a presentation? We don't have a presentation, but people have questions.
Our public works director and deputy director are here.
Sure.
Okay.
I will take then public comment on this.
Hi, I'm Gordon Gilmore at the Berkeley Homes Union, and I wanted to speak to this because what's happening with the vacation of that dead end of Carlton is that a place under the guise of extending the public right of way into this place is the displacement of a community that's found safety there because it's yet again one of the few places that's out of the public right of way and is simultaneously public property.
So they've been able to find a respite there in safety.
I don't mean to rehash what I brought up last time, but those who were displaced from Maloney Park and were finding locations throughout town end up being hassled by the police and the homeless response team.
And while nobody has been displaced from their new residences since that point, they have been put under signs posting rules that put them under constant threat of having their belongings taken from them if they move away from their tents.
And that's happened nearby relocated folks a number of times recently and puts them in a state of hypervigilance about the loss of their food or the loss of their items.
And as such, we need somewhere that these people can go that would be safe for them to relocate where they won't be put into the state of constant danger, which prevents them from, you know, being able to, you know, work toward a situation that works better for them and is copacet.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next speaker.
Greetings.
As a person who is actually directly involved in the location, I can attest to it's absolutely horrendous hell and extremely dangerous health-wise.
Mental health and physical health has come to the point where the stress is..
I deserve better.
We all deserve better.
We deserve to have some stability.
We deserve to have hope that our efforts or time, our material possessions, which are actually valuable items that can be exchanged and we deserve a place to have a market where we can get a gain because a homeless person works 100 times more than anybody else for less than 10% of the comeback.
We don't have salaries or pensions.
I personally would like to be completely involved in conversations regarding this location because it is my life in Alameda County, Alameda Island per se, not Berkeley I'm hoping.
But they took my magic school bus that I made with my very own hands.
It was the first thing I ever had.
I put so much effort into my entire life going back to things I was given when I was three years old and things I was given when I was three years old and survived spinal meningitis.
So I've had a disabled, I've had inconvenience experience with my life and I can't take any more of that.
I want only goodness from here on out and I want a call to compassion complete and I want..
I would..
I'm here to talk to any interested and concerned professionals from Bayer because this is their property and we actually do value their opinion.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
Hi there.
I just wanted to note that you guys keep celebrating all of these people in your acknowledgements and things for all their activism and human rights.
But you're talking again about relocating and throwing away people's stuff like they're not human.
So if you don't have an answer of where these people can go, there's not enough housing, there's not adequate housing.
So if you can't answer that question of where people can go safely, then just leave them alone.
Like you don't have the answer, so stop fucking with them.
Thank you.
Hi.
The current situation on the streets of Berkeley is grim.
We all know that no matter how settled we feel, our presence is considered illegal.
Our days of living peacefully wherever we are are numbered.
That constant anxiety wears us down mentally and physically.
Sweeps kill.
Still, Berkeley keeps pushing people from place to place, posting signs that threaten arrest or fines if they dare return.
Further mental health challenges and incarceration are the logical outcomes of Berkeley's current approach.
Berkeley is hurting its unhoused constituents into shrinking overcrowded corners of the city.
Nearly all of us lack access to 24-hour bathrooms or dumpsters.
A public health crisis isn't just possible.
It's inevitable if this continues.
Sanctioned encampments should be a part of the solution now in order to prevent the public health crisis, incarceration, and deaths that will otherwise follow.
I don't know if you guys are going to address this or not.
I certainly hope you will.
But it seems to me like you guys are passing the buck by giving that property that has a large unhoused population on it to Bayer.
So either you guys are going to clear it, which is going to be bad enough possibly, probably.
Or Bayer would be the ones that would be responsible for clearing it once you gave it to them, which they don't have any standards that they're supposed to be held accountable to.
So I think that, as always, communication would help here.
Communication with the people that live there.
Communication maybe between the people who live there and Bayer.
But I mean, these are human beings.
They're human beings and they live there just like anybody else that lives anywhere.
I know they don't pay rent, but they still exist there.
And there should be some communication directly with them instead of just signs being posted and, as evidenced by the audit, fairly impotent HRT being sent out to not offer them anything and then having their belongings, hopefully some of them, stored and then the rest of them thrown away.
So I'm just here to call for communication and for people that are unhoused to be treated like humans.
Thank you.
Thank you, Amber.
Well, I was pretty horrified to find out there was 56 beds available and yet we know there's hundreds of people that they were, you know, homeless in our streets.
And what's happened is with the sweeps, at least in North Berkeley where I live, you see stray belongings places.
You can You see stray belongings places.
You can see so-and-so.
I mean, I recognize some of our local homeless people that just go around.
We have a huge problem.
But with the sweeps where they go into a camp where people have community, that hurts the community and breaks it up.
What I'm concerned about is why is there not the mental health department? Do they have outreach workers to find out what people need? Do they have full service? I know that 30 percent lack of staffing is always the answer.
But why is that the answer? If we can buy expensive cameras, why can't we lure people in with decent wages? From what I hear, lots of people are fleeing because they can get better pay in Marin.
They can get better pay elsewhere.
Why don't we pony up the better pay and cut the corner from some of these fancy computer things, which you could do actually a lot of it just with paper and pencil? You know, so it's beyond me why you waste this money on cameras and high-techy things and political, you know, police equipment from military.
Why militarize our city and terrorizing people instead of helping people? You know, care first, jails last.
That's what we believe in.
This is agreed on with the city council at one point.
So care is what we should be doing.
We have community organizations.
Where are you in communication with them? Do you send those people out with any contacts with homeless support? Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
Good evening, council.
My name is Jennifer Cogley, and I am with Bayer.
We employ about 850 people at the Bayer site.
The majority of them don't have college degrees.
We are the most diverse work site in the Bayer global network, and we have a development agreement with the city of Berkeley and we have a development agreement with the city of Berkeley that means about a million dollars a year over and above our property taxes are paid to community organizations, including about 23 internships for low-income and marginalized communities.
The site that we're talking about, Carlton Street, Bayer owns property on both sides of that street, and there's no public outflow from that location.
We plan to maintain the street and install a water treatment feature that will address some of the stormwater issues.
And this vacation aligns with how the streets have been dealt with in the other 46 acres of property that we own in West Berkeley.
The other thing to know is that this location makes medicine for people in 50 countries all over the world.
We have reported multiple fires at this location.
I receive complaints from people in our quality building of hearing, smelling smoke inside of their building during the night, and there has been a serious fire risk to our properties because of what's going on that location.
I think we all deserve a safe place to live, so I don't disagree with those who've come before me.
I also need to make sure that there is a safe place for our people to work and that we can maintain the safety of the medicines that we produce for people.
With that, I'll conclude my comments.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm Trevonnie Stokes.
I live on Carleton.
I was just wanting to ask that, like previous people said, that you guys actually can talk to us because obviously we do read your notice and we're listening, but we don't know how this process goes.
But I'm pretty sure that if it's sensible, we have no problem leaving.
It's not like we really want to be there.
I mean, the fires are because we're either staying warm or cooking food, and they're always controlled.
There's no outbursts of fire.
They don't have to worry about it burning their fence.
Whatever they ask us, we do.
Don't put stuff in the fence.
They get real pissed off about that.
So it's not like we're not working with them or you guys.
So I just wanted to let you know that we're listening.
We're trying to figure it out too.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello again.
Evictions in Berkeley are a topic that we come to again and again and again, because the Bay Area has a crisis of homelessness because our cities are unaffordable.
And often when I come up to speak about evictions, it kind of feels like pushing against an immovable object because the votes end up remaining the same pretty much all the time.
So as I sometimes do when I have the opportunity to speak on this topic to the public, I'll use this as a moment of education rather than a moment of lobbying in order to say, if you are wondering why there are now—it feels like there are more sweeps of unhoused communities happening now than there used to be, you're correct.
And this is because of a Supreme Court case called Grant's Pass that decided that you do not need to provide adequate shelter for somebody when you evict them from where they're living.
And so historically, Berkeley has been less able to engage in homeless sweeps because the Supreme Court under Boise, I believe, maybe, said that you have to provide housing before you can sweep people.
And that's no longer true.
And that's no longer true because of Trump's Supreme Court that he packed with far-right conservatives.
So as Berkeley ramps up these evictions, it's important for our community members to understand that this is only possible because of the far-right appointments made by Donald Trump.
So we, once again, like we have our Black Lives Matter flag, we have our pride flag, but we're doing something.
We're seizing upon an opportunity given to us by a fascistically-packed Supreme Court.
And also, if Black Lives Matter, we should note that over 50 percent of the homeless population in Berkeley is Black, whereas only eight or less percent of the general population is Black.
If we want to look at the pride flag, we should remember that queer people are disproportionately represented in unhoused communities.
So it's time to live by our values, and it's time to stop taking an opportunity provided to us by Donald Trump to terrorize our most marginalized communities.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
Go ahead, whenever you're ready.
The chance that the Hayward quake kills hundreds or thousands is 100 percent.
In observation of this fact and the fact that I was renting a building, 2330 Blake, that anybody with a basic engineering degree would realize is a soft story, but it's never it's never been a soft story.
I've been renting a place for an old van so that I would have a field hospital when the big one hit.
I'm sorry, are you talking about this item? Housing, yes.
Item 15, which is the ordinance vacating a portion of Carlton Street.
Yes, yes, I'm speaking from from the point of homeless.
I'm currently.
Okay, go ahead.
Let him speak.
Go ahead.
I'll count it.
Go ahead.
So she just spoke about there's a I was rent controlled and some rich person bought my building and emptied everyone out.
And and then the building got condemned.
And the van was for me to to do an earthquake or a condemned building.
They just towed my van.
The the rent board was supposed to tell me that there's a relocation fund.
They failed to do that for weeks in a month.
And there's there's multiple organizations in the city that are screwing me left, right and center.
And I just want to know, do I have to go all the way up to the mayor and to clean up this mess? So I'm just I'm suing the city for the building department that doesn't answer and the rent board that doesn't answer and the relocation department that doesn't answer, you know, so I was told to come to this meeting to tell.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
Do I go or wait for you? Hi.
My name is john rule holder.
The second.
I live at golden bear.
Could you speak a little closer to the mic, please? Thank you.
Yeah.
My name is john rule holder.
The second I was placed at golden bear and I wasn't planning on saying anything tonight, but the situation that lady was describing was exactly what I've been placed in where I cannot get any feeling of safety.
And I'm wondering why the city manager is able to ignore me.
I've been abused.
My dog has been abused.
And his assistant says that you all have no doings with that property.
I was told it was unincorporated by one of the housing departments.
You know, it's systematic.
It's planned incompetence.
It can't be you.
Ignorant people cannot mess up this much.
It's planned.
It's systematic.
The things are just going wrong for this population.
And it's wrong.
And you all know it.
Each one of you.
If you don't go to golden bear and see that they're not services on site, and they're billing for this.
And revenues coming into you.
I understand my time's coming up.
Oh, it's not your time.
It's your intelligent people.
We're talking about specific items.
So if you have a comment on it is it is it is about what you're doing down there, because what happens is, okay, they get picked up, then they get put into a place like golden bear or Dorothy day.
And then they get pinched out whenever somebody, whenever somebody changes the rules, whenever they don't want to.
And the city manager's office does not stand behind them.
Just like Peter do has not got with me on a review that was supposed to be done from Dorothy day years ago.
And so what you're doing is people billing on them, getting the main come in and then pushing them back out on the street where they lose all the rights.
And they're doing the whole thing over again.
I don't know if you're counting them once or twice, but I know what you're doing is wrong because you're treating them like cattle.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
It's indentured servitude.
You're pressing us into slavery because you're making money out of this.
Thank you.
And the city manager should not be able to ignore people.
I'm sorry.
Thank you for your comment.
So it's obvious that the city isn't doing what they need to do when, and no way should you do this item.
You should let the people stay there, provide services, treat them like they're human beings, which they are, which we know you don't care about humanity because you don't give a shit about Palestine and the inhumane treatment that's going on over there.
So why would you care about the Berkeley citizens that live on the streets of Berkeley? Well, wake up, look at me, y'all.
Hello.
Pay attention.
It's not funny either.
It's sad that y'all just sit there with a dumb grin on your face because you actually don't give a crap about anybody.
Do you have comments on this item? I am talking about the item and if you, I swear to God, if I could, I would slap you right across the face.
I think that's completely inappropriate.
You're being so rude.
I think that's completely inappropriate behavior.
It's not rude.
It's not rude of me to keep you on track.
We have an item, we have an item that we're looking at.
Because my track is not your track and I can say what I want when I want to say it.
That's clear, Cheryl, but you know what? We've got, you've got 47 seconds.
If you'd like to speak on this item, I'd like you to speak and focus on that.
I am speaking on the item because you need to treat people, they're asking you to treat them like humans.
But you're not, you're not even showing the respect of this elder in front of you.
You never do.
None of you do.
Show some respect.
Yeah, I might get a little elevated because I'm so effing tired of how you treat me and how you treat the public.
You don't listen.
Albany City Council listened to the public last night.
They made the right choice.
I'm not hearing you speak about this item.
That's because you're not hearing me at all.
You never do.
Free Palestine, free the people, listen to the people, get over your egos and yourself.
Your time is up.
First commenter on line is Friends of Five Creeks.
This is for item 15 regarding Carleton Street.
Friends of Five Creeks.
Thank you.
Can you hear me? Yes.
Yes, my name is Susan Schwartz.
I'm the longtime head of Friends of Five Creeks, a creeks and watershed group.
On the narrow question, our objection to vacating this street without treatment of the stormwater, which threatens both pollution to Aquatic Park and flooding in West Berkeley.
We withdraw our objection and appreciate that Public Works and Bayer have worked together and Bayer will provide treatment.
We urge you to make this a matter of policy in future vacations, which I now understand are required by state law.
And I apologize that I said that the city was giving this away.
You really didn't have a choice, as I understand it now.
I'm not a lawyer.
But in addition to other matters, you should require because of the future of climate change that the property owners and the city handle how you're going to treat the urban runoff in advance.
Finally, we look forward since the city is working on a plan for these changes to some sort of public hearing before that plan is final to discuss this and other issues, which will be very serious when we have a deluge.
I know it seems distant now.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
Next is Ilana Auerbach.
Hello, this is Ilana Auerbach.
And what is the plan for the people who are living there? I know that the city manager is looking into sites where you could have some sanctioned encampments.
But while that is happening, you've heard from some of the people who are living at Carlton.
They're very reasonable.
They want and there are community members, and it sounds like perhaps Bayer would even be able to make agreements.
I live near Ohlone Park.
There were many, many neighbors who wanted to have an agreement with the people who were living in the park if we could have until they could get permanent housing, or until one of these sanctioned encampments could be established.
So we need instead of just capitulating, as the previous commenter said to the far right Supreme Court decision, you can be creative, you can be compassionate and kind and collaborate with the people who are unhoused, along with the people who are housed.
We can solve this.
It is not rocket science, people.
Please find a place, an alternative place for these people to live where they can stay, where they won't be, you know, hyped up on anxiety and have to every couple of hours come back, is their stuff still going to be there? You can make a huge difference.
It's not difficult.
It just takes the political will to do it, and please lead with your heart.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, next is Daniel Brownson.
Just to echo what other people have already said, like, I feel like with all the sweeps, which have gotten more frequent because of what someone else already said about the Supreme Court case, all it does is just shove people around and around and around the city, and maybe the hope is that making life so miserable for them, they'll eventually leave, but if they had somewhere to go, they already would have gone there.
That is kind of the whole problem, is that they don't have anywhere to go, that, you know, no one wants to live on the street, and if they had somewhere that wasn't, you know, at risk of being swept, they would go there, so I think a dialogue needs to happen to actually get some sort of mutual solution rather than another violent sweep.
Thank you.
That's the last speaker.
Okay, so now I just want to make sure.
Okay, sorry, some disturbance in the room.
Sorry, are there questions from folks? I'd like to ask the city manager if you could just talk through a little bit, like, what this would look like a little bit more in terms of handing it over.
Sure, so tonight is the first reading.
If you pass that, there would be a second reading a week from today, Tuesday the 29th, and then at that point, if that passed through, the location would go into effect.
So, you know, we would have HRT staff go out there and talk with people, as some of the speakers mentioned, we are, you know, looking for separately per your May 20th referral sites for other sites for sanctioned encampment with staff on site, like a Grayson sort of model, also applied in conjunction with a non-profit for the county homeless housing project, in which case, you know, that's another spot that, if that were funded, and we'll see what the county does with Measure W, obviously, and with this solicitation, which they pulled back, but then promised that they'd put back forward, would be another opportunity for people to go into.
You know, obviously, the problem that we have right now is we do not have sufficient housing and shelter for the number of people who need it, which is why we have a homeless crisis, not just in Berkeley, but across the county and across the country, and so for this, we would, you know, have staff go out and talk with people to the extent we had, to the extent that we have shelter opportunity, we would offer that, and to the extent we don't, we don't.
So, you know, it's a balancing of, you know, this street vacation for the purposes of BEAR being able to do their business and also trying to figure out how to work with the people who are there.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.

Segment 5

Councilmember Taplin.
Thank you.
I move adoption of the first reading.
Sorry, I just want to make sure.
Did you have a question, Councilmember Blackabee? Before we close.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
For the city manager, can you just speak very briefly to the economic impact to the city for doing this? As I understand, this actually improves the city's financial position and generates revenue for the city if we do this.
Could you speak to that? Uh, yes, Councilmember.
So, uh, as Jennifer Cawley from Bayer came up here and spoke earlier, Bayer is, uh, if not the single biggest, one of the biggest contributors to the city's tax base that we have.
Uh, they are, of course, uh, um, a multinational corporation that produces important medications for the world and produces important tax revenues for the city upwards of a million dollars a year, uh, considerably more actually.
I can't go into, like, specific figures on that, but, um, but, you know, Bayer is one of our biggest corporate tax partners that we have in the city.
So, in effect, we increase some property tax revenue.
We reduce some maintenance revenue by basically assigning the responsibility for maintenance to Bayer.
So, in a sense, we sort of reduce some costs, increase some revenues, and, you know, again, generate additional funding we can actually use for other useful programs.
That's correct, Councilmember.
Okay.
Thank you.
Uh, thank you.
Is there a motion to go? Oh, sorry.
Go ahead, Councilmember O'Keefe.
Sorry.
I just have one more question.
We've covered most of the things that I think, um, were important to discuss afterwards, and then we can do the motion.
Um, but a number of people who spoke tonight, uh, who were unhoused, I believe, um, spoke about concern over their belongings, should they be, um, forced to move.
And I was wondering if you could just speak briefly about how the city handles that when people..
Can you say that again? I didn't hear you.
Sorry.
How do you handle, how does the city handle people's belongings when..
How? ...when an encampment or a person living on the street is being asked to move? Because a lot of people expressed fear about that.
If you could just briefly summarize our policy.
Sure.
Uh, and of course, that's an understandable fear if you have to move and you have a lot of stuff and you can't move at all.
Um, what the city does is it has a policy whereby we store belongings for people at the corp yard, at the City of Berkeley's Public Works Corporation yard.
Notice is given to whoever the person is who has belongings that, uh, that they wish to have stored and that they are not soiled or in some ways, like, not storable.
Um, and we have clear guidelines about what constitutes a storable, uh, items.
And those items are then taken to the corp yard.
The, the person is left with a phone number and the location where they can pick it up.
They can call to schedule time to come and pick it up.
And, uh, and we hold it there at the corporate for 30 days.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Did you move that? Oh, second.
All right, a second.
Could you take the roll, please, Clerk? Okay.
To close the public hearing, Council Member Casarwani? Yes.
Taplin? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Tregeb? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? Yes.
Unapara? Yes.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay.
Um, so, uh, we're moving on to Council deliberations.
Do folks have any other comments that they want to add? Anybody online? Okay.
Um, I just want to make a comment and, and just thank the City Manager for sharing that information.
Um, we recognize that we are in a crisis and, um, earlier today, Council Member Tregeb and I spoke at the Board of Supervisors meeting, um, specifically to advocate for Measure W funding, which goes towards homelessness.
And so I just want folks to know that we are doing a lot of work to advocate for more funding and also to find the locations that the City Manager mentioned.
Um, we recognize this is a really serious issue and I, I want to thank everyone for coming to make comments about that.
I think it is so important that we're considering our unhoused population and the impacts that our decisions have on them.
So, thank you.
Okay.
I think you were going to make a motion, Council Member? Uh, yes.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I move adoption of the first reading.
Second.
Okay.
To, uh, approve first reading of the ordinance, uh, Council Member Kastorwani? Yes.
Taplin? Yes.
Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Tregeb? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Lacobie? Yes.
Napara? Abstain.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay.
Motion carries.
Okay.
I'd like us to take a break because we've been here for a couple hours.
I think we need to stretch.
And then, um, just so folks are clear about what comes after this, um, we have item 16 and then 17.
And then 11.
And 11.
Actually, maybe we should do 11.
Do you, Mr.
City Manager, do you have thoughts on? I would do 11 last.
11 last.
Okay.
So, 6, 17, and 11.
Okay, great.
Thank you all.
We'll be back in 10 minutes.
Recording stopped.
Okay.
Okay.
Yes.
Over time for personal stamping.
Believe it or not, it was a mess.
I told you, I don't want to think about it.
But no, no, no.
Karen, you guys should hang on.
I'm sorry.
It's been too long.
It's been a while, but it didn't look right.
There must be someone, I'm sure, trying to figure it out.
It would be perfect.
Yeah, I mean, it's just like last time.
I know.
I'm sorry, but it's so crazy.
Right? It's just amazing, isn't it? Yeah.
Yeah.
You are.
At least we have.
Yeah.
Totally respect that.
Trust me, I wouldn't have marched along with him.
Please.
I just don't know if that's like..
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm sure that there's a lot of people here.
But I just feel like it's not my only group.
All the neighborhood walk-ins.
But they were constantly meeting.
At meetings.
But I don't remember who.
And there were different groups.
For me, it was Nancy and other people.
But it was like..
And you guys are really great speakers.
Where? Off mic noise.
Of the conversations and how it happened.
But eventually, the stuff got..
Oh yeah.
I don't know.
Like, I thought it was a production.
But it's not and I've never heard you guys say..
So you're kind of like a..
I was expecting a little more specific though.
Yeah.
The problem was..
Are you going to turn it on or are you going to turn it off? Are you going to turn it on? I'm not going to turn it off.
Okay.
Okay.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's really fun.
I don't know if it's really fun.
It's like, you're getting totally different products.
Everybody has a nice spread.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's so good.
Yeah.
Uh-huh.
So..
Well..
I don't know what we're talking about.
I don't know.
But yeah.
Yeah.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Over there.
I don't know what you're talking about.
I don't know.
I don't know, I'm thinking of a cigarette.
Yeah.
There's the cigarette list? Yeah.
Oh yeah, you're right.
You're right.
Yeah.
Recording in progress.
Okay, hi.
We are back in session.
Are folks ready? Okay.
Oh wait, one, two.
Okay, we have a quorum.
All right, so folks online, council members, just so you know, we are coming back.
Mark, are we good to go? We got our microphones and everything.
All right, very good.
So again, folks, we are in the action calendar and we are going through public hearings.
So we're going to move on to item 16, which is the memorandum of understanding compendium, agreements with other law enforcement agencies and private organizations.
And I think we have a presentation.
No, we do not.
We have no presentation.
Happy to answer any questions that council has.
All right, very good.
In that case, I am going to open the public hearing.
Do folks have questions? We can start with public comment, actually.
Does anyone have public comment on item number 16? 16.
This is the memorandum of understanding compendium, agreements with other law enforcement agencies and private organizations.
This is the memorandum of understanding compendium, agreements with other law enforcement agencies.
Public comment.
Now is the time.
Do you have a comment? Yeah, go ahead.
Come on up.
Sorry, I'm new at this thing.
I'm a recovering elder coming to join you folks and visit a lot.
I'm very concerned about these other law enforcement agencies and private organizations.
I mean, that is like so obscure and not focused.
I have no idea what that means.
I'd like to see a list who these people would be.
Would this be with ICE? Would this be with computer AI organizations that could be giving help to our police? I'm just very concerned that, you know, and the whole thing of what is this accepting attached suspicious activity report, SAR? I don't see any attachment.
Perhaps there's a link somewhere.
But this seems like a very incomplete, you know, item.
And so what would be suspicious activity? Somebody wandering around talking to themselves or beating on a door or something? That would be a psychiatric thing.
So is that a police issue? You would be combining with calling out police for all kinds of activities? Mutual aid requests.
This looks like something where you might be calling in other police departments to, you know, what quell riots? What is this about? You know, this doesn't really seem to me like this is kind of like a blank check.
You know, you can just like ask for it and maybe you'll get our help.
We don't know what it is yet, but we're going to go help whatever anybody asks us to do.
And, you know, I feel very uncomfortable with the idea that, you know, then when do people get to look at these other law enforcement agencies? Do we get to decide or find out? Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
Go ahead.
Hi.
I'm formerly a long-term Berkeley resident, raised in Berkeley, attended Berkeley public schools.
I'm really concerned about the length of time it took for us to receive this barrage of MOUs from the police department.
My understanding is the last time we saw a compendium of this was in 2018.
That's correct.
And we should have seen one every single year and had opportunity for public comment and council approval, and we didn't is my understanding.
So what failure took place for the last seven years that prevented that from happening and how is that going to be prevented from happening going forward? I would love for some council members to ask some substantive questions and hard questions from BPD about what they have planned.
So that's all.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are there other public comments here in person? I currently have five hands raised online.
And, again, this is for the item 16.
I would like to make a motion to approve this item.
Second? Second.
All in favor? Aye.
Opposed? Nay.
Motion carries.
All right.
We have five hands raised online.
And, again, this is for the item 16, memorandum of understanding compendium.
We have our first speaker is Cheryl Davila, former council member.
Thank you.
Cheryl.
Yeah, so we're a sanctuary city.
And we're not supposed to be doing anything with ice.
And I echo what was previously said by the last speaker.
I think the whole time that I've been gone, nothing's been done.
Because when I was on council, I was trying to make the police be accountable, transparent.
Doesn't seem like any of y'all are doing that.
And you need to make them make sure that, you know, 47, we could be dealing with martial law.
And that doesn't mean that they're going to cooperate with outside forces, literally.
The armed forces.
And BPD is armed.
So what does that look like for our community? Are you going to keep us safe? No, you're going to ‑‑ I hope you would.
But it sounds like you might be trying to cooperate with other agencies that you're not supposed to because we're a sanctuary city.
So I think you need to make sure you ask those kinds of questions.
And get those answers.
And, you know, be transparent about what's going to go on.
And please don't give them any more weapons.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are there other public comments? Yes, we have Josh Cayetano.
Josh, are you there? Hi.
You all hear me? Madam Mayor and honorable council members, my name is Josh Cayetano.
And I'm a member of the council.
And I'm here today to thank the department for its submission of the MOUs before the August recess, which was an ask that the PAB made.
And we know it wasn't an easy task.
We flagged for the department in spring of this year that the MOUs had not been submitted to council since July 2018, which is seven years ago.
And we also flagged that the latest compendium, sorry, the previously submitted compendium included general understandings with other agencies, including USCIS, a federal immigration agency, even though they did not reflect formal agreements.
And the PAB is pleased to see that these general understandings have been removed from this iteration of the compendium.
And that the city manager plans to increase the renewal period from every one year to every three years, which would alleviate the administrative burden on BPD and still allow for transparency.
So, for other community members, the police accountability board still retains the authority under its charter to review the MOUs at its discretion.
So that oversight and transparency will not be going away, even if the city manager's proposal to renew that for every three years is changed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.

Segment 6

Next speaker we have is Ilana Auerbach.
Hi there.
Yeah, hi.
This is Ilana and I wanted to remind you to ask the chief about when the report of AB 481, I think it is, about the equipment, when that will be made public, if it's already online, and if there will be, when there will be a community meeting about that report, as well as making sure, thank you, I really appreciate the police accountability board director coming on and explaining what had happened, so appreciate the police oversight, and would really appreciate some good questions from the council about how we can ensure that what happened in Los Angeles, when Trump ordered the National Guard and the Marines to be there, we saw LAPD was backing them up.
So what is the plan if that happens here? And how are we assuring ourselves that BPD is not going to just fall in line behind ICE agents and the Marines? Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, we have Daniel Brownson.
Yeah, I echo Ilana's comments, and I would be wary of, at this point, sharing any information with federal law enforcement agencies unless compelled to do so, because even if legally they can't share across departments, we know that Trump and this administration does not care about what they are legally allowed to do.
If any federal department has information we gave them, they can then just get that information.
ICE can get that information and use it to hurt people in our community.
So I would be very wary of just agreeing to some of these MOUs with federal agencies.
Also, it's a huge omnibus.
It should be considered very carefully.
All right.
Thank you.
Next is Moni.
Good evening, Council and community.
I wanted to briefly state that I am concerned that Big Brother, Georgia Wellian-style intervention in our community would be unhealthy to all, and I echo the remarks of former Council Member Cheryl Dabala, as well as other speakers.
We need reassurance in that the case of law versus City of Berkeley, I encourage you to read it.
It's a federal court case that imposed a number of requirements upon our police department that have not been made clear or implemented.
When they used batons to my back and flash bangs at our feet and other weapons of harm, we need to ensure that does not happen again with this heightened sense of militarization by the current president, Also concerned that scandals such as the racist text gate was never fully resolved, and I've talked to some police officers who did not feel that it was completely resolved or adequately addressed.
Finally, in that court order, I want to make sure, as was stated, we don't have the Los Angeles situation where people are going to be snatched, kidnapped, deported, harassed for peaceful protesting, which is what we were doing in 2016, doing Black Lives Matter protests.
So I do hope and pray that you will act firmly to ensure that our police department does not become a militarized zone, where we are the home of the freedom of speech movement, the sanctuary movement, the anti-apart movement, and other movements.
Let's stay true to our nature, our word, our history, which should not turn the way that the United States is currently going nationwide.
Thank you for your time and please serve with peace and justice on our hearts and minds.
Thank you.
Thank you, Monique.
Last speaker is George Littman.
Yes, good evening again.
George Littman, former chair of the Police Review Commission.
I am happy to see all this attention for the memorandums of understanding in brief.
This is something that the oversight folks—oh, by the way, I have a minute from Judy Ann Alberti, if she's still on.
So, yeah, so oversight and accountability folks have been pushing for this, what was passed in 1973, the time of birth of the PRC itself.
There is a lot of work that has been done on this.
And I want to encourage people to be in touch with the Police Accountability Board and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability to understand, because it's really important for people to get a deeper understanding of what all the ins and outs of it are.
I think that I'm concerned about the timing.
It is actually not legal to maintain these relationships if they're not approved every single year.
So I don't know if the Council has been approving it, but the PAB has not had its statutory review.
So those are not actually legal, as far as I can tell.
And I greatly respect the work the PAB is doing on just about everything, but I don't agree with moving this back to three years.
In fact, I think we should do the opposite.
The concerns have been raised by other members of the community just now.
What really should happen is a review of all national federal entanglements that we have.
Ask the PAB to do that.
Look at everything we have going with the federal government, not just immigration and not just ICE, all the other immigration agencies and everything else, because they're all really one crooked enterprise.
Thank you, George.
Unfortunately, the other person who you were hoping to get admitted from is not on the call.
Thanks very much.
Thank you.
That's it for commenters online.
Okay, thank you very much.
Let's see.
All right, Council, did we have questions? I know I asked earlier.
I just want to make sure.
Oh, yes.
Council Member Blackaby.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
Just a few questions.
Good to see you, Chief.
These are mostly for you.
First, as I was going through the MOUs, just a couple questions.
One is, I noted that in the list, there are some organizations that we explicitly have MOUs with, and others like OPD and Alameda County Sheriff's Office that are covered by Mutual Aid Policy 327.
I was wondering if you could speak to, is there a rhyme or reason why we have some MOUs explicitly and other times we rely on Mutual Aid Policy? Just curious your commentary on that.
Yeah, generally speaking, it just may depend on the kind of interaction we have.
Like, for example, we have a Memorandum of Understanding with the University Police because we share across jurisdictional lines, shared properties.
And to make clear, if an incident occurs at a certain location, who would be responsible for it? Things like Alameda County at one point had a task force that we were a part of.
So we had a MOU created to cover that, which has now been rescinded because it expired.
So there's a general operational understanding through our Mutual Aid Agreements about supporting other jurisdictions that need assistance.
Sometimes there's specialty contacts that would necessitate or an agency might just prepare a Memorandum of Understanding to be clear about that handover.
Another example is CHP.
And at what point on an off-ramp does Berkeley PD take over versus the CHP take over? So that's why sometimes you'll see with certain jurisdictions, they'll create a Memorandum of Understanding.
And in others, we just operate as neighboring jurisdictions in a routine manner.
Great, thanks.
Second, I noticed that the MOU with BUSD is pending update.
Is there any particular issue or slow up there? Or is that just a kind of routine kind of update that's going on? Yeah, if you look at the version that was in the prior, it was actually just a letter between organizations.
It wasn't a formal MOU.
And the work that we're doing with this current version of the MOU is to ensure that they're actually written agreements about how you interact.
It was more of a value statement that the school district and the police department in the city work together with shared interests in protecting our community, including the school.
So knowing that we have a school resource officer on campus, knowing that we interact regularly to provide security for events on campus, the goal is to move that to a more official description of our understanding between the parties as to responsibilities.
So as you can imagine, that is a fair amount of work to basically from scratch draft that kind of agreement.
So I anticipate that will take some time in partnership with the school district and their timelines to get that in place.
Thanks.
2 other things.
1 is we've heard discussion about sort of the timeline and the habits suggested for your timeline.
Would you support an adjustment of the timeline to make sure that maybe if every year is too frequent, we settle on a 2 or 3 year tempo where then we just sort of lock that in as a matter of course, rather than doing every year with that.
I'm just curious your feedback on that suggestion.
Yeah, absolutely.
We would support a longer reporting period.
Most of these agreements are decades old.
Things don't change.
And the idea that we would return to them annually for fresh signatures is an administrative burden without value necessarily.
Some things come new every year.
We recently brought on a partnership to have AEDs in the patrol vehicles to respond if there's a heart attack nearby and that required a new memorandum of understanding.
So that's something that we brought on.
If that dropped off after a year or 2, we might want to remove that MOU.
So a longer period of time would allow us to be more flexible and address new issues, but also would not be burdensome for us to continue to report regularly.
And again, this remains online.
Those agreements remain online.
And even though the requirement was to bring it annually, it did not stop our ability to, under the absence of a memorandum of understanding, working with our regional partners.
Because you would do that under the general mutual aid policy in any event? That's correct.
Okay, last question, just because it's come up and just to sort of assuage concern.
So hypothetical, if ICE comes to Berkeley to conduct enforcement actions and ask for support from BPD, what's the response from BPD to a request like that? No, we would not be participating in that activity.
Okay.
Thank you, Chief.
Appreciate your time.
Thank you, Council Member.
Council Member Bartlett.
Thank you.
And Council Member Blackaby asked a couple of my questions.
Chief, good to see you.
Alex, my main question is, I guess, of these MOUs, have there been substantial changes for the ones that we've carried on for all these years? Sure.
So it's a great question.
And we really tried to organize this compendium in a way that's really easy to understand for not only the Council, but public to follow through.
And so you'll see details on agreements that were just a signatory update.
If we rescinded something, we explain why we rescinded it in replacement for something.
When there were major changes, we called out what those changes are.
So you can use the beginning part of the document to kind of be a guide.
Another thing that the way it's set up is it organizes by type of agreement.
So I know there was a public comment question about the private party organizations.
And so if you see it's organized in a way that you can turn to a section and see exactly those, what changes were made, what the agreements were, to provide that kind of detailed information.
And lastly, I think it'd be helpful for the people listening to hear, how does the, I guess, the state law interplay with our practice, in particular, the sanctuary city state law? Well, so our departmental policies, our city policies are in alignment with state law.
So we could make greater protections and statements about our state sanctuary city values, but our current policies are in alignment with the law.
Okay, perfect.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council members.
Are there other questions here in person? I have a question.
Council member.
I can't see you.
Thank you so much.
Sorry.
I'm not feeling well.
So please bear with me.
I have a question about 1 of the new can you explain a little bit more about the, the marshal service fugitive task force? What it is and how the department would interact with it.
Yeah, it's a great question.
So, the way that works is if we are working a case in our investigative unit, a case that occurred in our city, and we identify a suspect for that case, or having a member on that task force allows us to utilize that personnel.
A lot of times they can assist with operations to locate, sit and locate and wait for that suspect to be at a location that we know that they're in.
And so we're allowed to greatly multiply our resources for our local cases.
And so it's 1 directional in that sense.
It's, it's us asking for help for locating a suspect for for our case.
Got it.
Okay.
Thank you.
That's helpful.
And then I'm curious if the use with the, with are similar with the US citizenship and immigration services, the Coast Guard and customs and border protection.
If it's also 1 way.
So, we do not have memorandums of understanding with those organizations.
Oh, sorry, I think I was misunderstanding the document.
Okay.
Thank you.
Can you explain also why this compendium of hasn't been brought back to council since 2018? Yeah, absolutely.
Of course.
So, a couple of things happen 1 being a pandemic and so that was 1 of the work items that was agreed by council to pause during the time that we were focused on our response to the pandemic.
Additionally, during this time period, we were under a transition process from our general general general orders to the lexical policy.
And so that that worked a priority among the subcommittee work and all the efforts that went to transition that and then just our very limited staff resources.
As you can imagine, pulling this information together, ensuring that was still accurate that the addresses or locations that were named in these still existed.
And it also requires us to get those signatures and cooperation and timeliness responses back from all the organizations that we are in contact with.
So it was a tremendous lift exactly why we're hoping to be able to move to a longer reporting period.
Thank you so much.
And then my final question is, do we have any federal agencies where we have kind of a 2 way memorandum of understanding or are they all 1 way? Does that make sense? So, if you, if you again, like, the compendium is organized by organization or by by type of organization.
So, if you look at chapter, sorry, to turn the page chapter 3 of the MOU compendium, it provides you the information on federal agencies.
Okay, thank you.
Those are all my questions.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council member.
Okay.
All right, folks, I think that that was all of the questions from councils, their motion to close the public hearing.
Okay, can you take the role please? Clerk? Yes,그램 for Yes, let's go one more time.
Sorry.
Council member to close the hearing.
Yes, cap one.
Yes.
And Bartlett.
Yes.
Tre pizzas.
Yes, lack could be.
Yes, I mean, a para? Yes.
Okay, moving on to council deliberations.
Two folks have any comments they'd like to make.
Yes, Council member Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Um, I want to thank Chief Lewis and and, um, Arlo and everyone at BPD for their excellent hard work on these M.
O.
U.
S.
And the compendium.
I didn't realize quite how much work was put into it.
I made some assumptions, but it sounds like even more than I had assumed.
Um, I also want to thank PAB, the police accountability board for their review of the compendium.
I've reviewed the communication from Chair Cayetano, and I'm really pleased with the collaborative spirit of this review.
I also welcome the suggestion that we could potentially reduce the frequency of review and renewal.
I don't think such a change.
I guess it's not really before us tonight, but I would certainly be open to that.
I do, of course, worry that no matter how many T's we cross and eyes we dot here in Berkeley in terms of these agreements, the feds these days will feel like they, in any event, have license to run roughshod.
But nevertheless, these M.
O.
U.
S.
Are crucial to set expectations and create some basis for accountability and recourse again.
I really appreciate everyone's work.
Um, these incredibly on these incredibly lengthy and detailed documents, and I'm pleased to be able to approve this tonight.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Are there other comments from their council members? Anyone online? Okay, I just do want to make a comment to say to acknowledge just some of the concerns.
I really appreciate the questions my colleagues asked, and I want to highlight for folks that our councils already given direction to our city attorney's office to work on a sanctuary city ordinance.
So do know, of course, we are a sanctuary city here, the first in the country and reaffirmed that sanctuary city status in January.
So, you know, folks should feel confident to know that this is an issue that we're talking a lot about and that we're going the extra step of creating an ordinance to make sure that it's very clear.
But as it stands now, and Mr.
City manager, perhaps you can, if there's anything you want to add, I'd invite you to add as well.
But that no city staff that's anybody, including our police department can collaborate with ice.
And so I have asked the chief many times, and the chief has actually put out a statement about this specifically.
So I encourage folks to take a look at that on their website.
I think they've done a lot to try to encourage and to comfort the public to make sure that they feel confident in our police department, because we want people to be able to call the police if there are any concerns and not be worried about our police department collaborating.
So, is there anything you wanted to add? I could just amplify what you said, Madam Mayor, and say that yes, staff will have to do a valid judicial warrant.
Staff will not be cooperating in any way.
So that message has been clearly received by staff, not just police department, but all departments.
And then I would add also that we're in the process of updating some policies, increasing some signage to delineate public and private spaces and do some more work in that regard.
So we'll get that done soon.
Also, thank you.
And thanks for that update as well.
Appreciate that.
Okay.
And with that, is there a motion? Motion to approve the compendium.
Second.
Can you take the roll, please, clerk? Okay.
To approve the item 16, Councilmember Castorwani? Yes.
Taplin? Aye.
Bartlett? Yes.
Yes.
Tregum? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Humber? Yes.
And Maragishi? Yes.
Okay.
Motion carries.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Folks, we are moving on to item number 17, which is the surveillance technology ordinance submission for external fixed surveillance cameras.
So, chief, I know you're sitting right here and I'm ready to go.
And I'm going to open the – actually, this is not a public hearing, so please continue.
Thank you.
We're going to get this going.
Okay.
So, good evening, Council and Mayor.
So, to set the stage a little bit about what we're talking about for this item.
So, we're currently discussing the approval of the FLOC fixed surveillance cameras under the surveillance technology ordinance.
So, this is the next step in the process to complete two Council referrals to install cameras meeting critical public safety needs in our community.
So, tonight we're looking for Council approval of the acquisition report and the use policies related to the fixed surveillance cameras so that we can move forward to contract and implementation steps.
Just as a little bit of additional background, these are funded items, currently funded items, and the use policies that are before you are the same use policies that Council considered with our original vendor for fixed surveillance cameras.
Okay.
So, we can start with the acquisition report.
We identified these cameras, the FLOC Condor cameras, for a couple of reasons.
First, the technical specs, the performance specs are excellent.
They have great resolution, zoom, a wide lens angle, and they're solar-powered, which gives us the flexibility to install them in a wider range of locations without being limited by electrical grid access.
So, that directly addresses the power supply and installation challenges that we had with our previous vendor.
Next, we have the utmost confidence in FLOC's data security measures.
So, they offer end-to-end encryption and a Berkeley-only cloud environment for storage, which hugely reduces local infrastructure costs and leverages FLOC's dedicated IT and cybersecurity team, which is a more secure and efficient approach than storing the data on our own physical in-house service.
And finally, FLOC has really worked well with us and expressed openness to amending their standard contract language.
So, we're confident that we'll be able to work with them to get to what we need regarding the contract language to meet the sanctuary city commitments and values of our city.
Okay, the use policies that we submitted, along with the acquisition report, are unchanged from those previously approved by council for fixed cameras and approved by the PAB, because we don't plan on using these cameras for any purpose not previously considered and approved by council.
And so, those approved uses are listed here on the slide.
But I want to be clear, only authorized BPD personnel will have direct access to the footage and only for the specific purposes listed in our policies.
Regarding retention periods, the retention period for surveillance cameras is longer than the approved period for LPRs, because the public safety value of the surveillance cameras will come primarily from accessing the footage during the course of an investigation, and it often will not become clear that the footage is necessary at all until later in the investigation.
And as you may recall, when the policy was originally approved by council, the discussion recognized that 30 days was not enough to provide that buffer for the investigation to get to the point where we would know that the footage is necessary.
A year felt too long, so we landed on 180 days as a middle ground.
And I know the chief has some additional information around the value of the longer retention period.
Thanks, Arvo.
So, knowing that this was of interest to the council, I had a number of conversations with our investigative unit about exactly this, about retention periods.
They began to very quickly tell me a bunch of very specific examples, and so I want to share a couple of them and just kind of talk broadly about what was important to them or what they raised up as far as retention periods.
In March 2024, there was a shooting that occurred in our city involving multiple fleeing vehicles.
The suspects weren't identified until four months later in July of 2024, but by that point, crucial flock camera footage from that March date had been automatically deleted due to retention periods, resulting in a permanent loss of that evidence, that information.
In 2016, Alex Goodwin was murdered in our city.
This case went cold weeks after the murder occurred.
Months later, a witness came forward providing a potential suspect and a vehicle description, reinvigorating the investigation and allowing us to move forward, demonstrating the value of a longer retention period.
In another case that they described to me, a victim reported a sexual assault three months after the incident occurred, and the business where the incident occurred has a retention policy of one year.
So, we were able to get to that footage, and the prosecutorial team expressed that they were able to see both the victim and the suspect at the location before and after the incident occurred, and that was crucial evidence in order to what would have been a potentially unchargeable case to prove that case.
So, the number of reasons that we may discover an incident late or evidentiary value may emerge later, some of the things that they described to me were delayed reporting.
We often see delayed reporting in some of the most serious cases, including domestic violence and sexual assault cases, where a victim may not become comfortable coming forward until many months later.
Laboratory processing delays can cause us 60 to 90 days before we get lab results back, which then puts us needing additional evidence that we would want in that footage.
Series and crime patterns, we often don't identify.
That's much better.
Series and crime patterns, it can take us several weeks to determine a series occurs and make connections between cases.
And so, having that information retained for a longer period of time allows us to build those cases.
And from the DA's office, they've shared that they consistently utilize video evidence, and it's not only to establish suspect presence, but corroborate witness testimony and strengthen case narratives.
And one really important one I also want to call out is officer-involved incidents.
So, late reported police misconduct, or, again, an individual may not feel comfortable coming forward to the police accountability board or police department until after an incident occurs.
So, having that access to contemporaneous video evidence to ensure thorough and impartial investigations is another key element.
So, it's a balance, and I know I've talked to several council members about the balances and the challenges and understanding the concerns around privacy, and how we can do that.
Understanding the concerns around privacy and around retention periods that are long.
It's also a reality of modern criminal cases and expectations for charging and the needs of victims to be able to have their case investigated.
So, this recommendation at 180 days was made with all of those things in mind.
Okay.
So, I do kind of want to call out very clearly some things that we know have been key concerns around this technology.
One of them being our commitment to sanctuary city protections and whether this would expose us to additional risk.
We talked about the contract language being very clear and prohibiting sharing with federal agencies for immigration purposes.
We talked about the data protection and those efforts to have the NDA encryption to make sure that data is safe and secure.
Clearly defined uses so that we're only accessing and the likelihood of sharing is only within the established and allowed uses.
And all of this will continue to be guided not only by existing sanctuary city policies, but as those policies evolve and strengthen, then the usage of this technology would evolve to match that.
Finally, there's a lot of steps towards transparency and accountability around this technology.
We will hear clearly from council what they expect to see in the contract.
FLOC is willing to work with us on contract language and that contract will be available.

Segment 7

Once we are ready for approval, we'll come to Council for final approval.
Additionally, there's specific audit expectations built into the policies, and we report annually via the Surveillance Technology Ordinance about uses, audits, and any kind of breaches around or attempted breaches around our technology.
Okay, so that's to try to cover the main points.
We do have online with us tonight Trevor Chandler, who is the Director of Public Affairs for FLOC.
So both Arlo and I and Trevor are here to answer any specific questions.
Thank you.
Thanks, Chief.
Council members, do you have any questions? Council member O'Keefe? Dang, I hate going first.
But if I counted to five, I wouldn't.
Okay, hi.
A couple questions.
Most of these are like expository, if you could just like explain a little more about some of the processes you mentioned.
One I am curious about is the audit process you mentioned.
If you could describe what that looks like and what kinds of things you're checking and what does the report look like? Yeah, so the audit process, we do twice a year.
We go through all accesses to the system.
Right now, for the few cameras that we do have, we have a different platform.
But we access the logs of who's logged in, verify that it was for an approved use, and then document if we find any improper uses or data breaches.
And we summarize that information and report on it in our annual surveillance technology ordinance report.
So you're actually going to check each one to make sure that what they said they did, they actually did.
Yeah, exactly.
We confirm that each access of the system was for a purpose approved by the use policy.
Great, thank you.
Another thing I think would maybe be helpful for the public to hear, I know there's been a lot of, you know, I've been in a lot of conversations, I've heard a lot from the public.
I think there's been some confusion about the difference between this technology that we're discussing tonight and the ALPR technology.
They're both surveillance, but my understanding is they're used in very different ways.
And I was wondering if you could, maybe by examples, say how you would use the information collected by the ALPR to make sure that you're getting the right information.
Yeah, absolutely.
It's such a great question, because both technologies are provided by the same vendor, so it can be confusing when you hear flock.
But flock ALPRs, or automated license plate readers, are very separate from the flock surveillance cameras.
So the ALPRs are separate from the flock surveillance cameras, but the ALPRs are separate from the flock surveillance cameras.
So the ALPRs are used to alert when a stolen vehicle or a vehicle associated with a felony has entered our city.
So that is information that is typically immediately actionable when used in that way.
There is some investigatory value as well when we have a specific license plate that we're wondering if it has been near the scene of a crime or something like that, and then we can search for that information.
The surveillance cameras don't alert on anything, so there's no really value on, for example, another agency being able to search across our cameras.
So what that means is the way in which we share the data is very, very different.
So with surveillance cameras, there will be no direct access by other agencies to the camera footage or data.
If another agency thinks that there might be some relevant data for a case that they're working that we have, they'll reach out to us directly.
We'll literally download any relevant footage and share that with them, just like we would in any other case, but it would not be via the flock platform.
So everything that we've heard and we've read in some recent news stories has occurred because another agency had access to ALPR data of another agency because it's shared to get that sort of value from those alerting systems.
Those mechanisms would not exist for the surveillance camera information.
So all of the ways in which the report of the information is made to the feds would not be possible for the surveillance cameras.
Just to be clear, there's no situation where the CHP would be granted access to this and then do something that we wouldn't want them to do.
That's not possible.
That's exactly right.
That would not be possible.
Great.
Thank you.
That was my third question.
My last question for now is for Trevor Chandler.
Are you there? The flock.
He's online, right? I know we were working to get him promoted.
Trevor, you know what I'm going to ask you about, so you should be ready.
I've been emailing him all day.
He is on the attendee list.
Okay, I believe I have been unmuted.
Hi, Trevor.
So, yeah, so as you know, I was emailing you trying to understand something about the nature of the encryption, and I was wondering if we could just get that on record here.
Could you explain the nature of the encryption, the different phases of encryption for this data that's going to be stored? It's going to be stored on the flock cloud, right? Yes.
Explain about the encryption in a relatively concise way.
Yes, so all data and images that are collected are encrypted both at rest in the camera and in transit at all times.
Flock utilizes the AWS cloud, and we are CEGIS certified.
CEGIS is the criminal justice information services, which is the standard for handling public safety data.
In addition to numerous other certifications, be it SOC 2, type 2, and beyond HIPAA, FERPA, and we continually are upgrading and auditing our encryption processes.
I'm happy to dive into the various levels of encryption, but the most important thing to note is that there is no point in the collection of the data, in the transition of the data, or in the downloading of the data that it is not encrypted.
Yes, thank you.
I think that's the thing I wanted to get you to say.
I don't know if any other council members are interested in the acronyms they can ask, but I wanted to get on record that thing that I was trying to get clear from you, which is that there's no real way in to kind of steal this data, because the encryption is very strong, and it's basically impossible to break.
And you actually have set it up so that it's end-to-end encrypted, so there's no gaps in the decryption process.
Is that right? Correct.
There is no gaps.
Even when the data is in the cameras themselves, there's an entire layer of encryption in the camera at rest, as well as when it is transitioned, there is not a single gap in the encryption process in the handling of the data.
Great.
Thank you so much.
And those are all my questions for now, but I reserve the right to have more.
Okay, thank you.
Council Member Blackabee.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Thank you, Arlo.
Thanks, Chief, for being here.
I have just a few questions, and again, most of them do relate to this data retention question.
I wanted to follow up on a thread that Council Member Roque started on the ALPR versus fixed surveillance cameras.
Why do you think, on the ALPR timing, that 30 days is sufficient, but you need more time? I know we gave you some examples, but it does fundamentally seem like it's really about how you use the technology, right? In a sense, the ALPR data is good for a very short time period when there's a potential that you can make a match and sort of track down a car almost in real time or shortly thereafter, whereas sort of the fixed surveillance camera value is more – it's a longer-term value where you can go back and look at something later of interest.
Could you just, again, go into that in a little more detail? Because I'm really interested in understanding why 30 days is not, in your view, kind of appropriate for both.
Yeah, you gave a great summary there.
So the ALPRs collect very specific information around a license plate.
So as a stolen vehicle or a vehicle associated with a felony enters our city, our officers will receive an alert and are able to go respond to that car in real time.
And so that obviously happens immediately.
There is investigatory value in the ALPR data that we lose beyond the 30 days.
So if – just like we use cameras in investigations, there could be a case where, you know, three months, six months down the road, we realize, oh, it would be useful in this case to place a car near a location.
And so we do lose that, but the bulk of the public safety value happens within that more immediate timeframe.
And I'll let Chief speak a little bit more to the investigative value of a longer retention period.
Yeah, not to run through the whole list again, but that was just really to touch on all the different ways that we learn later that there's investigative value.
You know, I would agree that holding on to ALPR data longer would potentially bring us some more investigative value.
We also know that a license plate information is more detailed and, you know, connects, you know, if someone is going to break into a system and figure out who that vehicle is registered or things like that.
So there's a little bit more risk versus cameras, fixed surveillance camera footage that's sitting, that's not being touched or entered or searched or searchable or creating alerts unless searched for a specific reason, if that makes sense.
Yeah, again, we're not using facial recognition, right? So again, there's no alerting.
There's no facial recognition.
It's literally an investigator going and looking at it and using her or his own judgment and evaluating that.
We're not capturing live audio, right? Like, there's no audio recording.
Okay.
And is there ever a scenario when you're monitoring live video under any of these use cases? Yeah, if you look at the use case for an ongoing or active incident, an example that I've given recently is like, if there was an active shooter in a location where one of those cameras was by, we would want to look at that and potentially either be able to resolve and confirm that wasn't the case and or monitor and see what a safe route of approach was or just understand what's happening there.
Okay, and last kind of stream and then I'll stop is around sort of the sharing question.
How would you characterize the frequency with which you might be sharing pings or access to the ALPR database with other jurisdictions versus how you would be doing sharing of the video, the live, not the live video, but the video surveillance footage with other jurisdictions? Is it a similar amount of sharing more or less one way or the other? Just help us understand again, a little about how that process might work.
ALPR versus surveillance.
Right.
And so where a vehicle travels, where it's located a certain time, that has a lot of information to it that might have bearing outside of it, right? Or if someone's trying to locate where a suspect is at a certain time or to create a search warrant or something like that, whereas for the fixed surveillance cameras, we're talking about incidents that are occurring in our jurisdiction.
So, as you can imagine, there's not a lot of other jurisdictions working cases in our city where you might come up is the agency is working a case and the person says, no, I didn't commit that crime.
I was.
I was at the Apple store on 4th street in Berkeley.
I wasn't I wasn't here an alibi.
And so the jurisdiction might hit us up and say, can you confirm whether or not that person was was seen on that footage or not? That kind of use, it's, it's not, it's not super common because it's, it's, it's footage of our of our city and things that are occurring in our city.
All of those situations would be log auditable.
Right? I mean, so, because I guess where I'm heading with this is I, I see and understand.
I think the evidentiary value I share the privacy concerns.
So, if we were to provide a slightly longer time horizon, I'd, I'd really want to do that.
Only if we were like, ironclad, I'm sort of the access piece and the audit trail and the logging of it to know that.
Right, we've, we've got that locked down on sort of on our side.
Yeah, I can think about it's actually a tighter control on that.
So they have to contact our, our agency.
It's a captain of the department that's that's receiving that and approving that request for an outside agency.
Whereas at our level internally, our officers are bound by the policy and they follow the policy and detectives can access that footage.
And so there's even a higher level of scrutiny to ensure we wouldn't be releasing information or data to other jurisdictions unless it fell within our ability to access requirements within our use policy.
I think you'd volunteer to think earlier and I swear, whatever we do set tonight, I think I'd want to make sure we have a revisit within whatever 6 months, 12 months and look at it again to make sure.
Did we set something was too broad that we set something too narrow so that we make sure we're tracking that and get that and we calibrate that and look back at it again and just bake that into the review process that we're going to make sure that we've set the appropriate timeline.
Yes, certainly to be reasonable for us to take a look as we do our audits about how long we're usually going forward into look at it to evidence and to continue to ask detectives to raise cases up where they lost evidentiary evidence as a result of the timeline.
And really assess, is there value in us hold each order or longer in balance with our community safety.
Thank you, Chief.
Thanks, Mayor.
Thank you, Council Member Council Member Trager.
Thank you.
So I just wanted to confirm the auditing is done by annually.
Correct.
Once a year, you send a comprehensive report to Council with findings.
Is there anything preventing you or would it would it be burdensome to just whatever the outcome of the audit is to share that with Council twice a year.
The same information that we published in the annual surveillance technology ordinance, but instead of those results of both audits once a year, as we finish them, send them to Council.
Yes.
Yeah, that's something that Council addresses to do.
Absolutely, we could do that.
Okay, thank you.
My next question is actually for.
Sorry, can I just follow up on this and if you wouldn't mind.
I think that maybe the question was also like what's involved in that if you were to what's the difference between auditing twice and auditing twice and presenting twice.
Yeah, I think that's why I looked at the guy that's going to be doing the audit, because there's work and there's work involved doing the audit.
And as you imagine, we launched a significant number of additional cameras, there's going to be more audit work that's going to occur.
And so I would say we're going to be doing the audit, we're going to prepare a report of the audit, but preparing a Council item to then come and present is an additional layer of administrative work versus submitting an information item or an off agenda memo, you know, to communicate that information, you know, would make more sense and, you know, and wouldn't require us to also go through the step of preparing for this and presenting and things like that.
Yeah, I was not specific in terms like what, as you pointed out, Chief, an audit can look different, it can be presented different ways.
And so I'm just trying to find the right balance between the Council having information that is in real time, or as close to it as possible, and reducing something that could be seen as overly burdensome.
Well, we'll get into comments.
If I may make one more comment about that as well.
I also want to call out the fact that as we're doing more regular auditing, and if we're reporting on results of our audit, and determining what level of degree we're reporting on, you know, I want to make sure we're not jeopardizing active ongoing investigations as a result of that reporting.
So we might want to consider what a reasonable amount of time we audit and report on, so as not to unintentionally release information that jeopardizes the integrity of a case.
Okay, thank you.
And, you know, there can be further discussion about what that might look like.
I had a question for Trevor.
You know, I wanted to understand, so boilerplate contract language 4.3 and 5.3.
I understand that certain jurisdictions that have sanctuary city or just sanctuary policies, you have been able to not include those in the contract.
I just wanted to, you know, better understand kind of the need for, like, what, what is the, what is the value that flock is obtaining from including 4.3 and 5.3 and have you, what are some jurisdictions in which that language was not included as part of a contract.
Yeah, absolutely.
So the section you're referring to is the anonymized data.
1 of the things that we're incredibly proud of at flock is the very high accuracy rates of the cameras that we have and the machine learning that's there and the way we continually improve on those accuracy rates to make sure there's no false identifications or anything like that is by using anonymized data.
That's removed of all metadata of all location, even ownership.
So no one knows what, whether it came from Berkeley or San Francisco or any other city.
So we can continually improve the services that we provide.
And it also explicitly states in that section of the contract that this is not data that's used for selling again.
Flocks is not sell your data.
We are not in the data broker business.
The data is yours and what this anonymized data allows us to do is to continually improve the level of service for the machine learning in the cameras.
We're obviously in a very heightened political environment, and despite this data being fully anonymized, there have been folks who out of a preponderance of concerning caution in this political environment have asked to be removed even from that just as a extra fail safe, despite the fact that it is fully anonymized.
And so we have been able to make that exception and like the chief said, we're happy to have that conversation with Berkeley as well.
If that is if that is concerned, given the heightened political environment that we're in now.
Thank you.
Those are all my questions for now.
Okay, thank you.
Council Member Humbert.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And I want to thank the chief and Arlo for really an excellent presentation and for being so responsive and answering questions so far.
I want to say as a starting point that I'm generally supportive of the edits proposed by the police accountability board.
I thought they made a lot of sense, but I do want to hear from Chief Lewis, whether these are workable and if there's anything she believes should be adjusted.
I personally, I think that 30 days doesn't work.
It's just not functional for investigative purposes.
And I think we reached the appropriate compromise on this issue when we last visited it, and that's 180 days.
But I want to ask you about the proposed changes, which I've looked at carefully and appreciate and see if you think they are workable.
Yeah, of course.
Thank you.
So the two recommendations around adding suggested contract language are in alignment with both our values and what we expect to see in the contract.
A little unusual that it would be in the use policy, but not an issue at all for us.
There was also some additional red line suggestions that seemed completely reasonable and achievable via the way the form works and happy to include those.
And as I think I've said hopefully clearly and explained clearly enough, I'm very concerned about a 30 day retention period and what that would mean to the caliber and ability for us to conduct thorough investigations.
Thank you, Chief.
Yeah, I was I was thinking primarily about the red line edits and ads, and they made sense to me.
It sounds like you think they make sense to you, too.
Thank you.
That's actually all I had in terms of questions.
I have comments, but I'll save them.
Thank you.
Council Member O'Keefe, did you have? Oh, actually, before I go back to you, does anyone else have other questions? Oh, I think Council Member, go ahead.
Thank you.
I have a couple of questions for the flock representative and then a few for BPD.
Is is the representative still on? Yes.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
I'm curious what the flock protocol and I think this is this is also for just the public knowledge what the protocol is in the event that ice agents are requesting previously recorded footage.
Yes, so, and this is fully outlined in our contract.
We are legally obligated to alert the city of Berkeley to any request for your data legal or otherwise so that you all can make a decision on on how you want to engage with that request.
Flock has never been served a subpoena by ice or a warrant by ice for data in the event that did ever happen.
Our contract clearly states that we would forward that request to you and make sure you are aware of it.
And so you and your legal counsel could take whatever action you deem necessary in response to it.
Okay, thank you.
And do you have any protocol of ice agents physically show up at a flock office requesting data? Is there is it? So, are the data we use the AWS gov cloud and so we do not have servers at our headquarters and so if they showed up physically, it would be no different than showing up via email because we would still have the protocols in order necessary in order to fulfill that sort of request.
Thank you.
Those are my questions for flock and then I have a couple of questions for BPD and the 1st, 1 is.
I'm curious if you're confident that we can get back the 290,000 dollars that was previously dispersed at Edgeworth.
Yeah, we're, we're working closely with them and with public works to identify other projects where those sorts of cameras are needed and where there's there's budget for them.
So we're in that process right now.
Yes.
And do you believe that we'll be able to we're on our way and we have a few projects identified that that will be coming up in our summer in progress now.
Can I ask what those projects are? Yeah, so the, the jail cameras that were part of the next item, we'll be using some of the cameras that we previously purchased the animal shelter that got their cameras approved a couple meetings ago.
Those will be using some, and then there's a few other pending funding with public works.
Okay.
Thank you.
And then my next question is, it has last week, there were reports that the Oakland Police Department and San Francisco police departments were illegally sharing data from surveillance cameras with ice and other federal agencies.
Can you speak directly to how that could happen? And what safeguards there in our city to ensure that something like that can't happen in Berkeley or wouldn't happen in Berkeley.
Yeah, so those stories were regarding so, so, again, a different technology than the surveillance cameras that we're discussing tonight.
And the stories involved a 3rd agency accessing data of surveillance cameras.
And then identifying the reason for the search as having to do with a federal agency and so that that whole process would not be possible with these surveillance cameras because we won't be sharing them out with other other agencies.
So, it would just be searching on the cameras.
Okay, thank you.
And then my final question is about the current fixed camera that we have in our city.
It was only it was reviewed 8 times in the reporting period by the department.
That's a great question.
I don't have that off the top of my head, but that would be interesting to look at.
Yeah, another really important note about that camera and that's 1 of the reasons why we pivoted in March to different locations is that we realized that there was a lot of data that was being shared.
Yeah, another really important note about that camera and that's 1 of the reasons why we pivoted in March to different locations is that we realized that that fixed camera on a traffic intersection gave us very limited evidentiary value.
Now, with the locations that were identified in pedestrian heavy locations, we expect to have a lot more value from those and be able to again, capture data about when we're looking at them, how close to an incident and really have a good, robust audit and report once we get those technologies in place.
Thank you.
Would it be possible to record when when it was access for for the future for those.
You know, ongoing valuations.
You're, you're saying to record to count how many days from the event that we're reviewing have passed to the day that we review it.
Yes.
Yeah, we can take a look at what that would involve.
Can I clarify something there that might be useful? Yes, I think perhaps it maybe it's that we're wondering when the date of the incident happened and when the date that of the information that was accessed and that'll clarify the time period.
Right? Was it 30 days was 180 days? Yes, exactly.
Yeah.
Maybe that'll be simpler.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Oh, is that a council member? Yes, that's it.
Thank you.
Thank you for your questions and council member.
Thanks, just a few more and I just want to chime in on what you're talking about.
I believe when somebody does a search on the system, obviously, the time and date of the search will be recorded.
And also you have to search by a date, right? It's linear footage of time.
So I think that would just be a subtraction problem.
Is that right? Yeah, I think we could probably.
That should be straightforward to collect.
You're already collecting the information you need.
Is that right? Yeah, so the date range is simpler to see for the LPRs because you're searching for a specified date range.
But yeah, we would see the specific date that you're looking at.
Yeah, this footage will also have dates.
Right, right, right, right, right.
Yeah.
So that's I think that's actually should be easy.
I hope.
OK, two follow up questions from things I heard.
One is for police.
Oh, back to the auditing question.
I think there was a brief discussion.

Segment 8

Councilmember Tregub about the issue of the audit, the information of the audit interfering with possible ongoing investigations.
So I was wondering, we kind of like left that before I was ready, do you have a suggestion like is there a like a gap, a time gap that you could name that would make that more comfortable? Like let's say you were doing audits from six months ago or something like that.
Do you have a suggestion for something we could add? Thank you.
Yes, certainly looking at incidents from six months ago would limit the number of incidents that would potentially be part of ongoing investigations.
And then limiting the type of information within that would also protect us from revealing something that would harm an ongoing investigation or reveal some personally identifying information.
So as long as you had the ability to redact what was in the audit.
That's right.
And then the time barrier also would help.
Exactly.
Is that right? Yeah, I think that seems like a good approach.
And then my follow-up question is a little bit more in that direction, and this is something we spoke about briefly earlier.
What do you think about the idea of releasing, in addition to the audit, just the raw data? Which wouldn't have very much because this, you know, you look at the actual footage and make sure that it was correct or whatever.
But if people were also able to see a list of all the reasons that were, that somebody searched and why and when that was from a little while ago, do you think that would be cumbersome or problematic? I think that might be helpful for the public, but I want to know what that would look like on your end.
So yeah, with those, so just to clarify, that would involve going through those individual incidents and making sure that we were not releasing anything that would be harmful to an ongoing investigation or any personally identifying information.
So understanding that that would create some additional work for us, but especially if we can put in some limitations to that, some parameters around the time period to help facilitate that.
The portion of the raw data that includes the date of the search and the reason for the search, I think we could produce that.
That'd be good, because one thing to note, and this is more of a comment, but just for context for that question, the article that a lot of people are referencing, the information from the article was gathered by this kind of data.
So I was thinking if it was reported publicly, I think that might alleviate some of the fears that the article is bringing up.
That's why I'm asking that.
We can talk about that more later.
Thank you for that answer.
I have another question.
It's my last one.
It's for Trevor.
Yes.
I don't want you to feel left out.
I was a little confused, and I may have missed something, so I apologize, but when you were answering Council Member Trager's question, I heard you talk about anonymized data, and I didn't quite understand what you meant.
And actually, one thing I really want to clarify is, does this operation that we're talking about involve any facial recognition? No.
Okay.
That's what I understood.
My understanding was that.
I just wanted to make that really clear.
It almost sounded to me like you were talking about people's identities.
I didn't understand what that was.
Could you clarify what you meant by anonymized data? Yeah.
So mainly, especially with the machine learning, it's mainly applicable for our LPR because of, you know, updated car models, that sort of thing.
Right.
Okay.
Yeah.
Machine learning makes sense in the LPR context, but I wasn't sure what it meant in this context.
So in this context, whether it's even – well, there's no facial recognition.
There is notification if there's, like, a human that's in frame, that sort of thing.
And so that's what this is in regards to.
I see.
Okay.
But I just want to make that really clear for everyone.
No facial recognition that's written in the document in these policies.
Correct.
Thank you very much.
Those are all my questions, I promise.
Okay.
I have some questions as well.
Thank you all so much.
So I know we've talked a little bit about – we talked quite a bit about who can access this flock data, and I just want to make sure, from the City of Berkeley side, is it just BPD officers? Well, as you can imagine, there's instances where our dispatchers might want to be able to make use of that to provide information to officers.
As we step into this technology, we're going to learn about what those uses might be.
Our community service officers, who we are deploying as a mid-level approach for a non-sworn personnel, will be engaged in taking cold reports, and there may be evidentiary value on that footage in that space.
But everybody in our organization is bound to the departmental policy, to state law, and the city's policies.
Sure.
And so just to clarify, that's just folks within BPD, whether they're sworn or unsworn? That's correct.
Not, like, other departments or something like that? No.
There might be some instance where IT, for some technical reason, was engaged, and that's written in our policies, but that would not be a regular use, and would be a monitored and reported use.
Sure.
And I also wanted to clarify for, I understand that we're gonna have a cloud that we have access to, but do flock employees also have access to that data? Trevor might be able to speak to the technical components of that, but it is our cloud environment.
The data is not commingled with any other agency's data, and so it's isolated to our access and use.
And so as we get authenticated through the platform, that's what grants us access to the footage.
Yes, and flock only has access to the data as outlined in the contract, which is to address, you know, malfunctioning issues.
So we do not have a general right of access to the data.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
And Chief, I know that Council Member Linapara had asked you a question about, you know, or asked some questions about if flock had been asked by ICE agents for data.
Could you just talk through, okay, so flock already said you have to talk to the City of Berkeley, it's their data, then what would happen? Could you just talk us through that? Yeah, so what I imagine is flock would notify us that someone was trying to make an access.
We would direct flock, that's our data, please direct them to us, which as Trevor shared is what they would do.
I would then receive the subpoena and would probably engage in a long conversation with them about what exactly they were seeking and why, to see if it complied with both our state law, the sanctuary city policy, our internal use policy.
I'd want to ask a lot of questions of them to see exactly what they wanted and why, which I would then carry forward to both City Manager and Council and the City Attorney's Office, so we could have a long conversation about, you know, what was what they were asking and then determine the legal steps we would need to pursue to fight that if it was against any of our existing policies or values.
Thank you.
I just want to make sure that's clear.
And then also, I know we've already talked about how this technology that we're talking about doesn't have facial recognition, that's not allowed in our policies anyway, and I'm wondering if you could also speak to the ability of using this technology with a license plate reader technology or any other add-ons that might come in the future.
Well, so neither of the two technologies that we'll have will alert to each other, right? So an alert on the LPRs won't trigger an action on a camera, so they're not integrated like that.
But any, this is a software as a service and hardware as a service, and so any upgrades that come, which would be included in our contracts, we would not turn on if they fall outside of our use policy.
That would be something that we would have to come back to Council through the surveillance technology ordinance process to be able to use.
Okay, thank you.
And then for Trevor online, thank you for being here so late this evening.
Could you speak to, I want to make sure, we have some concerns around FLOC having the discretion to hand over data to other law enforcements, jurisdictions that they feel there's a need for public safety, and so I'm wondering if this is something that you'll be able to address when when we have contract discussions with you.
Yes, happy to go over that.
I mean, in our current contract language, we try to be as clear as possible about the the legal lengths that we can go to in the face of things like a subpoena and a warrant signed by a judge and whatnot, and so we'll, we're happy to continue to those conversations and work through the contract language to that regard.
Thank you.
And just so folks can understand, when we talk about these reports, when we're trying to get audit information, what form do they sort of come in? Is this something that can be clearly pulled up? Is it a PDF? Is it a file? What does that look like? The audits that we produce? So is there information that you're getting directly from FLOC that becomes part of your audit, or maybe that's a question for you, Arlo.
Oh, yes, we are able to see a log of each individual access and the reason for it, and so then we summarize that in our audit report, yeah.
Okay, just curious what that sort of form looks like.
Okay, I think those are all my questions.
My colleagues were great question askers.
Go ahead, Councilmember Taplin.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I have a question for the Chief.
If the extra audits Council asked for does result in an administrative burden, would there be work that might be put on the back burner, and if so, what might that work be? Yeah, it's a great question.
Obviously, we want to make sure that we're providing assurances to the community and to Council that we're looking at the right things for the right reasons, and we want to make sure that we're not putting our community at risk, and what might seem like a small ask and or just downloading something can create an extra burden.
As I shared, the, you know, preparing a Council report and coming officially and formally like this takes some more administrative time than producing a report annually or producing it via an off-agenda memo, you know.
I highly value the work that our Office of Strategic Planning Accountability that Arlo runs is engaged in.
You know, we do have competing audit responsibilities.
You know, we regularly audit our property room.
We have responsibilities around the military equipment ordinance that you saw and the controlled equipment ordinance.
We have an expanded use of force reporting, so all the different ways we capture data, and so what I mean by that is if we ask officers to collect more data about what they're doing or why they're doing around everything that they're doing, that it just it's just an added task in a time when we are really working on a shoestring of personnel.
So, you know, for me it's important to be reporting on and capturing and auditing the things that make sense and that provide us value in as we make decisions about use policies and in bringing technologies on, and so I just would really lean into us understanding the cost of time and really focusing on and making things as regular as they need to be to assure, but not so much that they just they are necessary or become unhelpful.
Councilmember Trachoff, do you have another question? Yeah, just as a follow-up to that, okay.
Currently, can you just confirm data? There is a biannual audit that like whatever we are contemplating approving tonight will not be a change to the periodicity of the audit, correct? Yeah, if we don't change from biannual, then yeah, there will be no change because that's what's currently enshrined in policy.
So this, what kind of, what is the purpose of the biannual audit right now? To identify any unauthorized accesses to the to the system to make sure that every access of the system was within policy.
Okay.
Maybe just add some more flavor to that.
It would tell us if a camera wasn't operating correctly.
It could tell us that officers aren't being clear enough in their description when they're writing their purpose out and so we can do some training so that we don't want to wait a whole year before we collect information on that and do something about a problem if there's a problem and so that's one of the reasons why we set this, I think it's reasonable to set that six-month period.
Thank you.
Okay, I think that's it for our council questions.
Do we have public comment here for this issue? If you have a public comment, come on up.
Good evening.
I'm Stephen Miller.
Julie Dickey on Zoom is giving me some time so I can come to thank you for this contract to install surveillance cameras for us.
As Tom Holman on Borders Are announced yesterday, we're turning our focus to so-called sanctuary cities.
The Big Beautiful Bill has massively increased our budget, offering unparalleled opportunities for us and for companies who can expand our ability to protect American citizens from the foreign gangsters that have infiltrated cities such as yours.
As the report before you tonight says, the city will depend on Flock Safety for the camera hardware, the Flock OS software platform, cellular data transmission, cloud storage, etc.
I assure you, Berkeley will not supervise the actual operation of the Flock proprietary systems and we will not allow your illegitimate policies or sanctuary city policies or uncooperative local law enforcement officers to interfere with our work.
As a Berkeley City official said at a recent public meeting, language in a contract does not ensure compliance.
I am not here to describe specifics but you don't need to worry about our methods for getting around data entry logs, for getting around access logs, for getting around encryption.
Your acceptance of the cameras to create valuable data is the only piece we need from you.
So you're welcome to forget that I came out tonight.
We can take it from there as soon as you get that contract signed.
Thank you so very much.
Yeah, I strongly encourage you to reject entangling and embedding this mass surveillance system in Berkeley in our community.
These Condor systems are not standard security cameras.
They run machine learning to identify all of the individuals that are coming through them and track them autonomously without a human zooming in to make a digital fingerprint of these individuals so you can actually track them through the frame and across these cameras.
Is that facial recognition? No, I guess not yet, but it's a lot more than a standard security camera.
This is in their own PR docs.
This is designed, this company is a private company based in Georgia, okay? Their whole business model is to centralize this data and make it accessible to law enforcement and the federal government, which they have been doing, as we've been hearing, in violation of local sanctuary policies.
They say the data is ours, but they have the encryption keys as well, and sure, they will forward on those requests, but they will also very, very likely give that data to the government when it asks, and the federal government will ask.
Thanks for your comment.
I'm extremely disappointed that we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars, in my opinion.
I don't know exact numbers.
I haven't seen an exact number, but how many criminals will this thousands of dollars actually capture? You know, we're paying for the equipment, we're paying for people's time, you know we're going into a deep recession, depression is coming.
So here we have total lack of staffing, 30% lack of staffing throughout the city, we're in a financial crisis, and yet you're talking about spending a tremendous amount of money for what, stuff in the cloud? Do you think that's secure? How can you possibly believe that? And just the fact is, is that we could use that money for helping people, and just do the arithmetic, how many actual convictions? Thank you.
Hello everyone, I fear that we as a community are being hoodwinked a little bit, because you asked is there facial recognition in this technology? No, there's no facial recognition technically, but as was just described, it functions like facial recognition in that it can target an individual and track them.
Is this technology safe? Well it's end-to-end encrypted, but one of those ends is Flock, is a private company.
Are we really comfortable trusting that this privately owned out-of-state company that's already given data to ICE is gonna follow our sanctuary city requirements? We don't have to worry about if the data is secure if we don't collect that data, and as of right now we're already surveilling a lot of the city, we don't need to make it worse.
And I think that if you guys vote to approve these cameras, when ICE comes knocking, and they will come knocking soon, you will have to take personal responsibility for the fact that you've collected data.
Thank you.
That's going to lead to people being supported.
Thanks for your comment.
Hi, good evening.
I'd just like to expand on what previous people said, and ask what happens if the federal government or ICE contacts Amazon Web Services directly.
So these are the people where Flock is storing the data, and it might be normally encrypted, but the encryption service that they use, or standards that they use, have been decrypted or breached numerous times over its history, and I think it's a bit naive to think that this would be beyond the capabilities of the federal government, and so I'm just asking what mechanism is, I'm just saying that there is no mechanism to store or record such sensitive information that is safe from this unwanted access.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Thanks, everybody.
I really appreciate all of the comments leading up to this.
I'm really, really gravely concerned, just as a citizen right now.
I think all of us are enraged and afraid, because we've seen the government just scoop people off the street and put them away, and something really similar happened in Berkeley in 1942, when the city allowed more than 1,000 Japanese Americans to be abducted from our streets and interned, and I think a really important question is to ask, like, what would you have done then? How, in large and small ways, are you allowing something similar to happen now, even if it seems something small, like building a massive surveillance apparatus for a very dangerous federal government? Would you have capitulated? Would you have capitulated when they came in with the subpoena? Could you fight that, and how are you going to take responsibility for it? Thank you.
Hi, I just want to add one more dimension to what's been said already.
The concern regarding access to data and who has access to data is very real.
I think locally it's also a concern.
I was not convinced, and I would wager that no one should be convinced that the answer to the question of how these data that might be generated from this technology can be protected relative to ALPR data, especially in reference to the recent article that came out about OPD and SFPD sharing data with the FBI illegally.
There is actually no legal protection that BPD is building for themselves, such that any individual with access to this data could still share it with someone from OPD or SFPD or any number of local agencies who have individuals who are willing to cooperate with the FBI against state law.
Thank you for your comments.
Next speaker.
Hi, I agree with all the comments about concerns around immigration and sanctuary status, but I wanted to add that sanctuary status is not the only kind of cross-jurisdictional issue that might come up.
We haven't talked at all about reproductive rights and the way that this comes up even across state lines, and so I wanted to just flag that sanctuary status is not the only issue at hand with creating this kind of surveillance net.
I think that the ALPRs and the Condor cameras, but FLOC has sort of repeatedly only agreed to internal sort of metrics of accuracy, and so some of those claims can be quite suspect, and there have been some sort of external exposes written about how they don't really function to reduce the crime rates, and so I just wanted to also call into question some of this trouble that we're having with the Thank you very much.
Are there any more speakers in the room who wish to give comment on this item? If not, we will take speakers on Zoom.
Okay, first speaker is Cheryl Davel, a former council member.
So, yeah, reproductive rights, LGBTQI, and rights, the sanctuary city, there's no way that you can guarantee that FLOC or whoever stores FLOC's data, which is supposedly Berkeley's data, encrypted, is not going to be unencrypted by someone who disproves it.
So, I just wanted to Berkeley's data, encrypted, is not going to be unencrypted by someone who decides, like the FBI, the CIA, Homeland Security, you know, with 47, none of these agencies can be trusted.
They're going after black and brown people, immigrants, disappearing folks, and there's, regardless of what Trevor says or anybody else, you can't guarantee that they're not going to, you know, turn over that data.
And that's a concern, especially with what we're facing with the fascism.
And y'all are Next is Daniel Brownson.
Um, yeah.
So, as another person said, they, even if our police department is more ethical than OPD or LAPD or SFPD and refuses to turn over data to ICE or, you know, this administration, even if FLOC, you know, does what they're supposed to and refuses to turn over data without our permission, their data is hosted on Amazon Web Services.
They can just get the data from there directly.
This is the federal government we're talking about.
The only way that it's secure is if it's not on the cloud at all or doesn't exist.
Thank you.
Next is Will G.
Hi, there.
Like many others here tonight, I strongly encourage the Council to reject FLOC as a vendor because, again, as many people have said already, despite the assurances made in the surveillance acquisition report and in tonight's presentation that footage collected by these new cameras won't be shared with ICE, relying on policies alone has already failed residents alone has already failed residents in Oakland and San Francisco.
OPD and SFPD both repeatedly broke state law SB34 by sharing their footage with ICE, and all it takes is for an agent to—a police officer to share information with ICE on their own volition.
And these breaches weren't limited only to external ALPR requests.
In at least two cases, OPD staffers themselves made searches on behalf of the FBI.
And truly, the only way to guarantee that this data is not shared with ICE is to not collect it at all.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are there other comments online? George Whitman.
Yes, hi.
Thanks for all the presentations, but they do not give me a level of comfort.
Here's how it really is going to work.
Please take the time to read through the articles about the SFPD and OPD and also about San Diego, but you're going to need time to do that.
You can't approve this tonight if you want to take it seriously.
So anything that goes into a cloud managed by FLOC is open to a query by other departments.
Then immigration or whoever's repressing reproductive rights or whatever issue of the day can ask if any friendly department that is a FLOC user to see the target department's data.
That is the hole in the web of protection from immigration.
A vote for—a vote in favor of the FLOC item is a vote for giving information on our people to ICE and other immigration agencies, which, lest we forget, are part of an unconstitutional, criminal, racist organization.
I understand the public safety argument for the cameras, but this is not the way—this is definitely not the time.
Thanks, George.
Your time's up.
Next is Moni.
This proposal seems not tested and highly risky.
It seems to me that in such a measure as this, we must be more than just slightly questioning or concerned, but insisting that, for example, social media scrubs are done by our police department, which has been asked in the past in prior cases.
Proud Boys and other white supremacist groups have been named the number one public safety risk to this nation by the FBI reports.
I do not find this in any way reassuring for my safety.
These types of machines have also been shown to misread black and brown skin, and people have been wrongfully detained.
This type of information can be used to our harm instead of our benefit, and having had the Proud Boys focus on us, you could certainly expect them to come soon as what they believe themselves being the guardians of their core on our community.
Your time's up.
Thanks, Moni.
Next is Len.
Hello.
Good evening.
I would like to share the opinion of lots of other people who have spoken tonight and urge the council to.

Segment 9

to reject this proposal.
There's been a lot of discussion about what is available in terms of, you know, providing a subpoena funding warrant.
And first of all, I just think it's important to note that data that's like this, that is stored and controlled by a private company, that is held by a private company, does not have the same protection that one might expect from the Fourth Amendment.
It's a lower standard.
And not only that, but also all of these precautions that are in place are only going to work so long as the federal law doesn't change, and so long as the federal bench agrees that they do.
I think that assuming that the current bench is going to allow you to successfully fight these subpoenas and these warrants is naive at best.
All said and done, to echo multiple other people, the only way to ensure that this data isn't used against the people in our community is to not collect it in the first place.
And we shouldn't be doing it.
Next is Josh Cayetano.
Hi, Honorable Council Members, Madam Mayor.
My name is Josh Cayetano.
I'm Chair of the Police Accountability Board, and I'm hoping a member of the public there will give me a minute to speak of their time.
I really want to thank the Council for their questions and the members of the community for their comments as well.
I just want to point out that it would have been really beneficial for the community and for the Council if the Police Accountability Board was present to answer questions about our recommendation.
In the future, I hope it's something that the Council will consider.
The Police Accountability Board submitted a letter in light of reports that FLOC's data had been accessed or shared with federal immigration agencies across the country, including Oakland and San Francisco data.
And one thing that hasn't been mentioned about how that data was shared is that officers will write into the reason for their report DHS INVEST, which stands for DHS Investigation.
And current policy, Berkeley's current immigration policy, doesn't actually prevent Berkeley officers from assisting in a criminal investigation.
Josh, typically the way we've been doing it is if someone's online and has given you a time, a minute online, then we do it that way.
So your time is up, unfortunately, but we did receive your report and I appreciate you sending that over.
Next is Alana Auerbach.
I'm happy to give my minute to Josh for him to continue, because I think it's important.
Thank you.
Josh, if you want to continue, you've got Alana's minute.
I think we're bringing Josh back.
Yeah, he should be able to unmute.
Hi.
Hello, can you hear me? Okay.
Thank you, Alana, for your minute.
I'll take 30 seconds.
I want to focus on the data retention piece.
The PAB wrote its recommendation on the assumption that council would go forward with the FLOC item.
The data retention piece is really the only way if council goes forward to address the community's concerns.
And the 30-day retention period is actually a policy that has been adopted by San Francisco Police Department, San Jose Police Department, Fremont Police Department.
It is becoming the industry standard in response to the increased federal immigration enforcement.
And I think we live in a brave new world.
It's not enough to stand by a policy that was written before this world existed.
And so I'm asking the council members to be brave and adopt a 30-day retention policy.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Kelly Hammergren.
Could you give me a sense of how many folks are left online? Six hands raised.
Okay, thank you.
Go ahead, Kelly.
Hey, thank you.
I just want to say that I agree with the comments by the public, all of the comments.
I listened to all of your questions tonight, and there is nothing that has been said that makes me feel that this information that you're going to collect is secure.
I guess, you know, some of the readings that I've been doing outside of the council, in particular, I think of the book, This is How They Tell Me the World Ends, by people who do research on systems that you can't guarantee the security of the system.
You can't guarantee that this will not get into the hands of people that we don't want to have it.
So I worry very much about the public and the residents of Berkeley and the students and what will happen here.
Thank you.
Thanks, Kelly.
I think our timer is off.
Yeah, it started late.
Okay.
Kelly was finished.
Yeah.
Roberto Rodriguez.
Hello.
Yes, Roberto here.
I'm just a citizen of Berkeley.
I would strongly recommend that this council consider the climate in which we're considering this proposal.
The agencies that are going to be most interested in the data that is being collected have had their budgets greatly multiplied.
They will put pressure to get this data in their hands.
There is no usage policy that I think will protect us.
The moment that is violated, it will harm members of our community.
We won't be able to go back from this.
Thank you.
Next is Megan.
Hi, my name is Megan Waksbras.
I'm a resident of District 1.
I think whatever the relative merits and trade-offs between privacy and protection that go along with cameras in the ordinary context don't apply right now.
This is an extraordinary context.
And at a bare minimum before the city moves forward with this, I would like the council to make sure that they can address one, I haven't still heard a satisfactory answer as to why there would need to be an anonymization or what data might be collected by these cameras for which anonymization might be relevant.
If there are just cameras.
And two, I would be very curious as to the number and magnitude of flocks contracts, if any, with the federal government and specifically with DHS or ICE, and whether those create a conflict of interest should there be an instance in which DHS or ICE seeks data contrary to policy or even in the context of criminal investigations, which may be targeting activists or others who are engaged in nonviolent protest as we've already seen.
Sorry, your time is up.
Thanks for your comment.
Next is Horse E-girl Radio.
Hi, sorry about the Zoom name.
As already mentioned, relying on high standards and strict policy has already failed the people who live in Oakland and San Francisco.
In both cities, their flock systems have already illegally given access to their data over to ICE.
The proposed flock safety condor video cameras for Berkeley will run on the same operating system.
The purpose of flock is to make it easier to share data between law enforcement agencies.
So if you collect the information, it will be abused.
The audits that come after will be too late.
Every step we take to ensure the installation of these cameras cannot be abused is worth the extra time.
Flock has already demonstrated that their system is easily abused.
We should listen.
I urge the council to reject flock as a vendor.
Thank you.
Next is Ava.
Hi, I don't trust flock with this data.
I'm concerned the technology will be used to contribute to an increasing posture of suspicion against our community on behalf of both local and federal law enforcement.
I find this unacceptable as a Berkeley resident.
I don't think collecting this information is necessary in the first place.
I don't believe that you can guarantee the integrity of the data that is collected with these instruments.
Furthermore, I am concerned that this data will be shared with ICE and ultimately be used to harm members of our community.
I urge you to reject this proposal.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Last speaker is a phone number ending in 485.
You should be able to unmute star six to unmute.
Hello? Yes.
Can you hear me? Yes.
Okay.
Well, in spite of the horrible, horrible, horrible time we're living under a man who has 34 felony conviction, who have done so much damage to the country, he's really public for Putin.
What I'd like to say, surveillance cameras are important.
It kept our business safe for 60 years.
We caught two murders, one in Telegraph Avenue, one on Durant Avenue.
But what we need to do is to just do what is best for safety.
One thing I'll say, in the memory of the great Berkeley Chief of Police, Dash Butler, who was one of the greatest Berkeley policemen I've ever had.
Also, in the memory of my professors in physics and nuclear engineering, Professor Grossman, Professor Chamberlain, and Professor Segre, all great people.
Berkeley is a beautiful academic town which keeps its way.
I'm sorry I'm stuttering because I'm trying to put everything in short time.
But making surveillance cameras important.
We also should care about taking that man out of office.
Your time's up.
Thank you.
Move to extend time.
Can you take the roll, please? To 1130.
Is that enough? We have another item after this.
Midnight.
Just in case.
Okay.
To extend to 12 a.m.
Councilmember Kesarwani? Yes.
Taflin? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Triton? Aye.
O'Keefe? Boo-hoo.
Yes.
Flack? Yes.
Lunapara? Yes.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay.
Motion carries.
Very good.
Thank you.
So I would like to start by just presenting something.
I want to start by saying that my office had a lot of questions and I really appreciate all the time that staff gave us, including the Chief and Arlo, and also Deputy Chief Tate was there, as well as our City Attorney and Paul, and multiple attorneys within our City Attorney's Office.
So thank you all so much for your input.
I have been working with Councilmember Tragoff, who had invited me to be a part of a Brown Act circle in which we worked on some guidance to provide.
So I'm going to read this guidance, and Councilmember Tragoff, if you wouldn't mind pulling it up so we can see the language.
I wasn't ready for that, but yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
As he pulls it up, I will maybe also just briefly mention that my office also spoke with Brian Hoffer, who is a privacy advocate in the former Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission.
And as well as Josh Cayetano, who was on earlier, the chair of the PAB, and Brian flagged some of the issues that were brought up.
So I will just briefly mention that my office also spoke with Brian Hoffer, who is a privacy advocate in the former Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission.
And as well as Josh Cayetano, who was on earlier, the chair of the PAB, and Brian flagged some concerns for us that we have worked to address in this guidance.
How you doing? Good.
Perfect.
Great.
Thank you so much.
So as part of Item 17, the Berkeley City Council directs the city manager to address each of the elements below in contract language, proposed sanctuary city ordinance, and other accompanying legislation before entering into the Flock Safety Condor video camera contract.
Number one, the biannual audit report, not to be confused with biennial, by the way.
We had a whole conversation about that.
The Berkeley Police Department's biannual surveillance technology report presented each November shall include but not be limited to the following information from the preceding review period as an additional privacy safeguard.
Confirm that BPD doesn't enter any direct data sharing agreements or give direct access to outside agencies.
A log of any instance of when surveillance video and or audio data has been shared, including dates, time, reason for search, and any recipient agencies.
A 45-day retention period for fixed camera surveillance footage.
Number two, aligned with the Berkeley Police Accountability Board recommendations, we support the following recommendations of the Berkeley Police Accountability Board.
One, use policy section 351.4.2 and 1304.2, which says video surveillance systems and recordings are subject to the Berkeley Police Department's immigration law policy, and may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials unless required by federal law.
Use policy section 351.4.2 slash 1304.2.
Video recording shall not be disclosed to law enforcement agencies from other states if the purpose of the request is to support the enforcement of laws that restrict or criminalize reproductive rights.
Number three, the sanctuary city ordinance scheduled for a council vote in fall 2025 will likely, among other topics, address how the city of Berkeley handles and reports requests from federal immigration authorities, vendors, or any non-local agencies to access data for federal immigration enforcement purposes, as well as the recipients of such reports.
Additionally, in the event a federal agency is given BPD-owned data stored with FLOC, the Berkeley Police Chief or designee will notify the city manager, city attorney, and city council within 72 hours of the discovery of the incident.
Just a note that three is different than what Pabot suggested, but addresses one of the points that they were making around concerns related to sanctuary cities, and that use policies one and two are already within our local and state requirements, but they're in here as an added addition just to highlight them.
And four, add a new section to the fixed video surveillance policy requiring BPD to observe certain safeguards with respect to surveillance camera data from the Berkeley Police Department's ALPR policy, which is section 1304.12.
Three, additional safeguards.
The Berkeley City Council reaffirms its intention to approve contracts that are in full compliance with Berkeley City law, including but not limited to subject BPD policies and the to-be-delivered sanctuary city ordinance.
As a matter of course, the Berkeley City Council directs the city manager to ensure that no proposed contractual clauses with FLOC for proposed FLOC safety condor video cameras are or could potentially be in conflict with Berkeley City law prior to final approval of the contract by the Berkeley City Council.
For example, sections 4.3 and 5.3 of FLOC boilerplate contractual language appears to contradict city policy.
These and other provisions are to be discussed during contract negotiations.
Apologies, there's a period missing there.
The city of Berkeley reaffirms the city manager's authority, which may be delegated to the Berkeley police chief to pause or end the deployment of the subject equipment at any time for any cause.
The city council shall be within 48 hours notified of any such decision to pause or end its deployment.
And I know I read a lot of things, but just to kind of go over it one more time, just to say that some of these are PAB recommendations.
The biannual audit report, it just provides a little more guidance as to what that would look like.
And the additional safeguards we have discussed already with the chief.
Actually, we discussed all of this with the chief, so I just want to clarify for folks in case you're unsure of kind of what this is.
And I want to allow my my colleagues in my broad circle to add any comments to anything that I might have missed.
Go ahead, council member.
Well, thank you so much.
I wanted to thank the mayor as well as council members, Luna, Paula and Blackaby for working closely together.
I want to thank our respective staff members, and I particularly would like to thank the police chief, her team and the city attorney.
Obviously, there are very legitimate concerns about privacy, given the current and past, and I shudder to say, but likely future approach of the national administration.
And so I did read the articles that were referenced.
That is actually what got me over the last several days on the path of trying to work through an item that puts in additional safeguards in place.
But the most important thing I wanted to mention is all of this is so the sanctuary city policy that will be coming to us in the fall to the extent that there may need to be any changes to institute these additional safeguards.
The idea is all of them should be in place by the time that we vote on the final contractual language.
And if it's not in place, then we will just not be prepared to do that.
Should this direction be adopted tonight? Thank you.
Thank you.
Council Member Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And I have to say I'm in agreement with all of this, I think, except for the 45 days.
I don't think that's workable for the reasons we've heard tonight from Arlo and from the chief.
And just it really doesn't make sense, I don't think, to limit it to 45 days.
The rest of it, I like.
I would personally stick with 180 days because that was a compromise that we reached the last time we visited this question.
One item I'd like to throw in, though, and I think people, my colleagues might be amenable to it, is on Section 351.4.2, which is also Section 1304.2, I think, of the policy document, is to add the following language.
Let me see if I can pull it up.
Let's see.
Yeah.
Video.
I may be in the wrong section.
Video recording shall not be disclosed.
Yeah, disclosed to law enforcement agencies from other states for the purposes to support enforcement of criminal laws that restrict or criminalize reproductive rights or rights.
This is my friendly ad.
Or rights regarding the provision or receipt of gender-affirming care.
Because we know that's happening out there.
At the same time, people are, that other states and the feds are attacking reproductive rights.
So that would be one suggestion I'd have to add some language.
And I want to emphasize that I'm strongly in support of these cameras unless and until there's strong evidence they are being used by outside agencies for nefarious purposes.
We can shut them down.
I'm sorry.
I've got the floor.
We can shut them down.
We can render them dormant if we have to.
And if there's a need, I'm sure that we will.
And I appreciate the language that the mayor read.
Nearly all council districts have seen some level of violent crime in recent times, including some very brazen attacks against elderly residents in District 8 and District 3.
We need tools that help deter crime and provide key evidence when crime occurs.
And as part of our bigger political movement, we need to demonstrate that progressive cities can continue to deliver on the promise of public safety.
I think this is one tool that can help us do that.
And I think we can use this tool in ways that protect civil liberties and promote our local values.
Anyway, those are my comments.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member.
Council Member Taplin.
Thank you.
I concur largely with Council Member Humbert, and I want to thank the chief and Arlo and everyone.
As someone whose district includes a number of the city's gunfire corridors and high injury corridors, the utility for these tools to help the city address the investigation of violent crimes, especially gun crimes, to me is of dire importance.
We've heard from the department the challenges with such a short retention period.
And I appreciate the level of reporting the department is being asked to do, the strength and severity of the safeguards.
For me, it's important that these should be able to fulfill the function for which we are pursuing them.
So I will be supporting a retention period of 180 days.
Thank you.
Okay.
Council Member Lunapara.
Thank you.
I have actually one more question for FLOC that was raised by the public.
Would this be an appropriate time to do that? Yes, that's fine.
Please.
Okay.
Thank you.
Several members of the public brought up that AWS has experienced data breaches multiple times.
Can you speak to this and any safeguards that there might be or any concern that there has been in the past with data breaches? Yes, I can tell you that FLOC has never experienced a data breach.
And I think the instances that have been cited anecdotally are in other countries, I believe.
But I can tell you from FLOC's perspective, we have never experienced a data breach.
If the data is being stored in AWS, then it would be their data breach, correct? Yes, but in the way I'm discussing it, it's the same.
So we have never had a data breach with our own systems or within AWS.
Are there any safeguards that FLOC has for those kinds of breaches? Yes.
So one of the benefits of using AWS GovCloud is that it has dispersed data centers.
So, for example, if there was any sort of ransomware attack or a catastrophic failure in one of the data centers, that the city of Berkeley would not lose its data because it's dispersed in that way.
And again, we are SOC 2 Type 2 certified, which we continually are analyzing and auditing using outside auditors, the strength of our security systems to continually be upgrading.
We have an entire team continually looking at how we update and upgrade our encryption and data security because we know that the bad actors out there are always looking for the next step to get ahead.
And we have a full team in addition to the AWS encryption and GovCloud.
And it's important to know that AWS GovCloud is used by many municipalities and governments, city governments and state governments.
And so it's the same level of protection that many cities and states also use across the country.
Okay.
Thank you for that information.
I do want to voice that this is a real concern.
Those are all my questions for FLOC.
Thank you.
I also wanted to voice that I think it would be really beneficial and effective to include the Police Accountability Board in future policy discussions like this with the opportunity to present their findings in the future.
And I just wanted to voice that.
And finally, I am very grateful that the Chief and Arlo have addressed the concern from community members about data sharing.
And I appreciate all of your effort in that.
I also remain concerned that our city may not have the power, authority or control to refuse.
As I said this in the March meeting, but I would like to emphasize that we cannot be naive if we want this kind of technology.
If the Trump administration were granted a subpoena or judicial warrant to access Berkeley surveillance footage, the city would not be able to refuse.
The only leverage our city has is if the data were to not exist at all or if it were to be automatically purged within a shorter footage retention period.
I also want to note that this 45-day retention period is not arbitrary.
San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, Fremont, Albany and San Leandro all have between a 15- and 90-day retention period for fixed camera footage with possible extensions for criminal investigations.
Berkeley's is unusually long.
Our responsibility is to strike a balance between effective use of resources and the protection of our most vulnerable constituents, and we must do both.
Thank you.
Those are all my comments.
Thank you, Councilmember.
Councilmember O'Keefe? Thank you.
A couple comments, and then I'll say what I think about this.
So, you know, just regarding data safety, unless ICE acquires like a quantum computer or something, they're not going to break this encryption.
This is top-notch encryption, and that's why I was interested in finding out if it was actually end-to-end encryption.
The data is very securely encrypted the entire time.
And, yes, we've heard about hacks.
We've heard about data breaches.
They happen in the news all the time.
They're almost always the result of somebody getting a password or something like that.
There are other ways that data can be breached that aren't very likely in this scenario.
I suppose the police could be sloppy with their passwords, but also it's only happening inside the police.
I mean, I just don't see that as a concern here.
So I actually really do feel good about the data security here, and I really did look into it with a pretty suspicious mind.
You guys, you know, I may have asked some pretty unhinged-sounding questions, but I really wanted to push on as much as possible.
But I do, you know, I do understand these things relatively well, and I just want to say I actually am not worried about the data being, like, hacked.
So that's one perspective I wanted to share.
I am a little confused about, like – and I'm actually – this is an invitation to other council members.
What is the theory of the case? So I'll start.
My position is I would like a longer retention period.
I'm with the 180 days.
And what I'm wondering is what are we worried about? Are we worried about ICE getting a judicial warrant to see that an undocumented person was somewhere three months ago? Like, I just – this isn't really jive with the way that they're operating.
They're not bothering with that.
They're going to Home Depot and arresting all the brown people.
Like, that's the level that our really messed-up federal government is operating at right now.
And it's just – I don't see the threat in old footage, somehow them getting it with a judicial warrant or whatever.
I just – I don't understand what we're worried about.
So I would actually really appreciate if somebody could articulate that.
And I will listen with an open mind.
I really do want to understand what the argument is.
But I haven't been convinced yet that it's worth shortening that retention period.
So I would like to see it at 180 days.

Segment 10

Oh last thing Igor could you scroll to the oh wait I think we're on it 1 1 by the way can you make it ABC no just the the sub numbers should be letters that's my that's not right now but that's just my I formatted out what these letters because there's one okay so anyway this one I want to understand because this looks like it's similar to what I was asking for and I want to make sure I understand you're asking that they in addition to the audit they also publish the log of all of the data that's been shared this is just when it's been shared not when they've searched is that right okay I understand that though okay so you okay then I am curious that's not in here already I am curious if the police representatives here have any thoughts about also releasing the raw data of the of the searches themselves I know I'd asked that before but now it would be a good time to to just follow up on that do you have a proposal or something that would seem reasonable not too difficult and wouldn't wouldn't encumber the security of ongoing investigations and I do say that because I like it I'm not worried about the security of the data but I am I think it's reasonable to worry about an officer misusing their privileges so I would like to see a little more accountability on that if it made sense so do you have any suggestions that would work for you yeah I think there may be space for us to share that without jeopardizing investigations that's the balance that we would be making as we create these audit reports and it'll be a measure of us understanding how many how much how much material we're looking at too and so I would expect that as we deliver audit reports throughout these processes if council desired desire to reconvene and ask us to deep to provide deeper information you know that we would be able to have those robust conversations or for me to come forward to council and say hey this particular piece of information you're asking us to audit is is particularly burdensome and I'd like to aggregate it or summarize it or not collect it or not report it in that in that way or not and so hearing the desire for some some log information certainly as we launch this tool and look at what's available we would be for those things that don't create a tremendous administrative burden and provides enough information to provide the community of some more comfort around what we're doing and accountability around what we're doing and we would certainly be open to exploring that okay I guess I'd ask my fellow colleagues here if if there's any interest in adding something like that or if there isn't I'm okay not adding it if you know if people want but I think it's a reasonable way if we wanted to get a little more accountability but I'm also less worried about that I was initially once I've realized that only BPD will be accessing it and so I'm not I'm kind of on the fence as to whether we should have that so I'm open to your opinions thank you thanks councilmember trade I'm sorry actually before we go back to you is there anyone else who hasn't spoken yet yes councilmember Blackaby inside mayor and thanks to the colleagues I'll be brief because everyone I think has made very salient points tonight and I I support councilmember Humber councilmember Kaplan because member O'Keefe and many others who've spoken tonight I also want to thank the mayor and custom and Luna para and councilmember try go for inviting me to participate in the in the brown circle I support the additional safeguards that they've drafted here I think they're smart I think they're sensible I think they will help give our community additional confidence I think the whole name of the game here is trying to appropriately balance the public safety improvements with the potential privacy risks and I do think with these additional safeguards in place and with the logging and the audit trail all those mechanisms I think we better strike that balance than we then we would without I'll also just say that look we've we know that this technology does work we have seen success with the ALPR cameras from flock we have seen an increase in enforcement in matches and sort of tracking down criminals in our jurisdiction using the ALPR technology in a successful way we have not had knock-on-wood reported problems with that ALPR technology to date I think the training that we've put in place the processes we put in place seem to be working we'll look forward to future audits to learn more but sort of by all results we're getting we're having a good impact and I think you know given the current budget environment that we're in where we cannot hire our way to better public safety we have limits on the number of people we can hire and just our ability to recruit and retain good talent at the level that we expect that carefully managed and safeguarded technology like this can help us improve public safety more cost-effectively than we can do through hiring alone so for those reasons I do support the technology I appreciate the dialogue that we've had I appreciate the safeguards we've had and I think as I've mentioned to colleagues in discussions I do think that the 45 days 30 days 45 it is it is too short to me especially having heard the conversation today you know I think any chance that we lose evidentiary value in in cases where reporting comes later or where cases sort of develop over time and the clock runs out for concerns that have heretofore not materialized here in Berkeley about these risks I think that would be a real shame to not be able to sort of pursue a case that we otherwise might be able to pursue if we knowing that we're gonna have all these safeguards in place so I I do support a longer retention period but I also support all the other safeguards that my colleagues have drafted and look forward to moving forward so thank you thank you councilmember Bartlett thank you thank you you know I also you know we we've spent a significant time crafting this surveillance policies regarding regarding your tools for the last few years and I think we've done a great job crafting them well not perfectly are I think they are best in class and the technology itself is meant to extend our reach and and sort of minimize the unnecessary contact with martial force and people and get investigation interdiction through remote means and it is effective I had a incident in my district where a kid in a stroller was hit by a car and the person drove away and luckily the baby survived but it was actually it was actually a full-on hit of a stroller with a baby in it and they found the guy two days later via the LPR technology so that being said I do I do believe in it as the future of law enforcement however there's also there also is there's a definite absolute need to maintain our individual liberties and our constitutional rights in the face of an evolving federal context let's say and I think that uh this is this goes beyond ice ice right now is doing in-person sort of interdictions but there's other other things that come into play but you can imagine and so I think I think going along with the what appears to be more of a standard time frame for investigation in 90 days and then adding other 90 days if there's an active investigation I think that's fair I think that appears to work all over the place in larger cities with more crime and more severe crime than we have so I would support a 90-day plus 90 extension for crime element in addition to all the other elements mentioned by my colleagues including customer Humbert and the brown circle thank you thank you councilmember kisser wanting hasn't gone yet so I'm sorry councilmember checkup I just want to make sure everyone who hasn't gone yet go ahead thank you very much madam mayor I want to thank the chief and Arlo for your presentation I want to thank the representative from flock for being here as well I know that this technology in the current climate that we're in with this federal administration raises a lot of questions and concerns for members of our community as it does for for me and and other members of the council and I think what I read in a staff report about how this technology works the data safeguards that are incorporated into it I feel that it is reasonable to proceed with this and I think we also have to we've asked a lot of questions about how the data is stored how it can be accessed we do have to remember why it is that myself and councilmember chaplain and councilmember Humbert why we asked for this technology it is because there is crime taking place as councilmember Bartlett described you know a baby in a stroller being hit by a car we have murders you know people are getting shot down we have gun violence taking place as councilmember chaplain spoke about we have all kinds of violent criminal investigations and so and and we have limited public safety staff resources so we need to be efficient and effective and part of that is using this type of technology with the appropriate data safeguards so I I do feel comfortable with this but I also appreciate what the police accountability board put forward in terms of added language to the policy so I'm in full support of those components of this the I think I think where there is clearly disagreement on the dais is around the length of time that we will be retaining the footage I just heard councilmember Bartlett suggest 90 days and then an extension if there's an open investigation chief can you respond to that suggestion yeah I understand the desire to have something that we measure against to know whether we should keep it longer the issue is what's important to remember that we don't know that piece of evidence is important we don't know the connection is there we're waiting 60 to 90 days for lab results back or witness hasn't come forward and so if in that 90-day period we discovered something had evidentiary value we would download it and add it into our evidence collection so there's not a point where you'd say oh let me keep it for another 90 days on the server because I'm having an ongoing investigation right you would have already pulled it off for that investigation it's the time period between the 90 and 180 days that you learn who a suspect is or where the location happened or a piece of critical evidence is needed that you would want to have access to that information okay so in light of that I'm gonna also just express my support for just the 180 days so everything that the mayor had read off but with the the one change of doing 180 days instead and I also just need to say as others have said tonight you know sadly tragically this federal administration they operate with a lawlessness as we've seen in Los Angeles you know with and I know that the there is an effort to use the courts to try to restrict the sort of lawless raids and arrests of people just it looks to me like just purely racial profiling based on the way people look and where they happen to be working and I just want to express the outrage and frustration and the sense of powerlessness that we all feel when we read those news reports and we see what's happening and we see that people are living in the shadows they're not going to work because they are afraid of what may happen and I know that we have very strong commitments around being a sanctuary city but the the sadness that I feel is that we know that we can't protect people if those ICE agents come and engage in lawless behavior you know we can have the most airtight contract with flock which I know we are going to have but we we find ourselves in in you know I I don't even have words for it this is a just completely surreal and and terrible and tragic situation for people who live in our city who are afraid to show up to do their jobs to earn money to put food on the table for their kids that is what's happening and we but I I don't I do not think that reducing the amount of time that we store restore retain this footage is going to change that you know we need to continue to speak out and speak up about what's happening but what we have to be logical and rational about it too so so I look forward to a vote thank you thank you councilmember track I'm going back to you now thank you yeah I wanted to I appreciate hearing from all my colleagues I wanted to reiterate my gratitude when especially to the mayor when I came with the language basically yesterday and then I you know was honored to be able to also be in partnership with other council members and in in really a day thanks to the intrepid assistance of our city attorney and the police chief and the city manager and just the administrative team we have what I believe are the strongest set of safeguards that I can think of anywhere in the nation is it going to be enough I I certainly hope so I hope this sends a message to anyone that might callously think about going after Berkeley's data at the same time I also downtown Berkeley has experienced its own set of public safety incidents some more significant than others and I know that this is something that many in the community that I serve have been asking for so with that I I did want to ask the chief just you know we talked about neighboring jurisdictions that have a lesser time period after which data is discarded for fixed cameras they also have a provision around there there's an exemption and I don't think it's based on time it's just if there is an active ongoing investigation but chief Lewis could you remark on and specifically Oakland because I feel like that is you know a competitor city it's larger it's her neighbor what is their policy yes I would just kind of return back to my comments earlier about holding for an active investigation we won't we don't know we need that evidence in a set of evidence is available I do know that there's a broad range of other jurisdictions neighboring that range everywhere from 15 to 30 days but the research I did actually showed that I think Oakland was 30 to 60 days there's jurisdictions Arizona's 90 days we obviously didn't pull greater what I rely heavily on is our very tenacious investigative team that has a hundred percent closure rate for homicides and I want to do everything I can to ensure that they have the ability to investigate cases and bring those who do harm to our community members to justice for that and you know I trust and value their opinion about all the things that they listed in the timelines and the amount of time and demands of current prosecutorial demands some of these other agencies set those fixed retention periods you know a couple years ago and prosecutorial demands and technology demands change about my expectations of what we do to put the case and I want to give our investigators a fighting chance to build those cases on behalf of our community thank you okay and then for audit reporting and this is you know it's not really in this item anymore by any well what there's the annual report right I personally feel if it's not overly burdensome and I welcome the opportunity to continue our engagement to make sure we are not asking you to do something that is overly burdensome given all the other vital functions that your department performs but what I'm really asking for is at the time when an audit is conducted that the council that the results of that audit are shared with the council it doesn't you know could be an off-agenda memo it does not have to be something that gets on an agenda for that six-month review thought that anyone so those are my thoughts I I know we are moving towards a vote I would suggest that we may want to sever a few parts of this I I feel I I would very much like to vote on the direction that we're giving as if we can as amended with councilmember Humbert's excellent suggestion it sounds like there needs to be well we may not be in the same place around the number of days but so I guess I'm asking for suggestions about how to land this but I I do but I would like for these additional safeguards to somehow be taken up first because it really is this is the part that gives me warm fuzzies around then voting for the balance of the item thank you sorry so are you suggesting that we move forward with this item with the current guidance minus the number of days yeah and maybe take that part separately the retention period retention period okay I and I think one other thing that you brought up that would be in addition besides councilmember Humbert's point was also a making sure that the biannual report comes to council what my understanding is the report it comes as an information item regardless is that correct or no like as in as in like it's reported annually as a presentation but then because it's a biannual report the second audit comes just as an information item is that correct or no no that's basically the way the STO reads right now we prepare an annual surveillance technology report that comes it's required to be on the first council agenda in the November timeline in that report you provide we provide both audits okay so so you're saying councilmember then that the audit report will come to us once as a presentation but on the second one it will come as a as a just an information item yes and we I mean we can either that can be a request without voting on this formally or it or it can be direction I want to assess the temperature on on the council I'd like the city manager to weigh in I mean I would prefer it as a request and then we can see how it goes that's fine okay okay so yeah do you want to repeat your motion are you making a motion okay okay I I am going to move the additional direction provided on the screen directing the city manager to address each of the elements below and contract language proposed sanctuary city ordinance and other accompanying legislation before entering into the flock safety condor video camera contract except for the retention period I think we will need to vote on that separately yeah that's that's fine that is that does that work mr.
parliamentarian are we able to do that with just severing the number that feels number of days to clarify what councilmember tap when I so the motion does include adopting resolute the resolution that's listed on the agenda and then and then reaffirming the use policies is it included in the motion the recommended action on the agenda yes I guess if it has to be yes it would include the the item as a whole with the addition of this language okay so it's the recommendation as proposed by the exception of the periodicity language and then hopefully we can vote on that separately so I have some concerns about that because some of this language is guidance and some of it is actual like adjustments to the policy so I don't want to include all of this language because it's so I think it it needs to be something like include the I don't sorry I don't have it all in front of me right now but include the the policy recommendations listed in here from tab and item number two and also give guidance on the additional safeguards and the annual audit report I just want to make sure that's correct so in this in this document these changes here are actual amendments to what was submitted by the police department in this item yes yeah yeah go ahead does the do these changes that you're proposing on this page I don't have the bottom of it right here also include that this camera on the camera contract can't move forward until the sanctuary ordinance is passed it doesn't know there was language I saw that I just don't know if that's still part of it or not okay so at the top it's at the top I understand what you're saying I think at the top there's some not there's some no no I think higher up in the very top the first paragraph I think there's some confusion about this language the way it's written because it seems to say no the very top councilmember the first very first paragraph very first okay so it seems to say that the city manager needs to address the proposed sanctuary city ordinance before entering into the flock safety it says that it says that so I think just to clarify I think it would be good to clarify so that would be the contractual language that comes to us in the fall the con so it would it would be that each of the elements below in contract language and also the accompanying legislation be addressed before entering into the flock safety condor video camera contract and I would recommend removing the sanctuary city ordinance only because that's a separate it doesn't need to happen before but we are working on that separately no I think it's just the proposed sanctuary city ordinance because the I think what is being addressed here is that that's the principal accompanying legislation so that's confusing do you mean that that's referring to the audit report and to minus minus the retention period and also the it's so hard because I have to have a lot of things up at the same time and also the recommendations from PAB so maybe this is back to the question we started with would it be cleaner if we made this a short-term referral no no no I think I think I think that I think that this is confusing I think that we're just asking the city manager to do the following right we're asking for this audit report the PAB recommendations and then also addressing these additional safeguards is that right yeah so it's just this language I don't want to get caught up in the language of this first paragraph because it's really just an intro well what would it say they should just say it could just end after below colon I'm right yeah oh below yeah yeah perfect sure great great thank you okay yeah yeah okay so okay so I I know that councilmember Luna para has her hand up so I just want to make sure because it's it's hard to include folks online did you.

Segment 11

Council member.
Thank you thank you we appreciate your patience.
All right, Nick, do you want to say something here? This is about the retention period so I think I can wait a little bit longer.
Okay.
So in terms of is this clear in terms of the direction? yeah.
Yes.
So if we approved item 17, with this direction, would that be appropriate? I just want to make sure we understand that.
Okay, so if we approve item 17, with this direction, as written and Council member, can you also remove the retention period because that's the other case that's under contention.
That makes sense.
It's 1B even though we didn't use the letters.
It's a little higher.
There you go.
Okay, so would that be correct? Yes.
Okay.
I just want to make sure that's clear.
Okay, so I think that there's, then you're making a motion to approve item 17.
Yes.
With these.
Okay.
Now, if you're severing the reporting period, you still have to have another retention period.
You still have to have some specified number in the motion, and you're severing.
We have to vote on the retention period first.
First.
To determine, yeah.
Okay.
So, if we're going to talk, then in that case, that's we need to talk about the retention period.
So, and in that case, Council member, I know you want to talk about that, so go ahead and address that please.
Yeah.
Thank you.
I have a follow-up question to the Chief's response to Council member's earlier question.
You mentioned that there were many cases where, or many cases where the investigation is, requires access to camera footage within 90 and 180 days.
Earlier when I asked about the, when the camera footage is accessed, Arlo said you didn't have that information right now.
Could you speak more to this? I'm kind of confused about the situation.
I believe the question that you asked Arlo earlier was whether we had data available tonight to provide you that for the existing single fixed camera at Sixon University, whether we could report tonight what the time period was that they accessed it, how far into the retention period.
So, while we could get that data, I don't have that data available today.
My response to Council member Cassarwani about the stacking of 90-day retention periods or 90-day periods is that if we do not have information that we need to get specific footage, then we can't preserve it.
So, calling out or having a guidance that an active investigation allows us to have another 90 days doesn't work because as soon as we know we have value and evidence, we're going to collect that evidence.
No.
Yeah.
Thank you.
I understand that.
I guess I was asking more about the frequency of when the police department needs more than 90 days to access, which I understand that you don't have that information right now.
Yeah.
We're talking about stepping into a technology that is focused more on the pedestrian travel in the business districts in those areas.
And so, as we start to implement those technologies, we'll be able to understand through our auditing how long it normally has evidentiary value.
I can share that from talking to our investigators and the list of things.
They had no trouble filling a page for me of all the different things that caused them delays in an investigation that might necessitate a longer retention period.
Okay.
Thank you.
I also wanted to say I think that—thank you, those are all my questions.
I think that it's really important.
We can't just speak out against the federal government's transgressions.
We have a responsibility to protect our residents from them.
And we have a responsibility to not create the institutions that fascists then abuse against the very people we are trying to protect.
This happens time and time again.
I understand that we're creating well-meaning institutions and well-meaning mechanisms to address our immediate problems.
And I also want us to be very aware about the way that then a bad-faith entity can take over those same mechanisms.
And I just wanted to point that out again.
Thanks.
Okay.
Thank you.
Council Member Chaplin.
Thank you.
I just have one quick question.
How many people do we have in our Homicide Division? Well, typically we're supposed to have three in there, a sergeant and two officers.
Right now, because of a shortage I have in staffing, one of my detectives in Homicide is actually reassigned to patrol to cover patrol supervision.
So right now I only have two individuals.
Thank you very much.
Because I was wondering whether some of our personnel resource challenges were contributing to the delays in investigations.
It's exactly the case.
You know, our personnel, our detective unit is working at reduced staffing.
All of our units are working at reduced staffing because of our staffing challenges, which means it can take them a little bit longer to get to the caseload to know that they need to get into evidence.
Thank you very much.
Yeah, I don't know how large the comparable divisions in other departments or other cities are.
I think the goal here is to utilize technology to improve our clearance rate and maximize and optimize the resources that we have as a department.
And I recognize all of the things that my colleague just spoke to.
I think these are very real concerns.
I would also just add that we have a responsibility to manage the city and we have to be able to function.
Thank you.
Okay.
Okay.
Council Member Humbert.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
Council Member Jacob.
Okay.
Thank you.
So I'm going to just we'll see where the votes are.
I'm going to remake my motion.
It's for item 17, including all of the language up on the screen with a 90 day retention period for fixed camera surveillance footage.
And if there's a second to this motion, I imagine there may be a request to sever out this part.
It sounds like the status quo is 180.
So if this passes, then it would be 90 days.
If it does not pass, it will remain at 180 days.
Oh.
So, Council Member Chargé, just point of order.
I thought you had already requested the severing and we were going to vote on that first.
We decided that we weren't able to do that according to the city clerk.
Oh, okay.
I didn't catch that.
Yeah.
You can sever it.
You just have to.
Well, we just need a number.
Yeah.
Right.
We need a number.
So now this is the number.
So, typically, the way this works is we're going to take a vote on whether to include a 180 day retention period.
If that gets five votes, then that's what's included.
If it doesn't.
90.
180 is already the status quo.
Oh, okay.
So, you don't want to sever it.
You want to make a full motion for everything with 90 days.
I would mention that there might be a disagreement on this portion.
I would prefer a severance of this part.
Just the 90 days.
It's a change from 180.
So, you want to make a motion, then, to approve this item with the guidance that we've included in this and with 90 days as the number.
Yes.
Okay.
And we're going to sever.
Okay.
So, just vote on that.
And just vote on the 90 days.
If it gets five votes, 90 days stays in the motion.
Yeah.
Okay.
All right.
I know.
It's confusing.
No, I appreciate it.
No, no.
That's okay.
Okay.
Let's do it.
So, sorry.
Madam Mayor? Yes.
Go ahead.
I move we extend the meeting until 1230 a.m.
Second.
Clerk, can you take the roll, please? To extend the meeting, Council Member Casarwani? Yes.
Caplan? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Is Council Member Bartlett on? He's there.
Yeah.
Council Member Bartlett, to extend the meeting? Yes.
Okay.
Trigub? Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Thank you.
Trigub? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? Yes.
Munoz-Pardot? Yes.
Okay.
All right.
All right.
All right.
All right.
All right.
All right.
All right.
All right.
All right.
All right.
All right.
All right.
All right.
Thank you.
I'll call the vote.
Council Member Fevella? Yes.
Council Member Humbert? Yes.
And Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay.
Meeting is extended.
Okay.
Sorry.
Okay.
So you have made a motion.
I will second that motion.
And I will ask the clerk to take the roll please.
So the severed portion.
Okay.
The severed, just the point about the 90 days, okay? The point about the 90 days.
Yes.
Yes.
So we are voting right now on whether to include the 90 day retention in the motion.
Okay.
Council Member Kisarwani? No.
Taplin? No.
Bartlett? Yes.
Traigub? Aye.
O'Keefe? No.
Blackabay? No.
Lunapara? Yes.
Humbert? No.
Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay.
So that, that did not pass.
So the 90 days is stricken from the motion.
But the remainder of it is, now can be voted upon.
Okay.
Council Member Taplin, you have your light on.
Okay.
I just want to make sure, did folks have any other comments about this before we move forward? Okay.
Yeah.
Well, I think that it might be worth, when we get the audits and things, to think about whether, if we have a retention period that is overlong, whether we could adjust it.
But I am interested in the possibility of, of having a retention period that included an extension if necessary.
But I guess we need more information around what, I guess we can't always predict how, how long it will take to know whether evidence would be necessary.
But that's something I am, I will continue to think about.
Yeah.
I think we need another motion.
I move the item with.
Motion has been made.
Oh, motion.
It has, with a different number, though? With a what now? With a different number? It just defaults.
It just defaults.
It defaults to the.
The 90 days is just removed and.
It defaults to the 180.
It defaults to the current.
Okay.
Yeah, we don't, we don't need another motion, do we? No.
No, the motion has been, been made and seconded by Trego, been seconded by, by the Mayor.
Okay.
And it's the recommendation with the additional direction as amended by Councilmember Humbert and all that good stuff.
Are we ready to vote? Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
On the motion, Councilmember Kesarwani? Yes.
Taplin? Yes.
Bartlett? Yes.
Trego? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? Yes.
O'Mara? No.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
So, we still have another item left.
I just want to check in with folks.
How, do you need a bathroom break or anything? Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
Sorry, what? I think the item will be fast.
Okay.
All right.
If you need to run to the bathroom, you can.
Of course.
Sorry.
We have one more item.
Actually, wait.
Yes.
Okay.
So, we are on, sorry, y'all.
I'm reaching the point of the night, you know.
So, we're on item 11, which is the Surveillance Technology Ordinance Submission for Berkeley City Jails Surveillance System.
And do you have anything that you need to present, want to present? Not a presentation.
Just a quick comment, and then I'm happy to take any questions.
And so, just as a reminder, this is part of a larger replacement program for a failing very old jail control panel.
And the servers that exist right now doing recording in the jail are also failing.
So, this is a replacement plan.
Out of an abundance of caution, we are moving through the STO process to ensure.
Because while the servers are on our site, you can access them via the cloud with the password to get to that, to download the information.
So, out of abundance of caution, we've gone through the Surveillance Technology Ordinance.
We've been through review by the PAB, who has not provided any feedback for edits and changes on that.
So, just happy to ask for questions and support for this.
Thank you.
Council Member, do you have any questions? Oh.
Sorry.
Council Member Lenopara, since I can't see you, I just want to make sure you don't have any questions.
Hi.
I have a quick question.
Sorry, one second.
I'm curious about the cost increase for this.
It's a 50% cost increase, while the general fund is facing a deficit.
So, I'm curious what the plan is for securing the additional $250,000 for this project.
So, this project has been funded already? Through the Police Department budget? I believe part of it was through capital improvement because of the infrastructure.
You said part of it was or all of it was? It cut out.
Part of the cameras may be from our existing contract with Edgeworth, but the project itself, as it's related to the improvement of the facility, is a capital improvement project.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That's all the questions.
Thank you.
All right.
Then, do we have any public comment on this item? I don't see any members.
There's one hand raised.
This is public comment on item 11 regarding the Berkeley City Jail surveillance system.
The phone number ending in 000.
Should be able to unmute.
Hi.
Hi.
I thank the Chair of the Police of Berkeley for her beautiful presentation and for people's freedom and for everybody, too.
But I do have a request for her.
Please investigate the 1952 murder of an Egyptian woman.
She was called the Mother of Necrophilics, 1952, by the Israeli Mossad.
It was never solved that woman was abducted from her house on Garber Street in Berkeley.
And she was driven? Item 11, which is the Surveillance Technology Ordinance Submission for the Berkeley City Jail surveillance system.
If your comment is not on that, can you please wait? Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
We have, well, two more hands raised now.
We have Cheryl D'Avolo, former council member.
Surveillance, surveillance, surveillance, that's all you guys want to do.
That's really up.
It's really intrusive.
I'm not sure it's necessary.
I think, you know, if you could save $250,000 and do something else with it, maybe like helping the community in other ways, financing Voices Against Violence or Healthy Black Families or put it into the African American Holistic Resource Center.
There's lots of other things that you could do with that money.
And increasing surveillance, you know, I mean, enough is enough.
And like I said earlier, in other cities, people are given more time and treated in a much more respectful and kind way.
Thank you for your comments.
Next is Moni.
With regard to the capital improvements in the jail, I'm hoping that we would have increased or some service to domestic violence abuse survivors.
As an attorney, I've represented a number of people who have been victims of violence by a partner, or the lack of services at the police department, as I understand, we used to have an advocate on site, and that should be part of your buildup, hopefully, for infrastructure to support victims and survivors as well.
I would hope you would budget something, and I believe that Ginny Wong, the auditor's report did show a gap in services and availability for domestic violence victims.
We have no shelters whatsoever in the city of Berkeley, and people, the few beds that they can find are cities away.
And a lot of people go back to their abuser because they have nowhere else to go.
Thank you.
I think I ran out of time, so that's it.
Hello? Nobody there? Did you all even hear me? I hope you heard me.
There's noise in the background.
Okay.
Good night.
Hello? Hi.
If my clock is still running, I hope you guys do get the advocate back into the Berkeley Police Department for survivors of victims of abuse.
And I don't know if they're not listening in the background.
Councilmember Bartlett? Chair? Mayor? City Clerk? The boardroom is talking, and I don't know if you guys can hear me.
Moni, it sounds like the system in the boardroom is – it, like, shut down.
So I think they're trying to fix it and hopefully come back to you.
Okay.
I didn't know if anybody heard anything I just said.
Okay.
Well, thanks.
I'll stand by.
Madam Clerk, was that you who was speaking? No, that was me, Councilmember Lupara, but that's what I heard.
Oh, Councilmember Lupara.
Okay.
Thank you.
I couldn't tell his voice.
That's way harder than I expected.
Do they realize we can hear them? Hello? I don't think so.
I don't think so either because they're talking about us.
You probably want to silence their mic or allow public comment to continue.
Hello? Hello? Hello? Hello? Hello? I'm going to wait until I get called on again.
Technical difficulties.
We're going to hire the new video system that shows the limitations of technology.
Okay.
Hello? Someone's sending me a message.
I can hear you.
Okay.
Thank you, whoever said they could hear me.
I can hear you.
Okay.
I don't know if everyone can hear me, so it was an important point of concern with regard to our residents.
Moni, I think they're fixing it.
So just hold on for a second.
This is Rex.
I can hear you.
I just want you to know.
I think the.
Camera may be frozen.
The system may be frozen.
Okay.
Here's some audio, but I'm seeing no one really moving.
Okay.
I'll stand by.
This moment.
I think we're back.
Okay.
Can you hear me? Yes.
Moni, I'm so sorry.
You got cut off.
Our system completely shut down.
So you will get a whole nother minute.
So go ahead.
Okay.
I'm trying to share a concern with regard to a missing piece of the puzzle.
And that is, you know, there's no place for particularly women to go in the city of Berkeley.
And I would hope we build into our infrastructure.
Capital improvement plan.
Actual housing and shelter for women and their children and their partners that have, unfortunately, my case, I've been an attorney for a woman whose husband killed her next, his next wife.
And so, you know, there's no place for them to go in the city of Berkeley.
And so we need to make sure that they have the capacity of this situation.
And it's really important that they get safe and they get services.
Right now.
We've outsourced our former person that was on site at the police police department.
She's now in the family violence law center in Oakland, which is a great group, but we need someone in Berkeley.
And we need services and shelter in Berkeley for survivors.
Thank you.
Thanks Moni.
And sorry again about that.
Are there other comments online? No.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other council comments? Council member.
Yeah, just briefly.
I'm supportive of this.
I just want to say.
I think the process we just went through with the previous item was the STO working.
Well, I think that was a big.
A big advancement into the level of surveillance technology we have in the state.
And this is not a good.
This scenario we're dealing with right now.
I think the STO is a little too broad.
I don't think.
Surveillance in jails.
Needs to be scrutinized that much.
I think everybody who's in a jail expects to be surveilled.
And I don't feel like that's.
Creates a lot of the issues that we were dealing with the last item.
And my point is just that I think that the STO needs to be curtailed and that is my fetching.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you.
Other comments from council members.
And if not, does someone want to make a motion? I'll move to the thing.
Sorry.
Council member O'Keefe is moving item 11.
She's moving the thing.
Okay.
And a second from council member Taplin.
Could you please take the roll clerk? Okay.
Council member Kastorwani.
Yes.
Taplin.
Yes.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Trigub.
Aye.
O'Keefe.
Yes.
Blackaby.
Yes.
Unapara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mayor Ishii.
Yes.
Okay.
Motion carries.
Just want to highlight for folks.
There are many information reports on here.
One, including the reimagining public safety status report.
So just want to highlight that.
And do we have any public comment for items not listed on the agenda? We'll go back to our phone caller.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
We have one in person as well.
Okay.
Go ahead.
Come on up.
Phone number ending.
I unmuted him already.
Sorry.
Greetings, Madam Mayor and city council.
My name is Travis Smith.
I've been in Berkeley for 50 years.
My family has a house in Berkeley that they had bought in 1957.
I'm homeless.
I'm in a tent.
I'm asking for two requests.
Is it any type of way someone can donate me a tent? And I'm also asking if there's any way that there can be an extension on the Carson street vacation.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you.
Contact my office.
I'll get you a tent, sir.
Council member Bartlett is offering a tent.
But perhaps we should make sure that we can get your contact information.
Cause I don't.
No.
Anyone from his office is here in person.
So I'm going to ask my staff if maybe they can assist with that.
Thank you.
Council member.
And I'm sorry.
Other public comment.
Online.
We have a phone number ending in zero zero zero.
For non-agenda public comment.
He's unmuted.
You should be able to speak.
Phone number ending in zero, zero, zero.
Hi.
And then I was able to call back.
I just like to present.
I think.
The whole city council.
And you have us all our business.
We've been in business.
62 years.
And we're very important to Berkeley.
Also.
I like to.
Great.
Berkeley.
We'll look into the abduction and the murder.
The Egyptian.
In 1952.
August 5th, 1952.
We saw.
I would like to ask everybody.
Please pray for peace.
And not only in Gaza, but also.
In Ukraine, we need to have these.
Thank you again.
Thank you again.
Have a good night.
Thank you.
And thank you very much.
Thank you.
Have a good night.
Thank you.
And thank you for saving your comment for the public comment.
Not on the agenda.
Period.
Is there a motion? We have a motion to adjourn.
Moni, are you on for non-agenda public comment? I'm sorry.
I forgot to exit from the space, but I hereby remain.
Exited.
Have a good evening.
Thank you, Moni.
Is there a motion to adjourn? We have one.
Oh, wait, folks, folks.
Come on.
Come on.
Let's just for non-agenda public comment.
We have one more speaker.
Okay.
So.
I think that.
I said earlier this evening.
At other city councils, they give people more time.
They gave three minutes for public comment.
And then for items that they thought was going to be longer, they gave two minutes.
And they treated people with respect and kindness.
And they allowed them to speak.
They weren't talking on the topic.
They allowed them to speak.
And I think that Curtis.
Courtesy should be adopted in the city of Berkeley.
I know when I go into those meetings.
You know, I don't know.
The.
Demonic behavior takes over.
I don't know how to.
Act appropriately, but.
We can all do better and the city council can do better with listening and hearing and.
And being kind and being caring about humanity.
That's it.
Okay.
All right.
Sorry.
There was a motion to adjourn.
Okay.
I'll second.
I'll second.
A second.
Okay.
And can you take the role, please? To adjourn.
Council member Kessler.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Black could be.
Courtesy and respect.

Segment 12

Lunaparra, Humbert, and Mayor Ishii.
Yes, we are adjourned.
All right.
Thank you everyone.
Thank you so much for staying for so long, all of you.
Get well, Cecilia.
Chief, Arlo, staff, our captioner, media, my staff, members of the public.
Thank you all.
Well done.
Recording stopped.