Transcription
September 15, 2026 · 7:00 PM
Document Information
- Whisper version
- 2
- Generated
- September 16, 2026
- Archive URI
- berkeley_e750e543-26e2-413d-996d-b1eebfc256ba.ogg
Segment 1
Hello everyone. If you could please quiet down, take your seats. Thank you very much. I'm calling to order the Berkeley City Council meeting. Today is Tuesday, September 15, 2026, and it is 6.02 p.m. Can we start off with a roll, please? Okay, calling the roll. Council Member Kesarwani is currently absent. Shh, folks. Kaplan, Bartlett is currently absent. Tregub is here. O'Keefe? I'm here. Blackaby? Here. Lunaparra? Here. Humbert? Present. And Mayor Ishii? Here. Okay, quorum is present. All right. Thank you very much. Okay, it is the first meeting of the month and the first meeting back from recess, so we will start off with a land acknowledgement statement read by Council Member O'Keefe. Am I still the Vice Mayor? Yes, sorry. Yes, Vice Mayor O'Keefe. Just curious, just curious. Okay, I will read the land acknowledgement now. The City of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in was built on the territory of the Xochun, the ancestral and unceded land of the Chochenyo-speaking Ohlone people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County. This land was and continues to be of great importance to all of the Ohlone tribes and descendants of the Verona Band. As we begin our meeting tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley, the documented 5,000-year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shell Mound, and the Ohlone people who continue to reside in the East Bay. We recognize that Berkeley's residents have and continue to benefit from the use and occupation of this unceded stolen land since the City of Berkeley's incorporation in 1878. As stewards of the land regulating the City of Berkeley, it is not only vital that we recognize the history of this land, but also recognize that the Ohlone people are present members of Berkeley and other East Bay communities today. The City of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the LeJean tribe and to create meaningful actions that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement. Thank you very much, Vice Mayor. Now, since this is the first meeting back, we will also say the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand. Okay, so we have a couple of ceremonial items, starting with the America the Entrepreneurial Proclamation. So if I could please have Eleanor.. Oh, there you are. Come on up. All right, so earlier this year, I attended the U.S. Conference of Mayors, where I learned about America the Entrepreneurial, a campaign to renew our nation's entrepreneurial promise in honor of America's 250th anniversary. Thank you so much, Eleanor, and the entire Office of the Economic Development team for your tremendous work in supporting our businesses and entrepreneurs. The theme for my State of the City address, which is next week, on September 23rd, is Doing Business in Berkeley, so it's very appropriate that we're doing this today. Celebrating Berkeley's entrepreneurial spirit through America the Entrepreneurial 2026. Whereas, as America marks its 250th startup birthday in 2026, we must celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit that built our nation, states, and cities, forged by starters, makers, doers, and dreamers who pursued a better future. And whereas, entrepreneurs are essential to fostering economic prosperity, creating homegrown jobs, raising incomes, generating wealth, building stronger communities, diversifying goods and services, and reducing inequality and poverty. And whereas, entrepreneurs have played a critical role in revitalizing the City of Berkeley, and it is fitting to publicly recognize and celebrate the vital contributions of entrepreneurs to the prosperity and well-being of our community. And whereas, the Office of Economic Development in the City of Berkeley serves as a non-regulatory entity in the City that supports all Berkeley businesses and entrepreneurs from ranging industries. And whereas, the City of Berkeley is home to UC Berkeley, over 370 innovation startup companies, and many local shops and restaurants. It values entrepreneurs, businesses, and startups with the continued work of the Office of Economic Development, the Berkeley Startup Cluster, and business associations. Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Adina Ishii, Mayor of the City of Berkeley, do hereby proclaim that celebrating America the Entrepreneurial will allow the City of Berkeley to continue encouraging more entrepreneurship across the city and celebrate its entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial spirit throughout 2026 during our nation's 250th birth year. Thank you so much, Mayor and Council. As we learned, my name is Eleanor Hollander. I'm the manager of the Office of Economic Development, or OED, here in the City of Berkeley. And it is a great pleasure to receive this proclamation, our mission in the Office of Economic Development, and our remit, which encompasses the commercial and cultural institutions in our entire city, ends with the sentiment of wanting entrepreneurs and established businesses alike to feel welcome in Berkeley and thrive. From our innovation startups that find resources and community in our Berkeley Startup Cluster, which is a unique partnership between the National Lab, our university, our downtown business association, our chamber of commerce, and of course the City of Berkeley, to our brick and mortar establishments nestled in our diverse commercial districts, our office is here to support accessing the city services and celebrating their service to our community. In addition, I wanted to take a moment to recognize and commend our longstanding entrepreneurs in Berkeley, those with businesses in operation for 25 years or more. Soon we'll be rolling out our legacy business program, acknowledging these Berkeley businesses who've been practicing their craft and demonstrating creative entrepreneurship for more than a quarter century, and many more for an actual century. It's an incredibly unique and immense opportunity to work in a city and a community where both the new and the old, the young and the wiser, we won't say older, entrepreneurial establishments can thrive side by side. People can continue to discover what makes Berkeley so special. Like our local marketing campaign, hashtag discovered in Berkeley says, this is a special place where in the same way you can discover a new element on the periodic table or a vintage find in one of our many fine establishments in our commercial districts. It's really a tremendous opportunity that we in Berkeley can feel proud of our entrepreneurs and in this business community. So thank you again for honoring and nurturing this group, and we really appreciate the spirit tonight. Thank you. Okay, so for our second proclamation this evening, we have recognizing September 2026 as Hunger Action Month. Council Member Bartlett, did you want to read this proclamation? So I think that Andrew Crispin from Berkeley Food Network is here. Yes, would you like to come up and receive it? And this was requested by Council Member Bartlett's office. Thanks so much. Happy birthday. Approach. Recognizing September 2026 as Hunger Action Month. Whereas the City of Berkeley recognizes September as National Hunger Action Month, a nationwide effort to raise awareness and inspire action to address food insecurity and hunger in our communities. And whereas external factors such as federal legislation in conjunction with the high cost of living, especially of food in the Bay Area, have exacerbated food insecurity. Individuals experiencing poverty must often choose between vital expenses, including rent, health care, and food. And whereas the City of Berkeley acknowledges the struggle of individuals and families in our community experiencing food insecurity and hunger, we encourage our residents to lend a helping hand by supporting one of the community organizations in our city working to create greater food sovereignty by volunteering their time and treasure. And whereas the work of groups such as the Berkeley Food Network, the Basic Needs Food Pantry, Inside Housing, formerly known as the Berkeley Food and Housing Project, Resourcery Org, and Village of Love, as well as all their volunteers and supporters, are critical to the ability of everyone in our community to thrive. And whereas these organizations and countless other organizations, mutual aid organizations, and caring individuals provide direct services, food, and other resources for those in our community who need it. Now that it will be resolved that the Mayor Adina Ishii, on her birthday no less, the Mayor of the City of Berkeley does hereby recognize September 2026 as Hunger Action Month in the City of Berkeley. Here, here. City Council, Mayor, audience here. My name is Andrew Christman. I'm the Executive Director of Berkeley Food Network, and I am so honored to be in a community where we recognize food as a basic right and are taking action to make sure our neighbors are fed. Thank you for this recognition. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member, for bringing that up for proclamation this evening. Okay, we are now moving on to City Manager comments, and I think our City Auditor is also here. Oh, yes, and then after we will have our City Auditor. Okay, thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to make a few comments about the Harrison Street encampment, the corridor, and the potential community impacts. This morning, as many of you know, we began closing the encampment to everyone there, except for the seven people who Judge Chen ordered us to continue working with on disability accommodations, as well as people living in RVs. The City is required to carry out this work in accordance with court orders, including requirements to offer replacement survival gear, provide packing assistance, and store belongings that are not hazardous or contaminated. Additionally, the court ordered the City to exempt disabled individuals from the City's space-related constraints as long as they proposed locations that met specific criteria identified by the court. The City was ordered to evaluate areas in the City that the Berkeley Homeless Union and individuals living in the encampments identified for relocation. The City has received numerous complaints about areas in the City, mostly centered around 9th and Camellia, 4th and Camellia, and 2nd Street, where individuals either already have or are considering relocating. The City did not suggest these locations or any location as a sanctioned or approved encampment place, and.
Segment 2
on the evening of July 28th for the Hopkins issue. And the day before, as I had mentioned when I spoke then, I had sent the city council, the city manager, and the city attorney an email with correspondence between me and Chief Sprague regarding alternative one and the class four bicycle lanes. I think council member Tregub, you were the one who queried Sprague at the meeting to find out whether he had, in fact, signed off or approved or whatever word you want to use for the Hopkins class four bike lanes. And I pointed out that the memorandum that Kesarwani, Ishii, and Humbert had submitted had the version one of the bike lane from the Fights meeting of April 15th and not what was currently being discussed. And you went ahead and voted nonetheless. Thank you, your time is up. It's an abusive process. Thank you. Shh, folks, come on. I'm Jason Martins and I'm yielding my time. Hi, thank you, Jason. Hi, I'm Catherine Hookting and good evening, Madam Mayor and city council. I'm here this evening to ask for clear answers about how the city is reviewing and scoring bids for the current public safety technology RFP. Right now, some items are listed as required, but these companies are still being given points based on whether or not they need them. We need to be clear. If something is required, a company that submits the RFP and does not meet that requirement, they should be rejected. It should not just lose points and stay in the process. These required items include the city owns its data. The city is notified if there was a data breach with financial penalties for improper sharing. The technology is set to protect privacy by default. The technology meets the city's security and privacy rules. The company follows criminal justice information services or CJIS requirements. The company follows Berkeley's sanctuary policies and limits access by federal immigration agencies. These are called requirements for a reason. We need clear answers from you about why they are being scored as points instead of being treated as requirements. Thank you. Thank you. I'd prefer the question of the city manager. Since we don't have this up, I'm going to just, oh, you got it? Okay. Great, thank you. I was just going to ask for that. Welcome back. I hope you all had a great recess. I was there this morning and witnessed the abject failure that was the encampment at 8th Street and Harrison. It was horrible to watch. I don't know if any of you, have any of you ever gone to an encampment eviction? It is traumatizing. It's traumatizing to watch. It's not only traumatizing to the people who are getting evicted. It's traumatizing to the community members and to our city workers. It's an abject failure of imagination, a failure of society, a failure of kindness, and a failure of this city. How come we don't have a safe stay sanctioned encampment in Berkeley? How come we don't, there's an empty lot behind my house that's been empty for over 30 years. I know there was a referral to the city manager, but we, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about someone championing a place for these unhoused people who are our neighbors and who are our community and no one up here on the dais, none of you, not one championed it. And that's why we had what happened today. It's a failure. Thank you, Alana. Let's flip the Berkeley City Council. Alana, thank you. Let's do it. Let's do it. Let's do it. Let's do it. Flip the Berkeley City Council, that's right. Y'all should be ashamed because I was also down there this morning at 7 a.m. And what was happening? Bulldozers. Looked like Gaza in a way. People living with trash, mice, no toilets, no water, no dumpsters. Just cops and bulldozers and public works people. Ragu, what did he do? Absolutely fucking nothing. He didn't help people. He wouldn't even let people in that were press because they didn't want people to see. They were so special, they even put smoking trash in the dumpster and then it burst out into flames. Don't you know that when there's smoke, there's fire? Thank you, Cheryl. No, you're not, I'm not done. Your time is up. Y'all need to do better. Cheryl, your time is up. You need to find services and do better and not traumatize. Cheryl, your time is up. Thank you. Folks that are living on our streets. They deserve better. Thank you for your comments, Cheryl. Berkeley deserves better. Cheryl, your time's up. Nobody claiming the last speaker card or? Yes. Well, who wrote 8th and Harrison? Okay. I did. I'm at 8th and Harrison every single week and I can barely look at all of you. The mayor, you claim that this is your top priority? Why aren't you speaking out? Why aren't you doing more? All of you, all of you, all of us have a responsibility to do something. Berkeley deserves better. There are elders who are distraught, animals terrorized. People have had to go to the hospital because of the trauma that has gone on before, as you know, June 4th of last year, when the police threw smoke bombs into people's tents to get them out. People did not forget that. You are all complicit, especially the city manager. Yes. People were not helped. Immediately the city went against what the judge ****. Thank you. The mayor has a PR. Thank you. Your time is up. I know my time is up. Your time is up as well. Is Kit Saginor the first speaker on Zoom? Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Thank you. Along with Catherine Hutchding, I'm asking for clear answers about how the city is reviewing and scoring bids for the current public safety technology RFP. It's really important to notice that some items are listed as required, but companies are still being given points based on whether they meet them. We need to be clear. If something is required, a company that does not meet that requirement should be rejected. It should not just lose points and stay in the process. The required items include that the city owns its data. The city is notified if there is a data breach with financial penalties for improper sharing. The technology is set to protect privacy by default. The technology meets the city's security and privacy rules. The company follows criminal justice information services or CJIS requirements, and that the company follows Berkeley's sanctuary policies and limits access by federal immigration agencies. These things are called requirements for a reason. We need clear answers about why they're being supported instead of treated as requirements. Next is Rocky Chow. Hello? Yes, go ahead. Yes, I would like to cede my time to.. Oh. Hello? Are you there, Rocky? Rocky, your time is running out. Is there someone you want to cede your time to? He muted himself again. Rocky, if you want to speak, you can unmute. Maybe we'll just move on to the next. All right, next is Jerry. Yes, hello, this is Jesse Sheehan, the chess club. You can hear me? Yes. Hello. I want to thank Judge William Chen for ruling that the city of Berkeley did, in fact, break the law as it relates to homeless services. And that was before your government, Mrs. Ishii, and it was one person, Peter Redue, and he's still with your government working for Mr. Paul. Paul, why is Peter Redue still on your staff? You had a federal judge say he broke the law. It has opened our city up to litigation. He broke the law. Never has a person stayed on city staff that broke the law. Ms. Ishii, I'm greatly disappointed in you. I'm going to sit on your campus, on your alma mater every day until your reelection if Peter Dew stays on that staff. Every day, I will work to make sure you're not reelected. Thank you, Jesse. Next is a caller with a number ending in 2-1-1. Hi, my comment actually addressed to Eleanor Berlander. Are you kidding me? Have you walked down Telegraph Avenue, Chattuck Avenue, University Avenue? There do have the stores are vacant. What you have done to our business because of millions of dollars, you have, I actually have millions of dollars of credit lines available to me. I get five, 10 calls every week from different finance institutions. And what is worse, what they call the citizens of Berkeley, they have nowhere else to go to do what you have done. You should all be ashamed of yourself. And really, Mayor Ishii, very disappointed. You just followed Reagan and Bates as some of the worst mayors in Berkeley history. Terrible. I will call again. I'm not done with you yet. Thank you. All right, thanks. Next is Margarita. Yes, hello, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, so yeah, I'm a student at UC Berkeley, also getting me and other students politically engaged and other students notified me of the question of whether to lift the ban on chemical weapons like tear gas, smoke. I'm so sorry, we're actually not addressing this at the moment. We're currently taking public comment on non-agenda matters only. Oh, my bad, y'all, my bad. No worries, that'll come later in the agenda. Okay, I misunderstood. No, that's all right. Next is deontology. Hello? Yes, go ahead. Yes, I like to give my time to Derek Wallace. I think he's in the audience. Oh, there's Derek, all right. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Hey, everyone. Hi, city council. I'll make this quick. The doing business in Berkeley thing, the reason I'm here.
Segment 3
submitting referrals to tackle commercial vacancies in our downtown and other commercial districts since my first day in office, partnering with stakeholders such as local merchants and cultural organizations, property owners, community members, and city staff, just to name a few, to understand the myriad economic factors that have exacerbated these challenging issues. I hope this work will help us address some of the persistent commercial vacancy issues we see throughout Berkeley and make it easier to bring these spaces back to life. I would like to express special thanks to my Chief of Staff, Olga Bolotina, for helping to usher this item onto tonight's consent calendar, and of course I want to thank my co-sponsors on this item, who have also been thought partners every step of the way. Thank you so much. Thank you. I have the timer here on my phone, just FYI for folks. Moving on, oh, it's not really working, but we'll move on to Council Member Humber. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, my little device says I'm number 29, so thank you and happy birthday. As to number 16, which is Council Member Kessler-Waney's item, asking for a report on construction-related costs and added costs, I would like to be added, if I might, as a co-sponsor. Yes, we'd be delighted to have you as a co-sponsor, Council Member Humber. Thank you. Thank you. And then number 19, I notice that's the Council Member Trigub's Renaissance item. I don't know if you have any room, but I'd love to be a co-sponsor if you do. I wish we did. We have a full house on that item, but thank you for your support. That's because it's a salutary item. Thank you, Council Member. I have others if you'd like to co-sponsor any. And I'd also like to thank Auditor Wong for her whistleblower report. Thank you, Auditor Wong. That's it. Thank you very much. Council Member Luna Para, and then we'll go Blackabee, Kessler-Waney, and then if anyone else, let me know. Thank you. I want to thank the City Auditor and her team for the great work on the report and recommendations. Thank you. I also want to thank Council Member Kessler-Waney for Item 16, and I'm wondering if I can also be a co-sponsor. Yes, we have room. Thank you. And on Item 19, I want to thank Council Member Trigub for bringing this forward and for the community organizers who have been fighting so hard to pass these resolutions and defeat Trump's proposed coal terminal. I encourage everyone to reach out to the No Coal in Oakland campaign if they want a yard sign or wish to volunteer with these efforts to keep our air breathable in the East Bay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Council Member Blackabee. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I just want to highlight Item 5 on the consent calendar, which is a contract for Fireside. This is a really great software program we've been using, the fire department's been using to track the work that individual residents are doing to do fire mitigation. I guess we're on the fire beat right now. At last report of the 1,400 homes in the Ember Zone, more than 600 are already on the path to Zone Zero and home hardening compliance, which is amazing. And this software helps the city track all that really great work. Folks, can you have your conversations outside, please? Thank you. And in addition, the Chipper program, which also Fireside supports, has supported more than 2,400 pickups and removed 6,000 cubic yards of hazardous vegetation from Berkeley homes. So I just want to double-click on this because it's been a really successful program and it's really key to the work that's being done in the hills. I want to thank Council Member Tregub for Item 19, strongly support Assembly Bill AB 40 and oppose the handling, storage, and transfer of coal in the Bay Area. Also want to thank him for allowing me to co-sponsor the Renaissance Act. Anything that we can do to revitalize downtown and our business districts is really important to me. And very briefly, I just wanted to comment on the City Manager's comment on Harrison Street. I just wanted to thank City staff for all their work today and every day. Berkeley Police Department, Fire Department, Public Works, the Homeless Response Team, Peter Redoux and his team, City Manager, and so many others. I want to be clear that we're deeply committed to supporting our in-house neighbors, but the situation is not sustainable. The status quo can't continue. We had a serious public health and safety crisis in Harrison that had to be addressed. Cheryl, please. It's going to take a multifaceted response to deal with it. I'll also just comment that staff has been working for weeks and months to identify and make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. The judge set a September 1st deadline, which we met and have been working and conferring in good faith, notwithstanding efforts by BHU to wait until the very end after the deadline to file new requests. So, look, this is a difficult problem, and I understand that there are a lot of strong feelings, but I also want to say that staff's been working really hard on this. I also want to say that we live in a community where everyone deserves access to public spaces. That includes children playing sports at nearby fields, employees walking sidewalks to get to work, and artists making their way to pottery classes in and around Harrison. We can't allow a situation like this to reform once abatement is complete. That's not a win for public health, for public safety, for the unhoused individuals, nor the rest of our community. It just resets the same crisis. So I'm committed to working with council colleagues, the city manager, and our community partners to find durable solutions for housing for our neighbors and making policy changes to make sure we don't end up dealing with another large encampment that poses a health and safety risk down the line for neighbors and businesses, housed and unhoused, families, kids, and seniors. I'll also just make a note, we need more financial support from the county and from the state to help us fund the programs that will help house more people in Berkeley. We are a generous community, but we also have limits on our fiscal capacity to help. Folks, please. So this has to be resolved. It can't just be moved around, and I'm looking forward to working on a more durable solution. Let Council Member Blackaby finish his statement. I appreciate the spirit with which people have received my comments. It's been great. But this is a difficult problem, and we can't allow the status quo to continue on Harrison or anyplace else. And it's about putting people in housing. It's also about making policy changes that don't allow a situation like this to come back. So thank you. Okay. We have Council Member Kesarwani and then Council Member O'Keefe and then Council Member Bartlett. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. And thank you, Council Member Blackaby, for these excellent comments about the Harrison Street encampment. I also want to just take a brief moment to thank the City Manager and all of our city staff, including Berkeley Police, Fire, Public Works, Neighborhood Services, and our City Attorney's Office. Mr. Budenhagen, are there any other departments that I missed in that list? Okay. So I just want folks who are watching or here to know that it is a whole city response to address unsafe encampments. And we initially sought to close this encampment in January 2025. It's now September 2026 because of the litigation that was brought forward by the Berkeley Homeless Union. And some of those points have been valid, and I'm glad that the city is addressing them. And I do want to express my support for what the mayor said, that closing an encampment that is unsafe because of leptospirosis and fire hazards is only one part of the significant and massive financial investment that Berkeley has made into longer-term solutions like shelter, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing. We are proud to host two home key sites in District 1. And I always note that I have always said yes to those solutions. At the same time, I can't say yes to an unsafe, unhealthy encampment that is unsafe for the people who are staying there in tents and unsafe to the people who need to work there or need to do business there. So I know we can do better, and I agree that this is a regional challenge, and it does take more than one city. And some other cities are stepping up. I'd love to see some other cities that haven't stepped up more. So thank our city staff again for the tremendous work that has been put into that over nearly two years. Folks, please. It's actually been more than two years, but the immediate period of two years. So I did want to, for item 15, this is supporting the Gilman District Merchants Association. I'd like to add Council Member Terry Taplin as a co-sponsor. I want to thank again Council Members Humbert and Lunaparra who are co-sponsoring item 16. This is requesting a study on housing fees so that we can get an understanding of how much discretionary added cost is being added to each unit that we're creating in our city. And I do, finally, I want to thank Council Member Trigub for the resolution opposing coal, and I was very proud to be able to co-sponsor it as one of the two council members who has the rail line running through their district. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council Member O'Keefe. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Happy birthday. Just a couple brief comments. I really want to thank Council Member Trigub for allowing me to co-sponsor Renaissance. It's really, really important and much needed initiatives, so thank you very much.
Segment 4
It hurt my heart to hear all of you defend and say what a great job your staff did. Not one of you was there. Not one of you was there. So what are you talking about? You know who was there? Moni G, who's running for District 1, to replace Rashi. May it be so. And she was there. And she was witnessing the failure. OK? We have that empty lot I mentioned. I've surveyed my neighbors. They're all down to have a safe, safe, sanctioned encampment. The ones I've talked to, everyone is really open to it. Let's be imaginative. Let's be creative. Let's reweave the social safety net instead of bringing in bulldozers. And I, too, felt like I was sort of in Gaza. It was traumatizing. OK, that's my first thing I wanted to say. The second thing, of course we don't want coal in Oakland. And I just find it interesting that there are some council members who will likely vote for tear gas, who are on this dais, who are sponsoring that item. Wow. Curious. Hypocrisy, perhaps. I don't know. The next thing, the final thing I want to talk about is the Renaissance. Clearly, we need to revitalize the downtown. And it's been a couple of years. It's been years and years. And we have more empty storefronts, not less. There are still an open gaping pit on Herald Way. There are blocks and blocks on Shattuck that are vacant, that are blighted. And so this is, yes, less than two months before there's an election. And so I just want to say, great, yes. Give the city manager more work to do and more studies. We don't need more studies. We need pop-ups. We need creativity. We need events. We need not paid-for events. Pride was paid for here. Berkeley Pride was a paid thing. And then the next weekend, there was another paid thing in Civic Center Park. How are we going to rejuvenate and have public space that we can bring the community into if we're having people pay for everything? So there are many things that could have been done over the past couple of years and certainly should be done, not more studies, to vivify and bring our downtown into a lively place. So I still have 30 seconds left. Thank you for listening. And we can do better. We can do better. And we will do better. We are going to be voting in November 3rd, everybody. If you don't know about Flip the Berkeley City Council, check it out. We've got great candidates. And these are candidates that are going to be centering the needs of those of us who live here, who work here, who study here, as opposed to the developers, which is this item on housing. Thanks, Ilana. That's for the developers. Thank you. Okay, next person, come on up. The person with the mask, the black mask, yep. Thank you. Okay, and folks, just a reminder, this is public comment for consent calendar or information items only. So we have an action calendar, but that will come later, and that has the item that's on tear gas. Go ahead. Good evening. I'm Edith Kamps. I think I have three additional minutes from people in attendance. Okay, hold on. One, two, one second. I didn't see. Oh, thank you. I'm here to speak to item five, the $410,000 fireside contract. And briefly to that urgency measure that's before you on the letter to the governor. As to the fireside contract, first, I support fire safety, but just because a contract is arguably relevant to fire issues in the hills doesn't mean that the contract should be on the consent calendar and rubber stamped in short order, notwithstanding your, you know, passionate defense of it. But at a time when the council is really looking at closing fire station four and asking for really massive amounts of money for the city, I think the council should be showing it can ask tough fiscal questions and not be rubber stamping big contracts like that. Second, let's talk about the fireside contract itself. Show of hands, how many of you have actually read the contract with fireside? I have. And for those who haven't, it's essentially a contract, again, for the software that tracks each property owner's compliance with fire mandates. And whether you've read the fireside contract or not, I also hope that you've read Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, the so-called privacy amendment of the Constitution and the cases that interpret it. I'll boil it down. An intent of Article I, Section 1 is to prevent the government from stockpiling information of your private information of the people of the state of California. In fireside, not only do you have the government stockpiling the information, but you have the government stockpiling information in a database that's managed by a private entity. And that private entity, fireside, is interoperable with a whole bunch of other private entities who are apparently making money off of our information, too. So that looks like it could be one big constitutional violation. So even if you're enthusiastic about it, it does have other ramifications that I think you should look at. And yes, the fireside contract does pay a little bit of lip service to privacy, but hardly the kind of expressed use restrictions and confidentiality protections that you would expect to see in a database law of this kind, if you're serious about informational privacy. So I'd ask that you take this item off the consent calendar and read that contract really carefully with someone who really understands Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution and the cases that interpret it. I'm going to briefly address the urgency letter to the governor. And what's missing in this packet are the bills themselves. What are you voting on? Have you read each of those bills? I've read a bunch of them, you know, quickly. And it seems like the City of Berkeley is already on record in support of some of these bills, as is Fireside, which stands to make some additional money off of this whole industry here. And, you know, the question is, do you know what you're voting on? Because some of these bills are really good in this whole packet. So do you really know what's in each one of them? And they really do impact 1,400 residents like me. And the question is whether they all meet your criteria that you know about and really evolving fire science and what it is. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I have a minute. Can I get two? OK, I have three minutes. So that makes four total. So, again, well, I'll start with the no call. Yes, no call. There's so much asthma. And we still have COVID and all these other illnesses. And can you pay attention? Like, I'm over here. That we don't need to have coal coming through Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, anywhere. We don't need coal. We need to get away from fossil fuels. Climate and fossil fuels is on Friday, 9am to noon, cmtf.org. Join us. And, again, the encampment. That was a travesty. Really, you should all be ashamed. The trauma induced. I mean, me, I'm not unhoused. But, you know, a lot of people are one paycheck away or one social security check away from being unhoused. And what are you going to do? I am. And I have my don't take up my freaking time, OK? I didn't authorize that. I want my time back that she took. So people need services, help. They don't need to be enforced and traumatized. They were supposed to be given tents. They were supposed to not. You were supposed to obey the court order, which was violated. Raghu just did whatever he wanted to do. Just swept the whole street. And you're supposed to go back tomorrow. You can call that off. Why can't you just go there and help clean up and get people visited once a week to help them with whatever help they need? Do you even know who lives there and what their needs are? Yes, it does. And a lot of people that were down there this morning did. They knew the people that needed ADA compliance. And they tried to tell people, but they did not listen. They were preventing folks from being up close and personal to witness and record. What kind of crap is that? That sounds like fascism. That's what's going on in Gaza. The same thing. They live in tents. There's no trash pickup. You could remedy it by having dumpsters and regular pickups. You could remedy it by having showers down there once or twice a week. There's lots of things you could do to help people. But you don't care. We know that. You should try to make it look like you do. Because we care. None of you were there. I was there. I've been there before. How many times have you gone down there and tried to talk to people? Or fed people? I went down there a couple weeks ago with a tray of food and gave it to folks. That's what they need. They need water. They need showers. They need services. They need compassion and empathy. They need love. They are our community. Free Palestine. Free us all from the evil and white supremacy that all of many people are holding. Good evening. My name is Ariella Granette, District 3 Berkeley resident, and speaking on behalf of the Berkeley 350 Hub tonight about the consent calendar item number 19. Thank you so much for authoring and sponsoring the resolution against coal in the East Bay. It's really insane to think about mile-long trains trundling through dense urban areas, exposing hundreds of thousands of people to pollution. It's also really insane to think about the greed and the greed at this time of the corporations trying to expand coal production and.
Segment 5
Individuals who've been working together for the past 10 years to get our district up and running, help support our businesses. And I am not the best speaker, so our fabulous treasurer wrote a nice letter and I'm going to read that. I'm writing as treasurer of the Gilman District Merchants Association, and as someone who has been part of the district for several years, now on the GDMA board, I've watched the impact this district has had on Berkeley, and over the past four years, I've seen the street fair develop into an anchor for the district, bringing neighbors, artists, and businesses together in an incredibly positive way. I'm asking you to pass item 15, because this investment will do something important. It puts substantial capacity behind a young organization that is already proving what it can do with very little. Very, very little. Just people, really. The GDMA is small, but it carries an outside.. Okay. Thank you. Feel free to send the letter if you haven't already. Hello, City Council. My name is Paul. I am a resident of District 2. I'm here to speak to item 3. We're going to move the RLF under the City Manager's control. I think maybe we need to do something similar. I'm kind of raising the alarm on this with the Shelter Plus Care Program. I don't know if any of this has been brought to your attention. A very good friend of mine, formerly homeless at the Here There Encampment, has his housing through the Shelter Plus Care Program. Actually, very close to your guy's office. Shelter Plus Care has not paid his portion of the rent this past month, so now he's facing a three-day notice to vacate. I would like to say that this is the first time this happened. My friend is a senior. He's overcome addictions. Incredible artist. Just a great guy. He informed me that this happened in the past. For six months straight, the Shelter Plus Care Program didn't pay their portion of the rent, and then it was back paid all at once. I don't know who's administering Shelter Plus Care, but the amount of stress when you've been on the streets to then finally be housed by the city that claims to care for you and then can't even.. Please, guys, can someone get on this? Thank you. Yeah, thanks. We'll look into it. Thank you. Council Members, my name is Aidan Phil. I'm a candidate for Berkeley City Council District 7. First, happy birthday, Mary Ishii. I want to thank you for your supporting Berkeley Food Network. They have helped us tirelessly since People's Park community members were displaced, and I am grateful that you have supported the work, so thank you. City Council, City Manager, who is not listening, waking people up violently at 6 a.m. is a human rights violation, period. It is cruel. It's inhumane. It has no place in this city. I'm speaking on the consent calendar as a whole because these items are about governance. They're about resilience and public safety. You have aging services, climate emergency responses, and basic care infrastructure, but on 8th and Harrison, the city's still choosing to manage an unsheltered crisis. Real quick, do I have three more minutes? Thank you. I should have asked in the beginning. I apologize. But the city's still choosing to manage an unsheltered crisis without a sanctioned encampment. That's cruel. That's a policy failure. I led the People's First Sanctuary Encampment model on the Homeless Commission at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. We worked with encampments from 10th Street to the RV encampments at the marina to People's Park, the here-there encampment, all across the city. I made sure community voices were heard at the table. I yielded my time so people living outside could speak for themselves. A version of that framework was later passed by Council Members Kesarwani and Bartlett. It's part of the public record, the People's First Sanctuary Encampment model. Thank you. So this is not an abstract idea. Berkeley already has a record. It already has a framework. It already has a path to act. And I've been with the People's Park community members every single step of the way, through disinvestment, police brutality, ecological destruction, displacement, and the long aftermath. I was there on day one, helping people move their belongings into the roadway in now-university homes. So when I speak about sanctioned encampments, I'm not speaking from theory. I'm speaking from years of direct work with people who were displaced, criminalized, and forced to survive your policy failures as the public. If we can coordinate departments for climate resilience and senior services, wildfire preparedness and transportation, then we can coordinate a humane sanctioned encampment response with sanitation, safety services, and clear accountability. This is a climate emergency. And in a climate emergency, shelter, sanitation, food access, and public space are basic dignity. They're not side issues. They are the work you choose to do when you take these seats of power. Berkeley can't talk about resilience in one item and then tolerate displacement, denial, and delay in another. I'm asking this council to act on the record. Use the tools already developed in this city. Set the standard for human dignity. And if Berkeley is going to talk about renewal, let it be real. Let's have a real renaissance, not just with new buildings and new plans, but a city that protects people before crisis happens, not after harm is already done. I look forward to working with the city government, our staff, our commission members, and community members to make Berkeley's policy match the values it claims. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Hello. Speaking on item 16. Oh, yes, I have an extra minute. Thank you. So another information report for housing. I feel like you could have just asked the residents of the 8th and Harrison community for information. I'm sure it wouldn't have been as neat and quantifiable in a spreadsheet, but it would have been informative nonetheless. It's insane to me that we're still putting money towards all these things. And we're like, oh, we don't have any money. And most of these things are worth funding. Most of the stuff on the consent calendar is worth funding. It would be a lot easier to fund all of them if you weren't spending so much of the city's budget on an out-of-control police department that violates court orders. Control police department that violates court orders and eats up an inordinate percentage of the city's budget. And when the city has to pay out for lawsuits due to the police department's actions, it seems to always come out of the general fund rather than the police budget, which is where it should come from. I don't think you see the unhoused as our neighbors. I don't. Because if you did, you wouldn't be able to stomach having them violently uprooted at 6 a.m. Sweeping homeless encampments doesn't actually fix the squalor that they live in, Kesarwani. You don't actually care about this. You don't care about them. You have crocodile tears, that's all. They're not going to be any safer pushed out, scattered to the four winds. I work for BUSD. We have homeless students. Imagine if you were a family living in an encampment and at 6 a.m. the police busted down your tent, threw away your belongings, threw away your belongings. The police supposedly care about violations of property rights, but not if you're homeless. So cut the police budget and we could probably afford to house our neighbors and pay for all the other things we want to do. And that would prevent crime instead of always reacting. Good evening. My name is Daria Rubel. I'm a resident of District 1 and a candidate for city council there. I want to thank Igor Tregub for authoring the no coal resolution, and I encourage all of you to approve it. Sounds like it's going to happen, but I'm just so proud to live in a city that stands up for our environmental rights, for an end to fossil fuel destruction of our planet. And I think it's a wonderful resolution, well worth supporting. Thank you very much. Thank you, Daria. Are you waiting in line for comment with the hat? Come on up. Thanks. This person is waiting to speak on the action calendar. Thank you. Hi. I want to comment that we want all toxic dust out of the East Bay. That means coal and internationally banned chemical warfare agents. It doesn't matter whether toxic particulates.. Sorry, we're actually.. Yes, this is about the coal. I know that these are different on the agenda, which is really funny, but they actually do pose the same risks. Yes. So it doesn't actually matter whether toxic particulates are produced by corporations or wielded by our own cops against our residents. Your cops flooded the streets with tear gas in retaliation for the BLM protests to the point where people couldn't open their windows. There is no way to use it in a controlled way or to prevent the spread of an aerosol. No coal, no toxins in our air, no tear gas. And folks who are here for the coal, please stay to give comment on the item on tear gas chemical weapons in favor of 21B, keeping the ban on tear gas. Thank you. Carol, are you here to speak on the consent calendar? Okay. Yes, I called you on the consent item. And I want to say as to the renaissance item, I think Paula made a really excellent point about there are really good points here. This is really laid out really well, but there are no target dates for it to return back to council. And I think council should really think about sometimes when we put these items, you put these items forward, that there really be some dates set for it to return. Because as you all know, the city manager's office is piled up with referrals. And as.
Segment 6
We're ready. Yes. Okay. All right. Hi everyone. Thank you so much for your patience. All right. Oh, okay. You all are welcome to line up if you want to, but just be aware it might be a minute. So because we're going to have Council Member Kesarwani present her item. And then, Georgia, if you also want to present the letter for 21B. And then we have online Kathy from our, who is our Interim Director of Police Accountability. And then also online is Josh, who is our Chair of the Police Accountability Board. And they're both available to answer questions. But if we could just bring them up, Mark, just so I can, just so you can have them at the ready, that would be great. Kathy Lee and yeah, Josh Cayetano. Ah, perfect. Thanks, Josh. That was helpful to have you raise your hand. And ODPA must be Kathy. Wonderful. Thank you both. Okay. All right. So we are going to go presentations, questions for all parties involved. And then we will take public comment and then we will do council comments and then any further deliberations. So, okay, go ahead, Council Member. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. I want to thank the members of the Public Safety Committee who heard this item earlier this year and the members of the public who came and gave public comment at that meeting. I want to thank members of the public who are here tonight and on Zoom to give public comment. And I want to thank our police chief, our deputy chief and our captain who are here to answer questions and provide more detail on this item. I want to explain the circumstances under which this ban was put in place. I think only two of us on the dais today were here at the time. It was June 2020 at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when no vaccine was available and Black Lives Matter protests and marches were happening. And there was concern about the respiratory impacts of COVID-19 combined with tear gas, pepper spray or smoke. Six years later, we now have a vaccine that is widely available with high uptake. I believe it is important for this council to reconsider the limited use of these less lethal tools. I believe the reason why is because they can keep both civilians and police safer. I want to be clear about how narrow this is in practice. Over more than 40 years, BPD's special response team has used tear gas exactly once during a barricaded subject incident in the early 2000s. This item authorizes its use only by the special response team and only for barricaded subject operations. High risk warrant service where a suspect is actively presenting a threat of death or serious injury or hostage situations. Those are the only potential uses. Crowd control is expressly banned. And this is intended to prevent the loss of life in these low probability, high lethality events. For instance, an armed suspect barricaded or firing from a position of cover. So our officers have every less lethal tool available to avoid an armed conference confrontation and save as many lives as possible. Our police chief has told me that she is not aware of any other agency with the ban on the use of tear gas for an armed barricaded suspect, which is the only use we are asking for tonight. We are also asking the council to lift the moratorium on smoke and OC spray for use only in violent crowd situations to interrupt active violence, create distance between opposing groups or allow officers to respond to a specific act of violence from a single individual. For example, where these tools can prevent injury or death to civilians or officers, again, by offering a less lethal tool. All three tools remain governed by policy 300 on use of force, policy 303 on controlled devices and techniques, and policy 428 on First Amendment assemblies. These policies and state law under penal code section 13652 write real limits into how these tools may be used. They cannot be deployed against individuals engaged only in passive resistance, and they cannot be used solely because of a curfew violation, a verbal threat, or noncompliance with a directive. De-escalation must be attempted first. That is expressly written into the use policy, and use must be targeted at individuals engaged in violence, never fired indiscriminately into a crowd. I want to thank the Police Accountability Board for their engagement on this item. I understand that they are online and available, and I want to speak to the concerns that they raised about the infrequency of past use and the liability associated with chemical agents. I'd suggest that infrequency actually supports this narrow reinstatement rather than the status quo. A tool used once in 40 years restricted to a specially trained team is not a tool that invites casual or frequent use, and that is our department's history on this. Those are the facts. Okay, folks, you're going to have an opportunity to speak. This item also strengthens transparency beyond what existed before 2020, and I'm going to make that more clear with an amendment to the resolution. But what we have stated in this report is that whenever a public summary of a deployment is posted, the department must now notify the city manager who will bring that information to both the council and the Police Accountability Board within 10 days. I do want to acknowledge the fear that these tools could be used outside the specific and limited purposes proposed here. I believe in police accountability, and we have real mechanisms to enforce it. There are supervisor authorization requirements, mandatory use of force reporting, and review by the chief of police, and the reporting and public posting requirements I just described. Those mechanisms exist precisely so that any use outside our strict policies can be identified and addressed. Thank you very much, and I look forward to comments and questions from my colleagues. Thank you. I'm so sorry. I meant to say that the supplemental will then be presented by Councilmember Blackaby. I can say for the record I'm in full support of the supplemental amendments. Thank you. Great. Thank you. I'll be brief. I also wanted to thank the department leadership and the Police Accountability Board for working together on compromised language that would bring more clarity to these very limited situations where the department should have the ability to consider the use of tear gas in these very limited circumstances. My supplemental tries to add that clarity to the language of the resolution. I'm just going to make some – I'll show you those changes. We sort of eliminated the other potential high-risk situations. It's just at suspects shooting at officers during warrant service, hostage rescue situations, and armed barricaded suspects. We made that more clear. And then in the resolution itself, this is the language that had jointly been worked out with the department and with the Police Accountability Board. Again, thanks to the chair and vice chair of the Accountability Board, the director of the ODPA, and the department leadership. So this is the language that they had kind of worked on together that says, be it further resolved that tear gas should only be used upon approval by the incident commander, special response team. Here are the three very specific situations when it could be authorized, if feasible, before it's deployed, issuing verbal warnings, taking steps to ensure that suspects are in a controlled containment area. And then we added in – we removed this sort of other tear gas piece because we've made it clear up here and then continued to define the circumstances for smoke and OC spray, directed to report on the use of tear gas as defined in policy 300 and policy 428, and then directed to update policies as necessary to reflect these new requirements. So this is really just codifying the agreement that had been reached between the PAB and the department, putting it in the resolution so it's here for our consideration. And that's the summary. Thank you very much. Yes, and I do really appreciate our police department working with our police accountability board. I think that's exactly the kind of partnership that I know the council really wants to see, so thank you all. And thank you online, those of you that are online. OK, George, would you like to come up? I'm giving George five minutes to speak on this to present his letter. Thank you. I'm appearing on behalf of the – and at the request of our chair, Pastor Dwayne Phillips, whose apologies he couldn't be here tonight. This is something that we voted on six months ago, so some things have changed. You've passed some of the other items we were talking about. I want to lay the groundwork for why good policies, well-intended policies, and oversight are not enough and why we just don't want to go there with these chemical weapons. So our recommendation is, number one, retain the existing 2020 bans on chemical weapons, CS and OC, tear gas and pepper spray. Request the city manager – and this is our positive suggestion – engage an academic institution such as UC Berkeley, UCSF, or Stanford to study the health impacts of tear gas and other chemical weapons, potential short and long-term impacts on vulnerable populations and possible alternatives to the use of chemical weapons that provide officer safety, suspect safety, and safety to the general public. So this was all voted on and supported by the full commission. So speaking directly to tear gas, pepper spray, and smoke, the commission recommends the council retain the ban on CS and the moratorium on OC and smoke for four reasons. One, CS and OC are dangerous weapons that are properly considered less lethal, not non-lethal, and we should use the correct language. They can kill people. CS and OC are particularly dangerous to the health of people with disabilities, especially respiratory or environmental sensitivities, and also those suffering from mental or behavioral disorders. To go into a little depth on a little bit of science, over decades of research, scientists have shown a strong potential harm from CS use, tear gas, in policing. An Oakland Police Department policy warns chemical agents can produce serious injuries or even death, and officers are to use the minimum amount of chemical agent needed to obtain compliance. Further, the use of hand-thrown chemical agents or pyrotechnic.
Segment 7
room or apartment through a door? Sure. So typically that would be a hand-thrown device. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, our Parliamentarian is sort of working. Maybe Councilmember Taplin is next and then Councilmember Humbert. Thank you very much and thanks everyone for being here. So during negotiations with our barricaded subject, could you walk us through the steps you take during those negotiations and at what point do you realize or think that it's gonna escalate beyond an acceptable threshold? So we have specially trained personnel that go to schools designed to train our negotiator element. So our folks that have extensive training in that and they would, those specially trained personnel, a group of them will work as a team to try to identify what the key issues are and how we can safely resolve an issue. If they're able to establish communication with someone who's barricaded, they would work with them to identify what it would take to help get them to come out, identify what potential concerns they might have and how we could safely resolve the situation. And then through that, through those efforts, set up a plan for that suspect to safely come out and be taken into custody. Unfortunately, that doesn't always work out that way. And so if the negotiators are getting information that things are escalating or that it is, their efforts are not successful after the time, after a reasonable amount of time and evaluating other risks or potential risks, the incident commander would have to weigh a wide range of circumstances to make a decision about what the next most appropriate tactic would be. Things they consider are the threat and necessity. So is there a need to act immediately or is there time to, or are there other tactics that haven't been applied that might help resolve the situation? Identify in terms of their calculus, persons at risk, both inside the building itself and surrounding the building, as well as risks that the situation may pose to officers, other involved community members, the suspect themselves, alternative tactical options. So identifying what other options they might have and what is most likely to resolve the situation, environmental factors in terms of if they're weighing the use of tear gas and how that environmental factors would impact how effective that tool would be in resolving the situation and finally, a risk-benefit analysis, determining whether the proposed deployment is likely to improve the situation or create additional risk. Thank you very much. Council Member Humbert and then Council Member Blackaby. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I really just have one question. We heard earlier an assertion that the 2014 Marchdown Telegraph Avenue from Berkeley through to Oakland was peaceful. And I don't remember that it was peaceful. My recollection was that there was significant violence involved in that march. Folks, hey, please. Can you address that? This would be directed to BPD. Yeah, we would not classify it as peaceful. There were dispersal orders given. There were acts of violence where individuals had to be rescued using a rescue task force with fire department personnel. There was extreme vandalism. So to that end, I would not classify it as peaceful. Were there instances of Molotov cocktails? Council Member, can you give me a second? Folks, please, come on. We need to be able to hear the answers to these questions. I would really like to get to the public comments so if we could let this part finish, we will get to you and you will have time to give your comments then. Thank you. Yes, there were also Molotov cocktails as well as bricks, various other items thrown at officers. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. That's what I recall from the reporting of that night. Thank you. Shh. Council Member Blackaby. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just to get to the nub of it, I think we know tear gas is very harmful, dangerous, when misused. That's true. But I think the whole question of this is how does it materially change the risk? Because we're talking about safety of officers, of suspects, and to others in the harm's way when you're in these sort of barricaded situations or hostage situations. When you have the possibility of using tear gas or when you don't. Could you talk about how the risks change and if you have to confront a suspect with tear gas or without, how does that change the situation and potentially make it safer, again, for the suspect as well as for the officer as well as for other people who might be in that same proximity? Can you talk a little just about those trade-offs and how this makes it safer? Sure, I think I'll start and then I'll pass it to Captain Okies. Generally, the individual who we are attempting to communicate with has a say in what's happening. And where we have an armed individual who is refusing to come out or for whatever reason is committed to doing harm, it is a viable tool that we could use that we can get into very small spaces to encourage the individual to cooperate with whatever the directives are. So absent that, our officers are forced to potentially have a lethal encounter with an individual that we may not have otherwise had we had the tool. Yeah, so basically this tool impacts the environment and gives us the option potentially of creating an environment that the suspect wants to come out of. The suspect has control of a, if they're barricaded in a structure, they have control of everything inside that structure. We may be able to contain it, but we have no control over what's going on in there. One way to influence a suspect's behavior to get them to come out on our terms is to use this tool. When they come out, we have the benefit of distance and we're able to dictate some of the terms of how that person is going to come out or where they're going to come out from a distance, from a position of cover in a way that reduces the risk of all involved. With that greater distance provides more time and decision-making, time to give direction to the suspect, and then time to be able to safely bring that person into custody. Conversely, if we don't have that tool, we have to go into the house, we're now compacting that distance, reducing the amount of time and entering into an environment that's controlled by the suspect, greatly increasing the likelihood of a violent encounter in these kinds of circumstances. So this tool reduces the potential for violent encounter and results in a more likely safe outcome for everybody involved. Again, this is a tool that's not designed to be used except for as outlined in this policy under the most serious circumstances where as police officers, we don't have the option of leaving. We have to resolve these situations. We are required to resolve these situations. So that's the house. And in those situations, if you proceed into a situation where you have a confrontation and on balance, the officers decide, hey, we need to basically resolve this. We can't wait this out any farther. There are other issues here. There are other people potentially that are being held against their will. We need to move to sort of close the situation down. In that case, they are relying on their sidearms, their lethal, I mean, that's sort of the range that you head into at that point when you're trying to defend yourself in that situation. And so it feels like a lot of our policies, use of force and others are trying to avoid at all costs having to resort to that kind of confrontation, that kind of conflict. And this is another tool that sort of is reducing the necessity of having to go to, I mean, having to use lethal weapons, lethal force in these sorts of situations. Sorry, can we just keep it on questions if we can, as much as possible? Thank you. Chief, can you talk to, and I know you can't predict the future, but speak a little bit to kind of what you would forecast in terms of infrequency of future use. I mean, looking at these situations we just identified of maybe three situations over the past number of years where maybe it would have been in the mix, but maybe it would not have. Can you talk a little bit about what you would anticipate? Again, we're not calling you to a number, but just to give people a sense of the frequency that we're talking about here. Right, I mean, if you look at historically how long we've had access to this tool and how long the ban's been in place, it's a very infrequently used tool. We look at around the region, we see a handful of times a year where these tools are used. You know, we can't predict the future, and as Deputy Chief and the Captain shared, we don't have complete say in how these incidents unfold. The other individuals involved didn't have a lot of say about where we end up. And so I don't anticipate significantly increased uses beyond what we've seen for the last 40 plus years, you know, based on the very limited situation that we're looking at in the return to this language. Okay, last question. Can you remind us, what would the process be in the moment for when it's actually authorized? How does that decision-making process work? Who's authorized to sort of make that call? So that would be the incident commander who's on scene and working with the tactical operators. Okay, great, thank you. Thank you. Council Member O'Keefe, do you have questions? Yes, thank you. My question, I had this question earlier, but I'm gonna ask it anyway, even though I think the new language from Council Member Blackaby actually addresses most of my concern. But I think the issue is, you know, we wanna allow this, or we're asking to allow this for a very specific hostage-violent barricaded situation, and we very much do not want to allow this for crowd control. And so the thing we wanna make really clear, as clear as possible, is, is there any hypothetical scenario where the two things could be, those two principles could be in opposition? And so my question is, is there anything you can imagine where, let's say, somebody has taken a hostage in a crowd, and then the crowd.
Segment 8
trees including tear gas, but we're considering allowing them in Berkeley. That is just really deeply shocking to my conscience, and I think that's a very immoral thing for us to do. Thank you. Thanks, Jason. Greetings. Good evening. My name is Leah Martins. I'm a local parent of three. I'm a resident of District 3. I'm also the pastor of Haven Berkeley Faith Community here in Berkeley, and I'm here to support the proposal from the Peace and Justice Commission and encourage you to retain the ban on chemical weapons. Last January, I had the opportunity to travel to Minneapolis as part of a coalition of hundreds of faith leaders who traveled from around the country. We were there to learn, bear witness, participate in the citywide general strike and the day of action during the height of the ice surge in Minnesota. And on the day of the general strike, our small group had multiple encounters with tear gas being deployed throughout residential neighborhoods in Minneapolis. At one point, I actually got out of a car that was probably about half a block from where the tear gas had just been deployed, and I was so overwhelmed by the intensity of the experience and its effect on my body that lasted for several hours. I was amazed. Incidentally, within 24 hours of that experience.. Oh, thank you. Sorry, your party was dead. Thank you very much. I'm sad you didn't bring a song for us today. Thank you. There is a mic coming your way. Thank you for your patience. I'm Nicholas Elizabeth Fabie. I'm very concerned.. It's not on. Oh. I'm Nicholas Elizabeth Fabie. He's turning it up so that we can hear you better. Give it up for Keith. Thanks, Keith. Okay. I'm Nicholas Elizabeth Fabie. I'm very concerned about the use of chemical weapons by the police. I support 21B. There needs to be a full understanding of the harm they can cause, especially to disabled people. As someone who has multiple disabilities, I don't attend protests generally because I'm afraid of the use of chemical weapons. I know that this policy would not allow use of tear gas for crowd control, but if the police have a tool, they're going to be tempted to use it. And something that they.. If they feel threatened, they might decide that there's an imminent risk of injury or death when there really isn't. Additionally, a specific example of domestic violence, I've experienced domestic violence and being tear gassed along with my assailant would not have helped. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Come on up, our next speaker. Hello, I'm Sally Nelson, District 4. Happy birthday. Why are we even thinking about allowing the spraying of harsh chemicals on people? Along with the harsh chemicals, there's enough lead that is likely 80 times the amount considered to be normal. Aren't the laws and ordinances passed in Berkeley supposed to be in line with the US Constitution, including the First Amendment? I urge you to vote no on removing the ban on the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and smoke. And while there was some comment that there had been no tear gas sprayed on any peaceful protesters, my memory is that sometime since the year 2020, that the students at UC Berkeley who were sitting.. UC Davis were sitting peacefully in protest and they got pepper sprayed or tear.. or pepper sprayed tear gas, I'm not sure. That's just something to consider. Thank you. That it's been happening. Okay, thank you. Thanks. And thank you for voting no. I have two extra minutes. Raise your hand. There was somebody else. I see one minute. Well, can someone else give me a minute? Thank you. Oh, a second person in the back. Okay. So, in 2020, I made the friendly amendment to ban outright tear gas. It was a unanimous.. Do you know what that word means? Unanimous vote to ban it. It wasn't just because it was COVID, although that was why it was on the agenda. But when I said let's ban it outright, it was because everyone in the room wanted to ban it. Who wants to ban tear gas and pepper spray? Most of the people in this room want to. I can recall the last time most of the people wanted to then, too. So, we have COVID. People have COPD. People have asthma. And it's kind of hypocritical if you're in support of not having coal and the dust and the particulate matter come through Berkeley, yet you want this particulate matter to be in our lungs, too? What sense does that make? Absolutely none. We don't need that. People are immune compromised. There's all kinds of reasons. And once that gets into the air, you cannot control it, even if it is a contained area. It seeps through the walls. It seeps through and it gets on people's clothing. This is not okay. It was a unanimous vote that I understood. And when Wayne Grove tried to ask the chief, what did he say? She asked, what would you use if you didn't have tear gas? I guess we'll have to shoot people. That's what he said. They're armed. And I don't mean this kind of armed. They have weapons. They don't need tear gas. They shouldn't be afraid. That's their job. They signed up to do that. They don't need tear gas. We don't need to be harmed in any more ways that you are harming us. It's harm just to come to this council meeting and listen to all the bullshit that goes on. And to witness what I witnessed this morning was very traumatic. Not just for me, but for everyone that was there. You have no idea. And that's sad. You need to ban, keep the ban enforced. They don't need tear gas. They don't need any more weapons. They need to cut the budget. Council members, I was also there. And I noticed that, oh, I'm sorry, I have a couple minutes. I'd like to get a minute. And I had a minute there. And I got on a roll. Somebody help me out. Thank you. Well, what I want to do is I want to correct a little bit of history because I see you shaking your head like, no, there was violence. There was violence. And I'll tell you how that happened. We at Cop Watch, we did a really deep dive into that, the incidents of that night. Primarily because I got tear gassed as well and pushed down into Oakland. And I was not violent. I'll tell you what happened. Earlier in the night, see, and this is endemic, this is indicative of what are some of our fears related to this are. Earlier in the day, people had been marching around. And they stopped in front of the public safety building. An elderly man, I can show you the video, was not, the officers were trying to move the crowd back. And some officer, bam, they hit an old man. He fell over his dog. He hit the ground. The crowd looked like, what the hell? Why are you beating up old people? And so that escalated things. Something was thrown. Another something, another bottle was thrown. Officers escalated. The whole situation escalated. There was violence. Then when the police started, what can I say, clubbing and pushing and so forth, things escalated. And so that marched around and so forth. It got to Bancroft and Telegraph. And they stood there. That's where I joined the march. That's where I caught up with it. It was a completely different protest because people were there for like half hour, an hour. And what happened is the helicopter overhead started to attract Cal students. It was a completely different crowd. And that crowd was like sitting on the ground because they were kettled in a few blocks on Telegraph. People were laying around and waiting and the cops were waiting and so forth. And then when the cops finally got it together to like move, move, that's when they started deploying tear gas. And that's when the fog of the tear gas was so thick. And then they started shooting munitions. And it was gross. And none of the cops have ever been held accountable for that. There was never any honest reflection about that. I do defy you to find any indication of Molotov. That really I'd love to see if you had that because we looked for it. But what I also want to tell you is this, that BPD right now has a problem of not following its own policies as evidenced by this very morning. Well, we were trying to, and it wasn't even about a policy. It was about the constitutional right to observe. We have that right. And this department doesn't agree with that part of the Constitution because over and over again we're being prevented from watching. Now that may seem like a small thing to you. I think it's a big thing. But it is an indicator that if we cannot get that small thing from them, if we don't have consequences or an accountability structure that actually works, what I see here sometimes is you guys kind of create this fiction of like, well, we'll tell the police to do it and they'll do it. And they'll come here and tell you they did it. But those of us who are out there actually watching for years, for decades, there's a very different story where time and time again these folks are not held accountable. They come and tell you some happy story, and you guys seem to enjoy that for the most part because that fits your narrative. But I don't see you guys out there in the streets actually seeing what's actually happening. And if you did, I don't know that you could actually hold them accountable. You know, we could go back to the drug. Let's go back to when Kerry Kent was stealing drugs from the drug locker. We didn't hold him accountable. Scandal after scandal with these folks. And now you want to put more chemical weapons in their hands? And they're going to come and they're going to come to our protest and say somebody threw a bottle.
Segment 9
get rid of. I'd like to see some other tools than, oh, some tear gas will keep us from being trigger-happy and shooting these people, or piling on them and killing them with a crowd of people like they did Caleb Orr. So I'm wondering, like, why are we spending this money on this? Guess what? What is the probability of this situation of somebody barricaded in, blah, blah, blah, that it's likelihood of 0.01 or less, you know? So what is all this money, you know, all these trainings, all this stuff, all this hoopla, when actually that time and money and interest should be sent into crisis intervention training? It should be sent in specialized care units. It should be sent in on settlements and helping the people who, say, might be under some delusional situation where they feel like they're paranoid. And, you know, seniors can get paranoid dementia, too. They take seniors away very carefully when they get paranoid dementia. But when other people get paranoid dementia, they throw them in jail. That's the answer. Bam. We want them in jail. We want them handcuffed. We want to throw them down. We don't want to give them any medical treatment. We should be aiming for support and treatment, crisis intervention. Thank you. I have one minute from—thank you. So I just want to emphasize again that these are aerosolized chemical agents. So they are super concentrated particulate chemicals. They are designed to spread rapidly through the air. They are compressed into tanks in order so that when they explode, they can more effectively spread throughout the immediate and far-reaching environment. They are made to obstruct breathing, inflame lung tissue, eyes, and other mucous membranes. They're chemicals that have unclear long-term health and environmental effects. Your definition in writing may say limited use or barricaded individuals, but these are airborne. You can't impose rhetorical limits on chemicals manufactured to explode from a compressed canister or a tank. Pepper spray and tear gas settle on closed walls and surfaces. These cause long-term reproductive damage. There is no reason to release specious chemicals into the environment or expose people to chemical warfare agents. Also, I just want to add, I think it is very, very shocking in this year of 2026, with a BLM flag hanging behind you, to let the cops call Black Lives Matter protests violent. I can't believe that. We are in 2026. We already had hundreds, endless protests about police brutality, and yet the city council is sitting here and nobody called that racist out. Not a single person. I was there all night getting tear gas, treating people who were tear gassed, who were on the street bleeding because cops had beat the crap out of them. Random students who were trying to go home who got caught up in the gas and then were beaten and had nowhere to go. And then I got home in the morning and there were all these news outlets reporting on the violence of protesters. Not a single one, not a single one reported on all the people who were injured in the streets and left. Not a single one. And they all made up these same lies about the Molotov cocktails. I want you to know there were none. I was there all night, all week. I was tear gassed every night. There were none. Ban it. Thank you. Good evening again. My name is Danae Aribo, District 1 candidate for city council. And I want to thank Madam Mayor for spending today, your birthday, and so many days in service to the city. But I'm very concerned. So, you know, I believe in compromise. I believe in listening to all sides and moving forward with solutions. I believe that it is important to listen deeply and to think about compromise. But in this instance, I have listened and I hear no reason for compromise. The police department has not demonstrated a real need for these chemical weapons. And as many speakers before me have said, there are many documented reasons not to move forward with this lift. So please, this is not a place to compromise. Thank you. 21B. Can I get a minute from anyone who hasn't given one already? A lot of people have given minutes. Okay. Person with the yellow baseball cap. So first of all, every single protest that I've been to that turned violent, the police were the ones who instigated the violence. And I believe that people have a right to resist state violence. I believe they have that right to resist state violence with force if necessary. You know who didn't go to a whole lot of protests though? My dad. Didn't save him from being tear gassed. Over 50 years ago, there was a protest right here in Berkeley against the Vietnam War. Tear gas was used. But that's the thing about tear gas. Gas weapons by definition can't target individuals. They're gas. Once they're deployed, the wind decides where they go and who they target. My dad wasn't part of the protest. He was standing in line to register for classes at Cal. And so he and a bunch of other students who were also standing in line to register for classes at Cal, which you had to do in person those days, had a chemical weapon deployed against them because they just happened to be in the area. And that's the thing. These are chemical agents. They don't just dissipate as soon as the incident's done. They remain. They linger. As for hostage situations, you know who the most famous hostage situation in which tear gas was deployed was? It was Waco. The hostages ended up dead too. Other people have already—can I get another minute? Thank you. Other people have already gone into the long-term lingering health effects on respiratory as well as reproductive health. But this police department, this police department, which we've heard about the various incidents, TechScape was never resolved. They violated a court order this morning. They violate people's rights all the time. They threw me to the ground for arguing with one of them. You want to give them chemical weapons? The first chemical weapon used in World War I, in fact? Banned from use in war under international law with only paper policies preventing them from using them when they're not supposed to? This police department? Are we living in the same reality? You know who protests? Students, including high school students. If you vote for them choosing to deploy chemical weapons against our kids. Hi, my name is Mimi and I live in District 8. I was in this room on July 28th for the entire public comment about Hopkins Street. You could cut the tension in this room with a knife. Almost everyone felt strongly that they were on the right side of that issue. I was struck by how difficult your jobs as council members are, making decisions on issues like that where our community is divided. This issue is not that. I joined the committee meeting and the council meeting on this topic earlier this year. And 100 percent, every single Berkeleyan who spoke, hundreds of comments, they spoke passionately and eloquently against reinstituting tear gas. The people of Berkeley are begging you not to reinstate these tools. I do not understand how you can rationalize acting in total opposition to your constituency. Thank you. Thank you. Come on up. I'm speaking in support of 21B. Hello, Council. My name is Raina Wagner. I'm a fourth year at UC Berkeley as an active member of community, both on campus and off campus. The thought that I would leave this city without looking out for the future students, community members and unhoused people did not sit right with me. So I am here. The police have used undue violence in so many instances for so long. And no matter what we do, there is no clear intention for change. If they sprayed us in the 90s, 2014 and 2017, they'll spray us again. The parameters given around intended violence slash fear for life. This will not stand up if this action is allowed. Once authorized, this will be used out of policy. We are not violent protesters. We never have been. We are students and friends and parents and loved ones, old and young. We are people trying desperately to make change for the betterment of our collective future. Please, the police will find a reason to use it. If you let this pass, please at least think of the permanent scars on students' lungs and eyes that you are allowing to happen. Hi there. I'm a resident of District 1. As people who write policy, I'm guessing you're familiar with Eugene Bardach's Eightfold Path. If you aren't familiar, the first step is identify a problem. What's the problem? You're creating one. There's no problem to be solved here. You also mentioned violent crowds. Who gets to define violence? Is shouting pig.
Segment 10
constituting violence, they will get to decide that. When the police violate you outlined, will the settlement come out of their budget or will it continue to come out of the general budget? [Applause] Hi, my name is Michael, and I live in District 6, and I'm here to tell y'all that it really doesn't make sense for us to empower an organization that repeatedly does us wrong. Year after year, almost every allegation of police misconduct, every complaint sent in by the Police Oversight Board, is ignored, dismissed, and rejected by the BPD. This shows they don't hold themselves accountable and they don't care about abusing their power, which makes sense because police have always abused their power. Ever since they were established as slave catchers in America, in the Brooklyn police thing, ever since 1969, when the queer rights movement was born, after they brutalized queer and trans Black and Brown people in Stonewall, to the murders of Black people represented by the BLM flag behind y'all, to this morning. Thank you. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, mayors and members of the City Council. My name is Solly Alpert, Chair of the Berkeley Rent Board, speaking in my own capacity. We do not need the Berkeley Police Department to have every single piece of equipment. We haven't had a hostage situation in Berkeley in decades. In the unlikely scenario that we have another, I would hope the department would call a higher, more specialized agency for support. I don't want the Berkeley Police Department to have or be trained to use tear gas, period. During the Black Lives Matter uprising in 2020, we watched as cops in Minneapolis and across the country brutalized peaceful protesters. One of those Minneapolis protesters lost an eye when police shot him against their own policies with a less than lethal piece of equipment in his face. He now serves on the Minneapolis City Council. The protester, not the cop. During that same period in Berkeley, our city manager, not the city manager, thankfully, without consulting the city council, instituted a, declared a state of emergency and instituted a curfew, restricting people's rights to protest. It was multiple days until the mayor and council intervened and forced the curfew to be lifted. What is to prevent a future city manager from declaring a state of emergency during a protest, suspending these regulations, and using the tear gas that they have in their possession on protesters? We see time after time across our history and across this country that when police have tools, whatever their intended use is, they use them on peaceful protesters. And you can't use smoke and pepper spray against a specific person in a crowd. That is not how physics works. Tear gas and smoke are used in protests. It increases the chaos and violence, not decreases them. Protests become violent when police escalate them. And it is entirely insufficient to give discretion to individual officers to determine whether an individual at a protest is violent. We know what happens because we see it happen every time there is a protest in this country. Cops lie, invent a threat that does not exist, and then deploy less than lethal weapons on peaceful protesters. We are told by you all and by our community that our department is better, that our department is less racist and less violent than the actions we see across the country. To the extent that that is true, it is true because of the policies we have implemented, that we have fought for as Berkeley residents for decades through protests and actions and elections. Do not take us back to the way it was. Council Member Humbert, you and I have spoken a number of times about the threat of the fascist administration in this country, and I know you take that very seriously. I don't want our police, when our protesters in Berkeley are protesting Trump and his agents make it violent, I don't want our protesters to be tear gassed by our own department. Thank you very much. I have a minute. Yeah. Wait, I can't, sorry, I can't see who the person is. Thank you. Okay. Appreciate you. Madam Mayor and Council, Nathan Mizell, running for re-election on the Berkeley Rent Board, along with my slate, but I will get to the topic at hand here. This is about trust and it is about confidence in the department's judgment. I don't trust the department. I've said so many times for many reasons, many documented reasons, and among that, what I will speak to tonight is, first of all, I appreciate that you're incorporating what the PAB sent you back, but of course the PAB sent you that back because you said you wanted to go through with this policy list, so they had to craft something with the department. So, but thank you for putting that in. But getting back to the point here, this is the department that ignores the law all the time. This is the department that when it comes to public records, they ignore the law. This is the department that when it comes to our charter that the voters passed, they ignore the PAB's request for evidence. This is the department that has a chief that couldn't follow the sexual harassment policy. This is the department that over and over shows us they will step over the wall. And there's no threats. The department says they use it once in 40 years. Why are we giving them back to them? Why are we handing it back to them? No one can give me a good answer. Well, there could be this hypothetical magical scenario where we.. Come on. This is the real world. If some serious thing happens, as somebody just said, go call the sheriff, okay? If some crazy thing happens, I'm sure the city manager will suspend policy anyway. Don't hand them back these weapons of war. That is what they are. And my real sincere hope is we keep in mind this is one vote, folks, but a lot more is coming before this council on public safety. And you will have to decide. Do you reflexively trust this department or will you trust the voices of your community and the evidence that has shown police can't be trusted with these types of weapons? Thank you. Good evening, council and mayor. My name is Ciroc. I'm a Southside resident. There are a lot of things that we can do to make the police's job easier that we don't do because it compromises our human rights. We can put it in every living room and warrant requirements and make everyone wear a GPS tracker, and that would make the job of the police a lot easier, but it will make our community less safe, obviously. Weapons might be useful for the police, but they're dangerous for our community. The police incidents, the police say these incidents that might require tear gas uses are very rare, and I agree. They are so rare that we don't need tear gas because even though these incidents are very rare, we will always have tear gas, and this will be a risk when we could potentially have it on protesters, on people who could literally die from these lethal weapons that are banned in international law. Please reject these changes that undermine our human rights and pass the Peace and Justice Commission's recommendation. Thank you. [Applause] All right. Go ahead. Good evening. Hi, I've been an analytical chemist for 13 years. I wanted to highlight two papers I've provided to this council regarding capsaicin weapons that should point to a no on 21A. In More Than Tears from Hassan et al., it was shown statistically that women exposed to tear gas have an elevated chance to suffer reproductive health issues. The authors suggest that metabolism of capsaicin into cyanide-induced hypoxia, along with adrenal and thyroid defibrillation, may be the root cause of this. In DeParis et al., from our San Francisco-based American Academy of Ophthalmology, ER visits and injuries from tear gas were described. Corneal scarring, corneal epithelial defects, total loss of vision, and death in cases of people with underlying respiratory disease, or enclosed spaces, just like described by the captain here, are reported. Please trust the scientists and reject this ordinance. I'd be very interested to see some of the quality records on these. I kind of doubt that they were tested to any standard that would be considered safe. Thank you. If there's any chance that there's a minute out here? All right, I'm going to wing it then. I'll be plain about the situation facing us. It's easy to cast the first stone when you're the last person who would be impacted by this change in policy. It is people like me, it's the student population, who will face the brunt of these attacks. My name is Derek Rodriguez. I'm not only a student at UC Berkeley, a community leader, but I'm also an Army veteran and a part-time National Guardsman. If you resume use of chemical weapons, perhaps I'll have no choice but to educate my fellow students on how to neutralize CS gas or tear gas. All you are doing is wasting time and money on resources that aren't foolproof, just putting the public in unnecessary danger. And I know how fiscally irresponsible it is to buy contracted equipment like this. It's a racket from the private sector to overcharge military and law enforcement on inflated contracts. Let's see you try and pull this shit on a peaceful demonstration because I will be there and we will be undeterred. You want to waste money? That's your prerogative. Use it against harmless civilians. We will truly make sure that money is wasted. This is not a method to keep us safe. This is a method to keep us down. You can try and shut our demonstrations down with weapons of war. Voice of the people. Kelly Hammergren. I sent you an article, which I hope you read, from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, where people are told in Minneapolis not to put plants in the ground. They need to have elevated planting because they are finding 1,300 parts per million of lead from the tear gas and chemicals used in Minneapolis. But there's something.
Segment 11
Okay, so I'm a student. I left class to come here. And I thank you. So I'm a student here at Berkeley and I'm in District 7. I would like to add that Rocky and Rohan did give me their time, so I have three minutes. So the presentation, yeah, thank you. Okay, yeah, thanks for bearing with me. So the presentation for 21A said that they were keeping, like the purpose of this was to keep community safer, but I don't think that's the case as many other community members and council members insinuated because the risk is higher than the reward of having something like this. And as stated before, only three instances in six years is not worth all the money and time to deliberate on these things. Thank you for being here and listening to all of us. The instance that they did want to use this for was in threat of death or hostage situations. But all I heard was putting tear gas into a closed building. And from everything we've heard so far is that the first thing you want to do when you have this chemical weapon on or near you is to get away. You're supposed to take off all your clothing, try to rinse your eyes with saline. People have been desperate enough to use milk. It can lead to blindness and just a lot of damage. It's less lethal as stated by the presentation from 21B. It was talked about like a way to prevent harm would be to use police accountability. But as we have known that police accountability after the fact does not prevent harm. And I don't think police officers want to be writing more reports and justifying themselves and someone's read like it's just a waste of resources. I don't think we want to build a community and have these police officers resort to chemical weapons as an alternative when we can already use de-escalation and these other practices. Happy birthday, Mayor, by the way. My birthday is on Friday also. Yeah, just police presence increases violence as we've seen before. Using a chemical weapon against someone in the purpose that this is intended for, not on crowd control, but to people in a closed building when we have skilled negotiators to de-escalate just does not make sense. It's really inhumane. I just like can't imagine someone being spray like tear gas in a closed building running out. What if the police officer says they're running out in a threatening manner and then shoots them and then has to write this whole report like all of this could be avoided. And it's I don't think it's keeping communities safe, even though 21A's presentation said that was the purpose. And yeah, I mean, the instances that were like this is not needed. They're specialized negotiators like we could do so much other things with their time. Yeah, I skipped class to be here. So a class that I really enjoy, by the way. So I'm already sure that y'all are going to vote to oppose this one. I also don't think 21B is helpful enough. Go back to class. Next is Marilyn. Thank you. My name is Marilyn Cleveland. I'm a resident of District 4, a member of the Berkeley Friends Meeting, its Social and Environmental Action Committee, and Racial Justice Action Team. And I also speak for the meeting in that we support the Peace and Justice Commission proposal to retain the ban on tear gas and the moratorium on OC and smoke. And we oppose 21A and support 21B, authorizing a study of the impacts of allowing the domestic use of these military weapons. I'm an 81-year-old retired attorney. I have feared the use of tear gas, OC, and or smoke at times when I wanted to exercise my free speech rights. The use of these tools not only creates the health and emotional damages that have been discussed, but it inhibits free speech. Thank you. Next. Hi, my name is Rhea. I'm a student at UC Berkeley. This morning, the city and the police cleared another homeless encampment, taking away belongings from unhoused people and, like, displacing them from one of the only places that they had to be. That is a form of violence. People protesting against fascism, protesting against ICE, protesting against genocide is not violence. Shame on the city and shame on the Berkeley Police Department for continuing to sweep homeless encampments. And the concept that giving that same police department chemical weapons will protect community safety is laughable. And that's why I haven't heard a single public comment that's in favor of removing a ban on chemical weapons. Vote no on 21A. Thank you. Okay. Paola. Hi, Paola, D5. I ask you to vote no on 21A, vote yes on 21B, maintain the ban. We're going to be watching. Lots of people are watching to see who votes and how they vote because we do definitely plan to flip the Berkeley City Council. We will flip you this year and we will flip you in two years. The community is speaking. The community is telling you what it wants. Many, many times the City Council does not listen to us. We're asking you to vote no on 21A and vote yes on 21B. Thank you. Let's try. I don't know if I can be heard. Hi, did you call on Maria? The audio goes in and out. I can't hear you. Can you hear me? Something's wrong with the audio. Hello. Hello, hello. Come on now. Hi, can you hear me? I can't hear you. Can you hear me? Okay, sorry. So I'm really scared. We used to have a Department of Defense, which has now morphed into a Department of War, because we want to protect ourselves. And that is best exemplified by just eliminating any possible threat, which certainly is up for. Yeah, we are needing to come together and not increase militarization. We don't need more weapons. We really don't. We need more peace. And even on the best day, all of your thoughtful, very thoughtful, very eloquently explained plans and procedures mean there's no panic, there's no fear, and there's no, you know, upset. But there's going to be upset. We are looking at a very dangerous transitional time, and I'd rather Berkeley be a community of unity and peace and harmony. Please vote no on any weapons. Thank you. Hi, can you hear me? I'm just going to hope you guys can hear me, and if the clock starts, then I know that you can hear me. My name is Jordan Harger. I was born and raised in Berkeley. I love the city of Berkeley, but I'm very concerned about the direction that the city of Berkeley is headed in at this time. Using chemical weapons against your own community is absolutely horrifying, and one of the reasons that the use of chemical weapons was banned was the fact that we were in a respiratory pandemic, but I think it bears repeating, other people have already said this, that we are still in the midst of a respiratory pandemic. People are still getting COVID every day. So if the logic of the ban was to protect people's lungs during a medically vulnerable time, that time is still ongoing. I'd also like to point out the fact that tear gas is literally an abortifacient. It can cause you to lose a pregnancy, and there's a reason why chemical weapons are banned under international law. So I highly, highly recommend that you do not allow for the proliferation of chemical weapons in this city. Thank you. Hello. As someone else already pointed out, if there's a hostage situation, then tear gas is, of course, going to affect the hostage, so it's not a realistic option then. Moreover, the police have stated that in the times they thought about using tear gas, that they would have used it if they'd had the option. Not only did they not need to, but they did not actually resort to more escalatory techniques as an alternative. So that is a complete red herring. Don't greenlight chemical weapons, even if they're following their own rules. It's not safe. It's not safe to people in the surrounding area. And time has shown us time and time again that we cannot trust them to follow their own rules. So please vote down 21A and vote for 21B. Thank you. Moni. Hello. I'm not sure if anyone can hear me, but I'm going to try. My name is Moni Gonkopadhyay. I am a resident of District 1 and candidate for city council. I don't see the timer going down, so I don't think you can hear me. Oh, there we go. Okay. My name is Moni Gonkopadhyay. I'm a resident of District 1 and candidate for city council. Happy birthday, Mayor Ishii. I found the public comment tonight very enlightening. I hope that these comments and facts are carefully considered by the council. The extreme harms of tear gas, the fact that gas cannot be contained, the misuses of these weapons against peaceful protesters in our own city, and the dozens of countries that have banned these types of chemical weapons should be more than enough to lead us to the right decision. Please reject item 21A and maintain the ban on tear gas in Berkeley. Thank you also to those who spoke up on behalf of the homeless residents of Harrison Street. I urge council members to be present to see the consequences of these decisions and the devastation that occurs when bulldozers tear apart people's only shelter and belongings. We can do so much better. Thank you. Yeah, I'll just mention that my ex-wife and beautiful lady had as deadly symptoms when you have tear gas. Okay. So we shut off that last speaker because they had already spoken on this topic. But if you have not yet spoken on this topic and you would like to give a public comment, please raise your hand. Okay, we're going to switch to the owl and hope that the audio works there. All right, folks. Okay. Sorry. Mr. City Manager, I just want to see.
Segment 12
This is the right way to have a meeting. I feel like this is going to be pretty crazy. If you're trying to hear it online, I just feel like the owl is not a good way to do it. So I would much rather have a conversation where the public can hear us. I think that would be better. So we'll schedule this. We'll carry these items forward to September 29th at 4 p.m. Okay, so yeah. Well, here we need to make a motion to adjourn non-agenda public comments. Do you hear them? Non-agenda public comments. What about them? Motion to adjourn. Almost to adjourn. Okay, on the motion to adjourn, Councilman Kesterwani? Yes. Atlin? Aye. Bartlett? Yes. Rego? Aye. Blackbees? Yes. Lombara? Yes. Humber? Yes. And Mayor DeChio? Yes. We can be great. Everyone.