Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2024-09-11 18:41:35 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_e8573fe8-705c-11ef-9b71-005056a89546.ogg

Segment 1

Councilmember Taplin, Vice Mayor Wengraf, can you hear us? Yes.
And then could we get unmute and make sure that we can hear your audio? Can you hear me now? Yes, yes we can hear you.
Councilmember Taplin, can we just make sure that we can hear you? Can you hear me now? Yes, yes we can.
Thank you.
For anyone who'd like to speak to an item not on the agenda, please fill out a speaker card because we're gonna select speakers for non-agenda matters from the drum.
If you're here to speak about an item on the consent or action calendar, we will get to those items later.
That guy have a trombone? Yeah.
All right.
Good evening.
We do have a quorum of the City Council present, so if people can please take their seats.
We're about to begin tonight's meeting.
And we are recording, correct? Yes, we are recording.
Okay.
Good evening.
I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the Berkeley City Council for Tuesday, September 10th, 2024.
The first order of business is roll call.
I'd like to ask the City Clerk to please call the roll.
Okay.
Councilmember Keserwani, currently absent.
Councilmember Taplin? Present.
Okay.
Bartlett? Present.
Traigub? Present.
Hahn? Present.
Lengraff? Present.
Lunapara? Here.
Humbert? Present.
And Mayor Aragi? Present.
Okay.
A quorum of the City Council is present.
Thank you.
Moving now to the land acknowledgement statement.
City of Berkeley recognizes that the community that we live on is built on the territory of Kuchun, the ancestral unceded land of the Checheno-speaking Ohlone people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verna Band of Alameda County.
This land was and continues to be of great importance to all of the Ohlone tribes and descendants of the Verna 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 here 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 laws of the City of Berkeley, it is not only vital that we recognize the history of this land, but we also recognize that the Ohlone people are present members of the Berkeley and other East Bay communities today.
The City of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the Lishan tribe and other Ohlone tribes to create meaningful actions to uphold the intention of this land acknowledgment.
And so before I move to the next order of business, I just want to make a brief announcement.
I want to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Berkeley City Council.
To allow for full participation by all members of our community in tonight's meeting, and to ensure that important city business is able to be completed, we ask that all attendees here in the meeting and on Zoom conduct themselves in an orderly manner and respect the rights of others who are participating in the meeting.
Please be aware that the City Council's rules of decorum prohibit the disruption of the orderly conduct of the Council meeting.
A summary of these rules is available in the one-page handout on the table at the rear of our boardroom in the back of the room.
Disruptive behavior, as stated in our rules of procedure, includes, but is not limited to, shouting, making disruptive noises, creating or participating in a physical disturbance, speaking out of turn or in violation of applicable rules, preventing or attempting to prevent others who have the floor from speaking, preventing others from reserving the meeting, entering into or remaining in the area of the meeting room that is not open to the public, or approaching the Council dais without consent.
We want to thank you for being here tonight.
We ask that you observe these rules so everyone can participate in tonight's meeting.
We look forward to your participation.
So with that, we'll proceed to ceremonial matters.
The only item on our ceremonial calendar is the annual Pledge of Allegiance.
We are required by law once a year to do the Pledge of Allegiance, and so I will lead the Council in doing the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Okay, just because we're doing the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't mean that people can interrupt the meeting, so I want to remind the comments that I made earlier in the meeting about making sure that we not disrupt the proceedings, that we can allow everyone to speak and we can proceed with our business.
So we'll now proceed to sitting manager comments.
Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
I would just like to announce for the public a few activities that will be coming up here in the community over the next couple of weeks.
This Friday at 7.30, there will be a movie in the park.
The movie that will be shown is A Million Miles Away at Grove Park.
So if your kids are tired of school already, pretend it's summer and join us for the movie in the park.
That will be Grove Park.
Please stop interrupting the meeting.
We will have—Tuolumne Camp will be closing this weekend, so help us close up the camp and enjoy our national forest near Yosemite and get room and board for free.
Saturday, September 14, 11.30 to 3.30, will be the TMAC Skate Jam, and that's happening at Berkeley Skate Park.
So join us there for live music, skate jam, contests, and refreshments.
And one of my favorites, September 19, Thursday from 6 to 8, Poppin Thursday's Roller Skate Party at Grove Park.
Bring your roller or your inline skates and enjoy an outdoor evening of music and fun.
And Saturday, the 21st, will be the California Coastal Cleanup Day at Shorebird Park.
Help us clean up the Berkeley shoreline and enjoy interactive activities and booths at this 40th annual celebration.
That concludes our announcements.
Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
Okay, thank you very much.
As we proceed with our meeting and people are entering the room, if you can please quietly enter the room and take your seat.
We do want to get to public comment.
We do want to get to the agenda items on our agenda.
So we ask everyone's participation so we can move through the agenda and get to the business tonight.
So at the first meeting of the month, we have a special public comment period for representatives of City of Berkeley employee unions.
So I'd like to ask your consent that we take up public comment by employee unions at this time, and then we'll go to public comment on non-agenda matters.
Hearing no objection, we'll proceed now to public comment by employee unions.
Are there any officially designated representatives of City of Berkeley employee unions that wish to address the City Council this evening? Mr.
Clerk, were you informed that there were any people wishing to speak? Is there anyone present who's been designated on behalf of a City of Berkeley employee union to provide comments tonight? Okay, let me look at Zoom.
No, I don't see anyone who's raised their hand.
So this will be the last call for any public comment by representatives of City of Berkeley employee unions.
Okay, seeing none, we'll close that public comment period, and we'll now proceed to public comment on non-agenda matters.
So let me summarize how we're going to conduct this public comment on non-agenda matters.
So we will select five in-person speakers to address the Council on non-agenda matters.
If you're here to speak on item 37 or anything that's on our agenda, we will take your comments when we get to that item later on.
This is to address anything that's not on our published agenda.
And then we'll take five speakers on Zoom.
I'd like to ask, are there any attendees on Zoom wishing to speak on non-agenda matters? Please raise your virtual hand to be added to the speaker's queue at this time.
And so we will take five in-person speakers, five people on Zoom to speak to anything that's not on our published City Council agenda this evening.
Each speaker will be allotted one minute to address the City Council.
You can yield your minute to another individual and ask that you, as we proceed with the public comment on non-agenda matters, to not interrupt speakers, to allow everyone to have the opportunity to be heard by the Council and the community.
And there will be another public comment period on non-agenda matters at the conclusion of our agenda tonight.
So Mr.
Clerk, do you have five cards? Please read the names.
Isabel Barbera, Avi Simon, looks like Ian Cordova Morales, Erica Anderson, and Russell Bates.
Okay, you can hand me those cards.
If your name was called, please line up on this side of the room.
And anyone who would like to start is welcome to once again, Isabel Barbera, Avi Simon, Ian Cordova Morales, Erica Anderson, and Russell Bates.
Russell, one second.
Let's restart the clock because the mic wasn't on.
I want to make sure we can hear.
Okay.
All right.
Great.
I just want to repeat what I've been saying every Council meeting since October 8th, when the genocide against the people of Palestine began.
Zionism, to me, represents fascism, represents Nazism.
So when the City Council members of Berkeley refused to acknowledge the genocide going on in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Palestine for the last 76 years, I have even gone back to when I first became aware of what the Zionist entity is all about, when they attacked the USS Liberty, June 8th, 1967, killing 30-plus sailors and Marines, U.S.
wounding 170-plus sailors and Marines.
And I got to say, I really don't like the fact that you're still sitting back there doing nothing about it.
I see Cecilia with eight assholes, and I'm really sick of seeing you guys not do anything.
She knows what she's doing.
She's young, but she's got her shit together.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
And if you could just state your name for the record.
I'm Isabel Barbera, and I'm ceding my time to Andrea Henson.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Andrea Henson, and I'm the Executive Director of Where Do We Go? We are a non-profit here in Berkeley, and I am very concerned about the hate crimes that are occurring in our city and the vigilante justice.
Many of you know that there was rat poison and flyers put on individuals who were Jewish at their homes.
Secondly, Marcel Jones was killed at Harrison House.
My clients who are homeless lived with him, women, and he had a job.
He went to work every day.
He was an accomplished Berkeley resident, yet every day he was called the N-word by his bunkmate, and the person who was in charge never did anything, and now he's dead.
Third, as I stood in front of my office with Alistair Boone and Kevin Sample, both of whom run Street Spirit, our local homeless newspaper, we were on Martin Luther King Way when we saw someone drive up, and he was pushing the police and grabbing them and screaming at them because he was threatening to beat a black African-American homeless man because he thought he saw him going to the restroom.
I immediately went outside to talk to the police because we were in shock that the police did nothing to this act of vigilante justice, and the police were more perturbed at Berkeley PD that I would question them on why they didn't arrest the gentleman who was pushing the police, not the homeless man, and I asked the homeless man, I said, what happened, and he said he was white, but the issue here is that we have vigilante justice against the poor, black, against people of color, against Jewish individuals.
We are a city that stands against hate, and so I want to let you all know that this is happening because BPD did nothing, and they were more outraged that I asked them, how come you didn't arrest this man, and he goes, well, we didn't arrest either one.
This is not Berkeley, and so I wanted to bring this to your attention as a business owner.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our last two in-person speakers, Erica Anderson and Avi Simon.
Yeah, hi.
Hi, I'm Erica, and I am ceding my time.
What? To Yasmin.
Drove all the way up here just to talk to you guys, so you should feel honored.
Good evening.
My name is Yasmin Jenkins, and I'm sure many of you here are familiar with my name.
I think on most issues, there's a blanket, a root problem, and one of it is, the main thing is that there's a lack of communication from you all, and the main reason I think that there is is because there's a lack of respect.
I think if you categorize the people that approach you, and you're not familiar with their stories, you just blanket have your biases and your prejudices, you won't hear them out, and some people aren't able to articulate themselves.
They don't have the same gifts, so if someone speaks to you in a rant, or they communicate with you in a way that you don't respect it, you won't hear the issue, even if the issue is very valid.
Like myself, I have emailed you personally.
I have emailed you, Ms.
Bellows, in matters that are not just the subject matter.
It's root issues, and it's because you all don't communicate, and I think it's important that you do, and some of these issues can be solved just for a matter of you caring enough.
If you all can care enough to just hear someone out, just sit down and listen to them, find out what the problem is, and there's an easy solution, but you have to sit down and care enough.
So I ask you, Ms.
Bellows, will you, Mr.
Mayor, would you all be willing to have a meeting with me? Some of the issues that they have, that most people have, is just simply having an understanding and heart of compassion, but you first have to respect the messenger, and that's what I think is missing here.
You don't respect the messenger, so you can't receive the message.
So my message that I'll bring to you all will blanket a lot of people that don't have the skills of articulation, that don't have the education.
So if you will allow me a meeting, you have my email, you have my email, Ms.
Bellows.
We'll talk to the city manager, we'll follow up with you.
Yes, when will that happen? Because I've been reaching out for months.
We need to move on to the next speaker.
If you contact my office tomorrow, we can follow up with you.
I do, I come there personally.
We need to move to the next speaker.
Okay.
You have, I indicated my willingness to meet with you.
Let's move on the next speaker.
Thank you.
Avi, who are you yielding your time to? Good evening, Council.
I'm here to talk about the special care unit, and I really want to express my concern about its survival.
Two weeks ago, on a Sunday, I watched as Berkeley Police Department responded to a woman who was in a deep mental health crisis.
They responded violently.
They put a speed hood on her head.
They wrapped her up in the wrap device.
She was in full-blown psychotic distress.
She was screaming.
They put a helmet on her head.
They threw her in the back of a police car.
This was on a Sunday morning.
The special care unit was nowhere around.
There was no mental health professional anywhere around.
There was not a kind word or a word of consolation from any of those cops towards this woman.
If you want to see the video, I'm happy to show it to you.
But what this tells me is that 13 years, I'm sorry, 11 years after the murder of Kayla Moore in her own home by Berkeley Police, we have gained no ground in the actual factual what happens on the street.
The police department is stonewalling.
They refuse to, the chief has refused to write a general order directing her officers about how to deal when they encounter mental health issue.
The special care unit is going to go 24-7, but because the fire department has not gotten it together to conduct and to revamp the dispatch system, there's no dispatch calls going to the special care unit.
So we are paying hundreds of thousands, maybe who knows how much they've burned through now, of the few millions of dollars that have been allocated to that project is being paid to have a behavioral health clinician, a peer specialist, and an EMT sleep all night long.
That money is being burned through.
So the chief of police, the chief of the fire department, and the mental health division all have to get on the same page.
Otherwise, and then see when you got $200 million for the police department over the next two years, and what is going for mental health? And this was supposed to be not just mental health, it was supposed to be any kind of call that didn't require the police.
We're going in absolutely the wrong direction of what you said you wanted when George Floyd was murdered.
Thank you.
So we've got to put up, otherwise the words have no meaning.
Thank you.
Council Member Parker.
Refer that to the city manager.
Yeah.
Okay.
Those were our five in-person speakers.
I will now ask, are there any individuals on Zoom wishing to speak to items not on the agenda? Please raise your virtual hand at this time on the Zoom screen.
Diane Castleberry from AC Transits, our first speaker.
Yes.
Thank you, Mayor.
Members of the Berkeley City Council members, staff, and public.
My name is Diane Castleberry, and I'm an external affairs rep with AC Transit.
I'm here on behalf of my colleague, Brian Lau.
I'm here today to remind the community about AC Transit's Realign project.
Realign is a comprehensive assessment of every bus line in response to the substantial shifts in ridership and commute patterns since the pandemic.
The AC Transit Board has opened a public comment process and set public hearings, which are happening this week.
The last two public hearings will be held tomorrow at 2 p.m.
and 6 p.m., and the public comment period closes after the 6 p.m.
hearing tomorrow evening.
So we're encouraging people to either visit actransit.org forward slash Realign for more information, including the ways to submit your comment.
We encourage the city and community to review and comment on the Realign draft final plan as soon as possible.
All comments received in writing or at a public hearing will be made part of the Realign public hearing record.
Once the public hearing closes or concludes on September 11th, which is tomorrow evening, the draft final plan will move to the AC Transit Board of Directors in October, as early as October 9th, for a board decision on the Realign plan.
And then staff will be, depending if they approve it, the staff will be working towards implementation of the new bus network as early as March 2025.
So thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you, and please have a good evening.
If you just, Matt, I'll ask you a question because this is information we want the Council and the public to know.
Is there a website people can go to for more information? Yes, actransit.org forward slash Realign.
That's R-E-A-L-I-G-N.
Thank you.
Thank you for coming.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
Okay, we're going to go to Ava, who I understand is here in person.
Thank you, Mayor.
My name is Ava Crisanti, and I have an investigative sub-stack account, and I've been filling in what Berkleyside and the Daily Cal have left out.
Jenny Wong, your City Auditor, lovely person.
The year after Jessie took that controversial JCRC trip to Israel, she took a JCRC trip to Israel, and then she hid her Form 700.
I've written about that at marincountyconfidential.substack.com.
It's an entirely free service.
I do have concerns because it looks like on a petition circulated by the JCRC that was signed by 51 elected officials in the Bay Area, a surprising number came from Berkley.
About 24 percent came from Marin County, but something like 12 percent came from Berkley.
That includes a lot of you guys.
Last thing, I did reach out to Sophie Han's office because it does appear that, Sophie, you did go on that trip, and so I'm just trying to get some confirmation.
Thank you so much.
I would like to hear back from your aide because he said that he would get back to me.
Thank you.
Okay, as we proceed with public comment, let's not interrupt.
Are there any people on Zoom wishing to speak on non-agenda matters? We can take three additional speakers on non-agenda matters.
Are there any additional speakers? Before we go to you, Ms.
Morozovic, we've got to draw cards.
One last call.
Are there any additional speakers on non-agenda matters on Zoom? Okay, let's draw three additional cards.
So, we have Gordon Gilmore and Lisa Teague and Ed Gordon Gilmore and Lisa Teague and Ed Gordon Gilmore Lisa Teague and Ed Gordon Gilmore and Ed Gordon Gilmore and Ed Gordon Gilmore Lisa Teague and Ed Abdullah Okay, if any of those three people were called, please come forward.
Well, very good to see you all again after almost two months.
You're always on my mind.
I send you today by email and also by hand three articles.
One, it says, Everything Trump Touches Dies.
It's true.
It was a book written by an author who knows Trump's history.
The man is a crook and a convicted criminal.
And we're going to have him as a president because Kamala Harris did not shush it herself from Biden and she was following his policy.
And most young people and educated people like myself and most of you know that what is happening in Gaza is a horrible genocide.
Lancet said there's at least 186,000 other people came, as much as a half million people dead in Gaza.
You guys have no choice.
I have no choice where I'm born.
I could be born, also have kids.
How can you watch all of these kids getting killed every day? Butchered.
No legs, no hands, no arms.
Yeah, this is awful.
This is the worst reality.
As I said before, King's Khan killed 11% of people in prison, over 60 million people, but he had a rule.
Never kill women or children.
What is happening? Netanyahu said the whole thing.
Hamas was created by Netanyahu.
It was.
And they did it for him to get more land.
What they did in Gaza, imagine destroying all of the universities, all of the churches, even synagogues.
Gaza was destroyed.
This is not about religion.
Screw all religions.
As I mentioned before, religion is all very different in Egypt.
All we care about is humanity.
It took our humanity down to nothing.
We are not humans anymore.
When you wake up in the morning, and you serve those kids in pieces, the only decent program you can see stationed, KBFA of course, which I talk on it many times, including on KLAW, I spoke this morning on your call.
Yeah, I'll finish.
I'd just like to say that as far as our business, keep your word.
All of you don't have funny looking faces.
Act! Thank you.
Okay.
Gordon Gilmore.
Okay.
All right.
Let's proceed with public comment.
Gordon Gilmore.
Hi.
My name is Gordon Gilmore.
I'm with the Berkeley Outreach Coalition and the union.
I'll hear more about that later on.
I wanted to let you know about the Homeless Response Team's actions since the time that you all said that you would stand by the Martin V.
Boise 2018 ruling.
At first, they said that they would cooperate with advocates and respect people's rights in the equation.
And would listen to what they have to say.
And during the first couple of cleanings, I mean, they did a good job of respecting that, Ethan Harrison.
And the first day, they cleaned a second seater, but they did a two-day clean a second seater.
When the big name advocates weren't there, the ones who are actually have legal degrees, they didn't, they went ahead and went against their word to the people that were there.
They said that something would have been sufficient the day before, and then they just went ahead and told them to get up and move out.
And it continued with a lack of notices to advocates regarding a sweep at Dwight and Grayson.
One member of the Homeless Response Team was out passing around notices to residents.
Paul from Where Do We Go, an advocate, came by to check in, see what was going on, and she handed him a list of services and said, oh, that's all I'm handing out.
But then he went and talked to one of the residents, and she revealed the notice to him.
And so there's actually active deception going on, and you don't want to sow mistrust with your Homeless Response Team, and I think that's important.
Thank you.
Okay, Lisa Teague, our last speaker.
Thank you.
I'd like to cede my time to Jessica Prado.
Hi.
My name is Jessica Prado, and I am here to say I'm an independent journalist.
So I would like to raise some serious issues that the City of Berkeley has lack of transparency.
So I submitted a records request last year to actually find out how many people you have put in shelter and housing, and it's a lot of people.
And so I would like to say, like, if you guys are actually putting people in shelter and housing, and until this date, it's almost a year, the City of Berkeley has not even responded to that request or even released a single record.
So just to give you a notice, and I've actually been reaching out to the Auditor's Office, to the City Attorney's Office, to every office that actually manages these records, and they have just all been just silent, you know? So I would just say, like, if you guys are actually housing people, I would like to say that I am not doing my First Amendment right as a journalist, and you guys, the homeless response team actually doesn't allow me to properly document the sweeps.
And I would like to let you know that the First Amendment Coalition just put out a statement today on behalf of journalists that you should be allowing people to document these incidents.
So whether you view the sweeps as appropriate abatement or devastating or dehumanizing, it is difficult to assess without a free and independent press service.
So I would just like to tell you that I have been a journalist for the last seven years, and I would say that I've been personally harassed just for documenting and actually arrested as well.
So I would just like to tell you that if you continue these practices, I will be filing a First Amendment right lawsuit.
Thank you.

Segment 2

Madam city manager, can I refer the data request to you? Madam city manager? Yeah, okay, that completes this round of public comment on non-agenda matters.
We'll now go to the consent calendar and if I can begin.
The discussion on the consent calendar on item 7, the voting delegates to the League of California cities annual conference like to ask that we keep this on consent and.
Designate council member Humbert as the city's voting representative.
Since he's the alternate to the League of cities, um.
And he said he will be able to attend.
Okay.
Here an objection over the action.
I know, and if counselors want to speak on the consent count, please push your button item 13 contract amendment with the multicultural Institute for.
COVID-19 outreach and education.
I'd like to move this to action.
I need to recuse myself on this so we can take that up separately and.
And similarly, council member needs to recuse yourself on item 25.
The mills that contract at 1, Leroy and I am 27, the emails that contract for 7 agree with common given that she has property within the.
Um, 500 feet of those particular properties and therefore under state law needs to recuse yourself.
So we'll move by unanimous consent items, 1325 and 27.
so the action calendar, we'll take those up.
It's the 1st item.
So we can do the recusals and then take action on those items.
Item 31, the recommendation from the disaster and fire safety commission regarding panorama kill secondary evacuation access.
I just want to say that I had a conversation with.
Well, the former chancellor now, the new chancellor at UC Berkeley about this very issue, and we, they are very eager and engage in this conversation with the city and with the neighbors and with other other stakeholders about looking at secondary access, including potential and university properties.
So, I'm hopeful that through this process, we can find a solution because obviously the evacuation issues on the parent killer very significant.
So.
Councilor how I want to get your advice.
Should we adopt 31 be? I think that was a policy committee recommendation or 31 a and B.
This is your district.
I want to get your perspective on that.
Yes, your honor, your honor.
I'm doing it again.
Yes, Mr.
Mayor, this is a trained lawyer.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I'm getting the training getting in the way.
I think it makes sense to to pass both of them.
Okay.
So I asked that we adopt 31 a and 31 to be and that will initiate a process for us to develop this plan.
Okay, and just note that in the supplemental 2 packet that we got yesterday, there were revisions that were submitted to item 34 from vice mayor Wainwright.
And I'm not sure if I'm getting that right, but I think that's what we're going to be looking at.
And those are my comments.
So my recommendation is that we take up item 13 and 25 and 27.
so we can do the recusals and vote on those then we'll go to item 36, the ambulance transport fee, increase public hearing and then I am 37, which I think most people are here to, to address.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I'm getting that right, but I think that's what we're going to be looking at.
So, my 1st comment is to council member Wengraph and I'm curious if I can co sponsor the last cosponsor on item 35 to send a letter to easy transit urging them to reconsider the frequency of service for that's line 65 and 67.
So, unfortunately, I just pull up.
To prioritize and also have too much to repeat and typic to repeat and topic.
I'm adults 20, 28.
Thank you just correct what you said item 28.
Item 82828 starter.
29, sorry, 21 to 99.
Okay, so council or you are you are.
Obstaining I'm 29, I'm 29, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm 29.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
All right, council member Humbert is next.
Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
The 1st thing I'd like to do is.
Is ask that item 8 be moved from consent to action.
If that's the case, then let's just hold it over to the 24th.
Okay, that's that's fine with me.
Are there is there are there are there 2 additional counselors that want to pull it.
So, let's just so let me ask is there a unanimous consent to hold over item 8, given that there are 3 counselors that wish to discuss it action.
Hold that over to the.
September 24th agenda, is there any objection.
Okay, so that will go over to September 24th.
Yes, and the other thing I wanted to speak about where the 2 companion items 31 a and 31 be I want to offer a huge thanks.
To chief Sprague and the others in the fire department and on city staff for bringing this item forward.
I also want to thank the disaster and fire safety commission for their work to advance this key safety effort.
And that's really important.
Finally, I'd like to thank the residents of this incredibly beautiful and 1 of a kind neighborhood for the continual advocacy for this and other safety efforts.
Panoramic Hill is probably the single most dangerous neighborhood in Berkeley when it comes to evacuation for wildfire and other disasters and investigation of the creation of a 2nd route for evacuation and firefighting access is overdue.
I'm really looking forward to seeing additional reporting and I hope the fire department and other staff will stay in contact with me and my office through this project.
So we can keep moving it forward and on track.
And so we can involve the neighbors, especially when it comes time to potentially getting an evacuation route project off the ground.
Thank you.
I think that's it for me on that consent calendar.
Thanks.
Okay.
Thank you.
Councilman Han.
Thank you very much and I'm going to turn it back over to council to make a motion to approve the consent calendar for the next meeting.
Thank you very on item 8, the council rules of procedure in order.
I just wanted to offer to my colleagues who have questions I did work on that with the clerk's office very closely and so I don't have a Brown I'm not aware of any specific concerns that people have.
To the extent that I can talk to people I'd be happy to discuss any concerns that people have I was not aware there were specific concerns but happy to be helpful if I can.
Let's see.
I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and provide a brief summary of what we're looking to do.
It is literally a death trap.
It is extremely dangerous I really hope that we can come up with some solutions.
I'm glad to hear that.
I.
You see Berkeley is interested in helping with that.
And I think.
Council members wishing to speak on the consent calendar.
Yes, I would like to speak.
Yes, thank you.
I just want to reiterate that I need to recuse myself on items number 25 and number 27 that it's been moved to the action calendar and we'll I'll recognize you to address the recusals at that time.
Okay, thank you and then council member last week had asked if he could be added to number 35, the AC transit draft final plan letter so I would like to add council member Humbert to that and then on item.
34 amending the BMC 7.52.060 to include wildfire hardening in the real property transfer tax exceptions.
I, I want to thank the legal department, the finance department.
And especially the fire department for their collaboration on this item.
I think that if this passes tonight.
The insurance industry is watching.
Yes, and the insurance commissioner.
Is aware of this item, and I think it's going to really set a precedent.
Throughout the state for how we can help subsidize people to do the work that needs to be done to reduce wildfire risk to their property.
So just want to let everybody know that.
And I think that's it.
Thank you.
Thank you very much and I want to take this opportunity to thank you council member for bringing it in 34 forward.
I think this is really an important step to provide incentives for proprietors to harden their homes to make them more resilient.
The threat of wildfires and hopefully make them more eligible for insurance coverage, which we know is a matter of statewide concern.
Councilor trigger.
Yeah, thank you.
I also wanted to thank.
Vice mayor for her leadership on crafting item.
34, this is something that is increasingly impacting not just the hills, but the flats as well.
And this is an opportunity to be forced in the state on this important issue.
So, thank you for your leadership.
All right, any other comments on the consent calendar.
Managing manager anything on the consent calendar.
Okay, so let me just summarize the changes to the consent calendar.
We are.
Keeping item 8, the city council rules of procedure and order revisions on the consent calendar, but that will be continued to our next regular meeting on September 24th.
And item 13.
The contract amendment with multicultural Institute.
Item number 25, the meals that contract for 14 to 1.
And I am 27 and Mills that contract for 7 green with common.
Those have been pulled by unanimous consent and will be moved as the 1st items on our action calendar.
We are approving items 31 a and B, and those are the changes.
So can you give a show of hands of members of the public here in person.
And on zoom, how many would like to speak on the consent calendar.
Okay, a few people.
So, if you want to speak on a consent item, if you can please line up on this side of the room, and we'll go 1st to those speakers who are here in person.
And then we'll go to speakers on zoom.
So, who would like to start public comment on the consent calendar.
And if you're on, if you're on zoom and want to speak to an item on the consent calendar.
Please raise your virtual hand how much time do we get a minute? Okay, so hi, my name is Andrea Henson.
I'm executive director and legal counselor.
Where do we go? I apologize.
I read through everything, but I don't have the exact details, but I know on the consent calendar is the mental health services act.
I know they're talking about having an outreach team or clinician.
We don't have that.
We used to have that.
It was extremely successful and I apologize that I don't have the details.
But I hope that each of you in whatever contract demand in the mental health services reports that they tell you who is going out to talk to the people on the street right now.
people coming out to talk to us.
I apologize that we don't have that.
I know that they, right now we've had a lot of people coming out but not 1 clinician.
We used to have clinicians coming out with great success.
We got people housed because folks with actual.
No, 1 is coming out now and I don't know why.
So, I know that you're going to be getting these updates.
Please ask that they send their people out.
If you're going to give them money, that's the key to success.
Thank you.
So, as a follow up to that comment, the 2122 planned, I did have a full service partnership for homelessness, and there is supposed to be 5 to 6 persons in the mental health division that are addressing homelessness, including outreach.
So, not sure why they're not going to the encampments that would seem that that was within their role.
Also, the options mobile wellness team, finally, the contract is being circulated for signatures.
It's been a year since it's come to council.
And a few months before that, that we selected a provider and we had the mental health division out there consistently providing services to the persons in the encampments around the Harrison area.
And 2nd, in Cedar, and had we had the options wellness team, which is intended for homelessness in place from the state state those monies.
Perhaps we wouldn't you wouldn't be sued right now because they would have been mitigating those issues.
Thank you.
We'll go to our next speaker and once again, if you're on zoom and want to speak, raise your hand.
James, I'm going to say a few words about 31.
That's still on the evacuation plans.
You're also dealing with other things in the community, like, how to deal with the homeless and I don't think what's ever thought about.
Is if somebody who's homeless really got mad how much damage they could do to our community how anybody who got mad about the way the council has behaved toward the homelessness community how much damage could be done by a single person.
And I think that really has to be considered.
We have to find solutions.
We don't have to find.
We don't want to be going prosecuting people.
I also want to say something about your cyber security measure on here.
And this whole thing with cyber security, it's all about trying to protect money and what's not thought about is how this is changing our society and what it's doing to to put in charge of a small number of people using AI how they're going to use that.
And it's an example.
The AI systems are so bad, but they're being sold to us so hard that this is going to be some great time saver money saver.
I asked a very simple physics question of AI the other day on Google AI and it came off.
It was just like, what is the gyro radius and a certain magnetic field strength of a proton with certain energy.
And it gave an answer back real quick.
It gives an answer that's like a psycho fancy answer and answer that you want to hear comes up by.
We got a million to the next speaker.
This stuff, this whole thing of cyber security in the way computers is really a problem.
And you got to be thinking about it.
Don't worry.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you so much.
Yeah, so I'd like to like your attention to number 29 the all star talent for recruiting advertising marketing strategy for police and fire.
I'm, you know, 1.3Million dollars.
Is a chunk of change you just passed and my understanding is that it's about 200Million dollars for the next 2 years for the police department.
200Million a 100Million dollars a year and what I constantly see throughout the year is these little add ons that go to the police department and I just really want to want to stop for a 2nd.
And ask you what was the last time you read the job description for the police officer.
You ask yourself, why is it so hard when you're paying so many of these guys hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Many of them over a half a 1Million dollars a year in total compensation.
Why is it so hard to attract me? And maybe it's something about the job itself.
Maybe it's something about the way that the job has been stigmatized because.
It's it's not about care 1st, and we're supposed to be a care 1st.
Jail's last city, you adopted that policy and I'm curious about what that means to you.
4 years after George Floyd's murder.
When that re, imagining what have you imagined.
Can you compare the job description? Why do you need to spend 1.3Million and what is that not part of their annual budget anyway? Something about it's interesting how.
You add 1.1.
Million dollars to the police budget and I remember.
Back when I was sitting up there, it was 250,000 for advertising and that would seem like a lot.
And now it's 1.3 and if you see the recruiting things, it's just disgusting.
It looks like what's going on over there in Palestine, because the Israelis have.
Trained.
Forces here in the United States, and it would be nice if y'all could pay freaking attention and stop looking down, especially the mayor.
I mean, come on now.
It's really disgusting.
You're here to listen to comment and then you just sit there looking at whatever and you're not supposed to be texting during council meetings either.
But you don't need to spend that much money to recruit a lot of the city employees are leaving.
Why is that? Because they're not happy with the city of Berkeley, because the city of Berkeley doesn't treat their employees.
Well, and they're all leaving the city, which is really unfortunate.
So, y'all need to do something really.
To maintain employees and the police, it sounds like they're still doing the racial profiling that they've been doing for the last how many years.
Um, nothing's changed, so obviously you're not doing the recruiting that you need or the training.
And we don't need any more police, we don't need any more surveillance.
And stop texting and writing notes.
That's kind of annoying because you're supposed to be paying attention.
But I'm on to the next speaker.
Your time is up.
Move on.
Your time's up.
Jesse.
Let's move on.
No, the next speaker sit down out of order.
You are out of order.
If you continue to interrupt the meeting, we'll have to call a recess.
Oh, too bad.
Jesse.
You're scared.
We're going to go to this gentleman.
Who's the next speaker.
I'm speaking on item 20 Dell computers.
I know Dell computers are, uh.
Relatively affordable for large organizations, but I would urge the council to reconsider the, um.
Purchase of Dell computers, because, you know, even among other large tech firms who obviously are all.
Capitalist, um, and have no morals whatsoever Dell stands out because through my.
Political life, which is not that long, but as long as I can remember into Bush administration, Dell computers never met a right wing politician that they didn't love.
So, even even more than other large companies.
So, if possible, I would like to see the city use a different supplier.
Also, free Palestine, ma'am, would you like to speak on the consent calendar? Yes, please.
Hi, I'm a long term.
Berkeley resident, and I just wanted to speak on the RV and encampment.
California has some free that's on the consent calendar.
Are you are you going to speak on item? 37.
We're going to get to that very soon.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Uh, I will go now to the speakers on zoom on the consent calendar only.
Elaine Jeffrey, do you do you want to speak on the consent calendar? Yes, please item 37.
that is not on the consent calendar, but we'll happy to take your comments.
We get to that item.
Anyone else on zoom wishing to speak on the consent calendar.
Okay, seeing none, we'll close public comment, the consent calendar, and I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendars amended and we're going to take up 1325.
And 27 separately after we put on the consent calendar.
So, a 2nd, 2nd.
Okay.
Any further discussion? If not, please call the role council member.
Yes, that 1 yes.
Bartlett.
Oh, it was absent and come back to him.
Okay.
Triggered high on yes.
When graph yes, yes.
Humbert hi, and mayor.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
That motion carries.
Okay.
I said, it will go down to item 13 before we caught the item in consultation with the city attorney while there is no direct economic entrance out of an abundance of caution.
I will be recusing myself from this item and so I'll turn the chairing over to counselor Han.
I'll leave the room.
Thank you, ma'am.
We'll just just read this agenda item.
Thank you.
We'll just wait 1 2nd until the mayor exits.
Okay, so I'm not calling up.
Council member, excuse me, I need to recuse myself as well and I believe the clerk will put me on hold.
I believe we're only doing item 13.
Did you hear that separately? Oh, 13.
Okay, I'm sorry I thought you would do it for you.
1 worries.
I know from afar.
It's harder to follow.
So, right now we're just doing item 13 because the mayor has to recuse himself from that.
Okay, so we're now I'm calling up item 13 contract number 3, 2, 2, 0, 0, 1, 3, 5, 2nd amendment multicultural Institute for covid-19 outreach and education.
Is the mayor going to come back and then he will take up the items council member when graph that you have to recuse yourself.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, so we're now I'm calling up item 13 contract number 3, 2, 2, 0, 1, 3, 2nd amendment multicultural Institute for covid-19 outreach and education.
Is there anyone here would like to make public comment on item 13.
Okay, so we're now I'm calling up item 13 contract number 3, 2, 2, 0, 1, 3, 2nd amendment multicultural Institute for covid-19 outreach and education.
Is there anyone on zoom wishes to speak to this item.
No, there's there's no speakers on zoom.
No race cams.
Okay, so we have no public comment on this.
I'm bringing it back to the council.
Does anyone on council have a comment or a question or perhaps could provide a motion.
All right, so we have a motion to approve the contract number 3, 2, 2, 0, 1, 3, 2nd amendment multicultural Institute for covid-19 outreach and education.
Item number 13.
Is that correct.
We will proceed to a roll call vote clerk could you please call the roll.
Okay.
Council member yes or wanting yes.
Okay, so we have a motion to approve the contract number 3, 2, 2, 0, 1, 3, 2nd amendment multicultural Institute for covid-19 outreach and education.
Is there anyone on zoom wishes to speak to this item.
No, there's no speakers that motion carries.
All right, so we have a motion to approve the contract number 3, 2, 2, 0, 1, 3, 2nd amendment multicultural Institute for covid-19 outreach and education.
Yes, she is on hold.
When I proceed to item 25 the Mills that contract for 14 to 1 boy.
Council member when got indicated she's accusing yourself because she owns property within 500 feet of the the subject property I move that we approve item 25 is there a second second to the public comment, I'm 25.
All right, so we have a motion to approve the contract number 3, 2, 2, 0, 1, 3, 2nd amendment multicultural Institute for covid-19 outreach and education.
Is there anyone on yes.
Yes, and Mary yes, okay.
We'll now proceed I'm 27 the Mills that contract for 7 greenwood common and councilmember when got is for choosing yourself for the same purpose she owns property within 500 feet of the subject property.
All right, so we have a motion to approve the contract number 3, 2, 2, 0, 1, 3, 2nd amendment multicultural Institute for covid-19 outreach and education.
Any public comment, I'm 27.
Seeing none, let's call the roll and I'm 27 got some number because they're wanting yes.
All right, so we have a motion to approve the contract number 3, 2, 2, 0, 1, 3, 2nd amendment multicultural Institute for covid-19 outreach and education.
Is there anyone on yes.
Yes, and Mary yes, okay, so that is approved.
And we'll bring back vice mayor when graph.
Yes.
Should be back okay vice mayor when graph we've taken action 2527.
All right, so we have a motion to approve the contract number 3, 2, 2, 0, 1, 3, 2nd amendment multicultural Institute for covid-19 outreach and education.
Any public comment, I'm 27.
Seeing none, let's call the roll and I'm 27 got some number because they're wanting yes.
All right, so we have a motion to approve the contract number 3, 2, 2, 0, 1, 3, 2nd amendment multicultural Institute for covid-19 outreach and education.
Is there anyone on yes.
All right, so we have a motion to approve the contract number 3, 2, 2, 0, 1, 3, 2nd amendment multicultural Institute for covid-19 outreach and education.
We do adopt a resolution adjusting the ambulance user fee to match Alameda County's approved ambulance user fee schedule made effective July one 2024.
The increase will be included as an as an addendum to the ambulance provider agreement.
Are there any members of the public hearing person that would like to speak as part of the public hearing item 36, please come forward.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So I'm just curious I remember there was like 19 million dollars that they wrote off for ambulances.
I think it was like $20,000 or something to that effect it was a lot a lot of money.
So I'm just curious about that.
And does it say how much the fee is wondering like what's the rate.
Because it doesn't say in this little description, I didn't go to the.

Segment 3

Interesting.
I hope that these transport people in the ambulance are doing a good job, because that's how Gus Newport died in transport.
So I'm going to take a moment of silence for all the martyrs in Gaza.
Great Palestine.
Thank you.
Are there any other speakers on item 36, the public hearing on the ambulance transport fee increase? Are you speaking on that item? Okay.
Thank you.
My name is Stacey product.
I'm sorry.
Can you hear me now? Is that better? Okay, I just want to, I can't even believe that you pay what you do already for this.
These ambulance, you know, these paramedics.
I mean, I have I have been transported to the hospital via ambulance probably 9 times in the past 2 years.
And I cannot believe the treatment that I've received.
The treatment that I've received, I was having a stroke.
And they wanted me to get up and they were talking to me about calling a friend.
Don't you have any friends that have cars that can give you a ride? And where I see a credit card right there in your wallet.
Can't you get an Uber? I'm like, are you freaking kidding me right now? They wanted me because I insisted.
Going via ambulance, they told me to get up, walk to the ambulance, getting myself.
And then when we got to the hospital, they told me to get out walking.
I sat down and sit down the lobby and they threw me a blanket and said, have a good night.
And why they did that, because I'm homeless.
That's why.
And that is the way that they treat people.
That's the way they treat people.
And then that rolls over into into the doctor, into the intake staff and into the nurses, then into the doctors.
It was a freaking horrible, horrible situation being.
It really is.
I don't think you next speaker.
Please.
I don't support that.
I don't know if this adjustment includes.
What we use for 5150 transport.
Okay, thank you because I want to make the point that the city was going to be negotiating.
A reduction, and that's what we wouldn't have to be using so much of measure B monies for the homeless towards.
So, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing and I'm 36.
So, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing and I'm 36.
So, a 2nd, 2nd, let's call the roll on that motion.
As we have remote participants on the conferencing council member.
Yes.
And our staff we have on my line.
I would ask to bringsee a motion for a stealthy.
Yes.
I on yes.
Yes, and everything.
Yes, okay.
Okay, before we entertain a motion chief anything like to add.
Okay, I move adoption of the resolution.
Yes, I second.
Okay, council member kisser one.
Yes, Kaplan.
Yes, Bartlett yes, I.
On yes, when grab.
Yes, when a car.
Yes.
Yes, and Mary yes, okay, okay, I'm 36 is approved.
Thank you.
Okay, well, now proceed to item 37.
Okay, so we're going to go ahead and open up public comment.
So I want to as we do with any item that's submitted give the author an opportunity to introduce the item and and then we can open up public comment.
So counselor kiss on.
Thank you very much.
Mr.
Mayor.
Thank you to the homeless advocates who wrote to the council, particularly those who shared their experience of working, visiting or living near the Harrison encampment or the 2nd and Cedar encampment.
Thank you to the homeless advocates who have shared their perspectives.
I appreciate and understand the concerns you have raised.
Finally, thank you to our city staff and city attorney's office for your input on this item.
So, I'm going to open up public comment on item 37.
And I would like to begin by thanking the city and the court president.
1st, we are seeking to codify our desire to offer shelter when feasible.
Now that the Martin V Boise standard has been overturned, it's important to state our intention to continue to offer shelter when feasible.
So, we are seeking to codify our intention to continue to offer shelter when feasible.
So, we are seeking to codify our intention to continue to offer shelter when feasible.
So, I would like to begin by thanking the city and the court president for their input on this item.
I would like to thank the city and the court president for their input on this item.
We have a number of sites on the top 3rd of real estate transactions and both of those revenue sources have enabled us to make significant investments in permanent housing, permanent supportive housing, like home key sites as well as 24 7 transitional motels.
We have a number of sites on the top 3rd of real estate transactions and both of those revenue sources have enabled us to make significant investments in permanent housing, permanent supportive housing, like home key sites as well as 24 7 transitional motels in our district.
And I also want to note that this council just last month, or I think it was before the summer recess, actually.
And I also want to note that this council just last month, or I think it was before the summer recess, actually.
Based on the November ballot and extension of the transfer tax so that we will continue to have this vital revenue source available to continue to expand shelter opportunities moving forward.
So, I want to be clear about that commitment and aspect of this item, which is very critical.
So, the intent of this piece of this item is trying to balance the needs of people who are unsheltered on our streets and their need for shelter and housing with the detrimental impacts that the most persistent and dangerous encampments pose to neighboring businesses, workers, residents and visitors.
So, the intent of this item is trying to balance the needs of people who are unsheltered on our streets and their need for shelter and housing with the detrimental impacts that the most persistent and dangerous encampments pose to neighboring businesses, workers, residents and visitors.
So, the intent of this item is trying to balance the needs of people who are unsheltered on our streets and their need for shelter and housing with the detrimental impacts that the most persistent and dangerous encampments pose to neighboring businesses, workers, residents and visitors.
So, the intent of this item is trying to balance the needs of people who are unsheltered on our streets and their need for shelter and housing with the detrimental impacts that the most persistent and dangerous encampments pose to neighboring businesses, workers, residents and visitors.
So, this item discusses at length what we're describing.
What we mean by that are open use syringes, feces, urine, spoiled food, rats, rats that are entering neighboring buildings, rats that are chewing the wiring of people's automobiles and leading to thousands of dollars of damage.
So, these are situations that are not healthy for the homeless individuals that find themselves in these encampments, and they are not healthy or safe for the surrounding neighborhood.
And so, what we are trying to say in this item is that we have to have some balance here between our desire to offer shelter whenever feasible.
And to make those revenue commitments, but to also give some flexibility to deal with these imminent fire health and other safety hazards.
So, in consultation with the city attorney's office and the city staff, based on their real world experience of seeing the types of encampment situations that exist in our city.
We have developed these 6 exceptions that are narrowly tailored.
They reference the Berkeley Municipal Code, and this will allow us to be able to address the most serious safety concerns that we find in our encampments.
And to try to deter re-encampment in a very dangerous area that has persisted for more than 5 years.
In both of these cases, in these 2 encampments.
And I will leave it at that.
I look forward to hearing from the public tonight and to hearing from my colleagues as well.
Thank you very much.
Excuse me, as we are proceeding with this item, I'd like to ask that people not yell or interrupt.
We want to give everyone an opportunity to express their opinions on this.
So, I'm going to share my screen.
I'm going to ask people to express their opinions on this.
So.
So, at the mayor's suggestion, I'm going to.
So, I want to share screen.
Okay, so I can do that on the zoom.
Okay.
Is that visible? Oh.
Is that visible? Okay.
Okay, that's a good size.
Okay, so this is the item.
So, this is the recommendation.
I think people have seen this.
I just want to note in the track changes.
I'll read the sentence where we have some edits.
We are now proposing to say.
However, in the event that the city manager determines that a shelter offer is not practicable, then the city manager is nonetheless authorized to enforce state and local laws under the following specific circumstances.
So, I want to clarify.
So what has been removed here is the mention of the use of citation and arrest.
And in discussions with our police chief and other members of our city staff, it is the belief that it is more precise to talk about the enforcement of state and local laws.
And to to make that clear.
Arrest is not what we want to lead with as somebody noted in the public comments.
We are a care first jails last city.
We are a care first jails last city.
It is a tool in the toolbox.
I want to make that clear.
That is part of enforcing state and local law.
Stop interrupting, but I want to be more precise in this language.
So that is the change we're making there.
Let me continue.
So, we're just making the language again similarly aligning it to say we're talking about enforcement of state and local laws.
And the other piece of this is that we are making related changes to an ordinance so that our city manager, you know.
So, the ordinance changes would allow our city manager to make those changes.
So that is what this paragraph is talking about.
We just want for transparency sake and for my colleagues sake to know what those 2 administrative regulations are about and what changes.
We are expecting as a result of this policy approach and.
There were some corrections made in the in the report, but the current situation, it's a fax section isn't really as pertinent, but.
But we have these edits there just to clarify.
You know, what actually occurred with the Martin decision.
We just wanted to clarify we remove the 5th amendment because that actually refers to the federal government.
Those are.
I'm not as important here.
Let me just scroll down to the resolution now.
And just show that the related edits.
Sorry, if you give me a moment, I will get there.
Okay, so so nothing has changed in these whereas clauses.
And what we have.
Is the related changes.
And again, the in the, in the other.
Further resolve clause again, enforcement through applicable state and local laws.
So, that's really all all we are proposing to change here.
So, I want to make sure everyone saw those those amendments before we open public comments.
Those are being read.
Those were introduced into the record.
You saw what they're proposing.
Anyways, we will we are proceeding with the resolution.
Okay, we're going to take a recess and if staff can please talk to Mr.
Davila about those changes.
So, I want to make sure everyone saw those those amendments before we open public comments.
Those are being read, those were introduced into the record.
You saw what they're proposing.
Anyways, we will we are proceeding now with public comments.
And so we will open public.
Okay, we're going to take a recess and if staff can please talk to Mr.
Davila about ceasing to interrupt the meeting.
We're going to take a 5 minute recess.
I'll be.
We are.
We are.
We are.
We are.
We are.
We are.
We are.
We are.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Segment 4

I qualify as a honorable guest speaker on behalf of Professor Yung Alond의 City Council.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Segment 5

I'm going to kill you or somebody is going to kill me.
It's this whole situation has just become untenable and unsafe and we urge Berkeley to pass this resolution to at least have something to be able to enforce.
Thank you.
Hello.
First, I'd like to say that you guys have an obligation to the unhoused as well as the house.
You guys are biasly judging instead of doing what you're supposed to be doing, which is helping all of the people of this city.
How many times has the fire marshal came out and instructed fire safety to any of the encampments? How many times have you guys provided bathrooms and maintain those bathrooms help take out their garbage? Any of those things? If you guys are trying to plan on something humane, you guys are so opposed to that.
Thank you.
Thank you mayor and councilman for spending your evening this way.
Thank you.
I just want to say that this is a situation that is unhealthy for everyone and unhealthy and that we do have to look at both sides of it.
The humanity of the people there, and we need more tools and that's why I support the resolution have come out and thank you for your concern.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
My name is Nagina side.
I'm the owner of a physical therapy clinic that serves a lot of people that are on the streets and many people that are very affluent.
And I see the 2 sides of the coin and I see the conditions.
I see the conditions.
I see the situation that has been forced on us because of the commodification of housing, and the unattainable situation of real estate, taking funds for your campaigns by the same people that are caused the conditions of the push out of our community members, and they're ending up on the street makes you almost not appropriate to make a decision on how to treat the condition.
It's a condition of commodification of housing.
The unfortunate people who is a Russian roulette end up on the street as a result of 1 person owning 90000 homes in their portfolio, so they can have increased wealth and they can be evaluated a higher rate is there is on the right side and the person on the street is on the wrong side.
So, how are you going to fix this by criminalizing the people on the street? That's not an answer.
Hello, everybody my name is grace and I'm the chair of the peace and justice commission.
I am so alarmed about this resolution.
I heard several of you speak that you would never adopt the grass pass resolution and I was moved and felt that your, your concern for the humanity of the house people was there.
And I also learn when the peace and justice, I know George has already talked about this, so I'm not going to go into it.
But I know when we worked on a resolution, we learned from the staff that we are the only city in the Bay area with a reduced population.
A reduced population of homeless people.
And that really showed me that, although there is a big problem, I'm not going to deny it.
But humanity and recreation recognition of people struggle is still a part of Berkeley and was working to make a difference.
Okay, I'm just going to ask you to vote.
No.
And thank you.
My name is freeway and I'm the president of the homeless union.
I'm here today to urge council members in the marriage room to vote now on this agenda item.
And to give the citizens of citizens of Berkeley, the same respect and consideration that you give to those that live inside in your city.
The fact that we're even discussing this item is terrifying in and of itself.
I was present at the last council meeting on this matter.
What I witnessed is nothing more than a bastardization of the city's democratic process.
For over 20 minutes, we listened to council members in the mayor and the city's attorney argue about other agenda items and the lengthy meticulous process that each item had to go through to even be discussed when it came to this item.
Suddenly, democracy, policy and fairness, great up the window.
This is not anything new as I'm housed in former land house organizers.
We are quite used to watching the double standards and hypocrisy of society's upper class who repeatedly make policies that are against their very existence.
If you don't believe me, just look to the policies like anti ugly laws.
You already yelled your minutes, so we'll take this guy.
Thank you.
Just look to the antagonist all the way up to the most recent Supreme Court ruling on Johnson versus grant pass.
Each of these examples and accountants that lie in between are reminders to the poor just exactly where we stand in relation to the politics that make the laws.
The city of Brooklyn has a history of being a beacon of progressive hope, or at least looking that way.
What scares me about continuing this process in the city is setting precedent for neighboring cities like Oakland to give the complete disregard to the checks and balances system that weighs out inequality in our city politics.
Importantly, than that is the endangerment of the city's democratic balance is the endangerment of the city's most vulnerable faction of people.
These are individuals who are already publicly demonized, shunned and criminalized reactions and actions of the status quo.
I'm sorry, their lives are already dramatically cut short by the variables, such as exposure, disease, mental health and overdose.
And he's probably my variables do not get solved with sweeps.
Rather, they're exacerbated.
When I hear about the tire complaints about the blight, the rodents and the unsafe living conditions, what comes to mind is the indifference of the elected officials that created these living conditions.
Good evening council.
My name is Bryce Miller.
I'm president of telegraph for people at UC Berkeley.
I'm also a voter in district 4, and I hope to urge each and every one of you to vote no on this resolution.
Unhoused people existing on the streets should not be a crime and should not be punished.
There are so many other solutions, and I hope to see the city of Berkeley use their money, resources and times on literally anything else.
Like providing bathrooms or trash cans on the streets for these people to use, or hear me out, housing.
There is an extreme affordability crisis in the city of Berkeley.
Berkeley needs to be providing so much more social housing for its people, and that is the root cause.
And this policy will not address the root cause and will be counterproductive in the long term.
Thank you.
Hi there.
I'd like to speak in support of the resolution this evening and to thank Council Member Kesarwani for proposing it and to thank my own Council Member Humbert for co-sponsoring it.
I'd like to say that the homelessness crisis that we see on our streets is a disgrace.
I think it's unforgivable that we're allowing our neighbors to suffer in this way.
I think it's unforgivable that we're allowing our neighbors to suffer in this way.
I think it shames the conscience of our city.
And to fix that crisis, I think we need to build radically more housing to help people who are at risk of becoming homeless.
And I think we need to build radically more homeless shelters and permanent supportive housing to help those people who are currently homeless.
What we do not need, and what I think it's really sad that we're currently doing, is abandoning public space to anarchy and to chaos and to unsafe conditions.
There is nothing that requires us to give up the public fabric of this city in order to treat our fellow residents with dignity and respect.
And that's why I hope you'll pass the resolution this evening.
Thank you.
We heard balance mentioned a lot of times tonight.
And what are we talking about? We're talking about balancing the needs of the rich against the needs of the poor, against the poor and the homeless.
And who wins in those situations, especially when we have a council that consists of eight rich people, maybe in one not so rich person.
So what were you going to expect you to rule? The poor are always losing in those situations.
We heard about feces.
We heard about bathrooms.
People have been arguing for permanent bathrooms, not these port-a-potties, permanent bathrooms throughout the city to avoid any problems with health issues.
And you never do anything about it.
We heard about rats.
I tell you, I walk the streets all the time.
Most of the rats are up there by the frat, frat houses.
Why don't you go raid them, not the homeless encampments? And if you want to talk about jails, never should jails be even consideration.
It has to be removed.
Not it's a last resort.
It has to be never.
Berkeley needs to resist this neoliberal attempt to basically impoverish people more and more.
We need to stop the escalation because once you start escalating against the people and they become where they're hopeless, they're going to retaliate.
And it would take one person with a lighter and a bucket of gasoline to light up those hills.
So you should not think that's what you're doing here.
We have to house the homeless.
We have to create a situation where we don't have these problems.
Hi, my name is John and I'm a member of the Wood Street community and was unhoused for about 10 years.
And what's really scary and concerning to me is that the same thing that's going on in Berkeley is going on in Oakland.
And it's like you guys are communicating to do the opposite of what people are asking to do.
It's a simple solution.
And I'm piggyback off my brother, Monty, provide more bathrooms at the encampments, provide dumpsters so they can put the trash in there, provide fire extinguishers and have the fire department come out and help with fire abatement classes and stuff.
A lot of this stuff is very simple.
Instead of wasting all the money on sleeping people when we don't have anywhere to go.
Use that money to help clean up the encampments in a humane way and give people a place to be so they can get their medicines.
They're not attacked when they're by themselves, you know, it just it's just baffling to me.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Alicia harder.
I've sat up here stood up here so many times referencing the specific Black Lives Matter flag.
Because of Black Lives Matter in Berkeley, we need to care about homeless people.
I don't have the updated numbers from the point in town but we know we all know that black people are vastly over represented in the homeless population.
So I want to start with a little thought experiment.
You guys are saying that we're going to clean up our streets by throwing people in jail.
How does that actually work.
You send someone to jail, you force them to go to jail and then they're going to come out the other side what house, they're going to come out the other side healed, they're going to come out the other side worse for the wear, they're going to come out the other side traumatized because Jill the traumatizing experience.
It's not going to solve anything.
So everybody here, who's a citizen of Berkeley who's upset by the blight who's upset by the needles.
How is jail going to solve that problem.
The answer is it's not you're searching for solutions to a problem that can only be solved with permanent supportive housing and jail is not going to solve that problem.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
I think we have another minute fantastic.
I'd also like to point out that if I asked any one of you and probably even most of the people who've made public comment in support of this item today.
If you support Donald Trump.
I think you'd probably say no.
And if I asked you if you support Donald Trump packing the Supreme Court, I think you'd probably say no.
And I think you would say, well, I think that's only possible because Donald Trump packed the court.
This is a political opportunity afforded to you by a far right fascist and you are jumping on it as fast as you possibly can.
You're going to be jailing black people specifically because that's what y'all are about to do.
You're going to be disproportionately jailing black people and black people are in.
You got a little smile on your face.
I'm so sorry.
I know I'm not supposed to get personal, but I'm talking about putting black people in jail and you're smirking and that's just crazy to me.
Thank you.
Okay, as.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Let's give the floor to the speaker.
Yeah, I know it's a very complex issue.
There's a lot that goes into the homeless situation.
Everything on the street.
I've been in the district now for 10 years and during that entire time, I've been trying to get a business running and keep it going.
I've been trying to get a business running and keep it going.
They've been trying to sell the city and they can't help me because it happens to be off the sidewalk on my property.
So, I don't know how to get it out.
And I don't have the money because I've used up all my funding.
I don't even have the money to hire someone to come and help me with that.
Anyway, I just wanted to advocate for it is all citizens of Berkeley that you guys have to think about.
I mean, it's a very complex issue.
It's a very complex issue.
And for whatever reason, a lot of us feel like we're sort of the ugly stepchildren of Berkeley.
Businesses are broken into our building got caught fire because somebody had it.
Okay, bye.
My name is Avery Arbaugh.
I'm a student at UC Berkeley, the former president of the Cal Berkeley Democrats and resident of Berkeley.
But the reason I'm here today, for the most part, is because I'm someone who's formerly homeless and I know what it's like to be criminalized on a nearly daily basis just for existing.
And I know what the lifelong trauma and anxiety that comes from that feels like.
I'm sorry.
So, I had a bunch of stuff prepared about the history of the grants past decision and how we're emulating a far right Supreme Court by trying to pass this here tonight.
But I really just want to talk about having to live in a car and have police officers knock on your window and bring you somewhere else.
It is just terrible.
It's really difficult.
And I see that every single day before school.
And I don't understand how you guys can call yourself progressives if you're trying to do this to more people.
I'm really sorry.
I'm really sorry.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I really hope you guys will see the people in this room as human beings and vote against this measure.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Can we trust anything that comes out of the mayor's mouth if she decides to send.
Go back on that position.
I don't think so.
I'm a disabled resident.
I've lived here in Berkeley my entire life.
The problems with.
They can't be solved.
They can't be solved by plate by providing dumpsters for people.
For unhoused by providing safe disposal sites for needles and.
Emphasizing harm reduction and practices.
And supporting.
Thank you.
Good evening.
I'm here as the managing director of Berkeley Repertory Theater, whose offices and production facilities are adjacent to the Harrison street encampment.
While we have deep compassion for our unhoused neighbors, I urge you to support the resolution tonight.
We desperately need to address the hazardous encampments that pose a fire risk and eminent health hazard to our facilities and our employees.
Berkeley rep property and employees have been victims or witnesses of multiple fires, rat infestation, vandalism, theft, public nuisance, egress, blockage, road blockage, harassment, gunshots, toxic smoke, noise, domestic violence, illicit activities and more.
And most recently, the serious incident of the fire on August 21st, which damaged our property, melted our fencing, damaged our storage container and almost caught our trees on fire, which could have been catastrophic to our facilities and our ability to operate a business here in Berkeley as well as the lives of the individuals who are working in our building at that time.
So, I urge you to support this resolution.
Thank you.
Once again, as we are proceeding with public comment, let's not interrupt.
Let's.
People have very strong and passionate opinions about this issue.
Let's respect each other.
Let's provide an opportunity for people to express themselves respectfully.
We'll go to the next speaker.
Good evening.
Mr.
Mayor and council members.
My name is Caroline.
I'm a Berkeley resident and I own a small commercial building at 5th and Harrison.
Thank you.
Thank you for introducing this resolution, especially.
Thank you to council member.
You've heard the stories.
I want to 1st, say to everybody in the room and all of you, I have nothing but compassion.
For unhoused people who are simply trying to survive again, stop interrupting.
They are trying to survive and I know that the council and the city has done so much to try to solve this problem.
And it is not worked yet.
The fact of the matter is that something different needs to be done because you've heard the stories.
The father who's afraid his daughter will pick up a needle and receive an overdose.
This gentleman who just spoke his business could have burned down.
My building has had to put out fires in front of my building.
I've had to put out fires in front of my building.
I've had to put out fires in front of my building several times.
Every time I have the same worry as this gentleman.
Please take the compassion that we have for everybody.
And bring it to us business owners and please pass this resolution.
Thank you.
I just want to say that actually, I disagree with the previous speaker.
I don't think there's anything new here at all.
I think it's as old as it's as old as time.
And so the lack the cowardice.
The cowardice of hiding behind the police to mask your lack of leadership on this issue.
Cleaning up feces, that's not rocket science.
Now, working with poor people to alleviate the conditions that everybody's suffering from.
But rather than engage productively and respectfully with poor people and advocates and all kinds of people who want to solve these problems with throwing the cops.
And you know what? One of the things that makes it hard to hire cops is the reputation that they have for that kind of inhumanity.
When y'all send the cops.
Look, and if you're going to sponsor this resolution respectfully council member, I think you should be present.
I think you owe it to yourself and to the people that you're inflicting yourself on to be president.
See how that goes down.
But the cops don't want to be there and they'll be among the 1st to say that it's a failure of leadership that brings them to that unhappy moment.
But I also want to point out this genocidal mind.
This genocidal mind that allows itself not to think, not to feel, not to see, not to be there when the harm and the erasure is done.
When people are swept up like garbage off of the city streets and put into a traumatic into a Santa Rita or John George or wherever, you don't really care where they go.
So long as they're out of your backyard, that's a genocidal mind because it's just a matter of degree council member that when you can erase people's suffering, when you can erase a demographic, when you can erase a people.
Once you've allowed that to take hold of your heart, it's just a matter of degree.
And perhaps that's why you have not been willing to address the genocide that's going on in Palestine because you have sealed your heart and you have put your head in the sand.
And council member, I know that you've got something urgent to speak with.
Time is up.
But you might do me the respect.
Your time is up.
Of hearing me and acknowledging.
Councilor Davila, stop interrupting.
I was talking in the hope that you might hear me.
Your time is up.
Move on.
That you might hear me.
Let's move on.
Your time is up.
When a homeless encampment is swept.
You know, it's such a.
Yeah, seriously.
It is.
It's such a.
It's such a.
Anodyne word for what is an act of extreme violence.
Imagine if someone burned your house down, deprived you of everything that you own.
That's what it is to sweep a homeless encampment they throw all the people's belongings in the trash.
You were introducing this.
You mentioned hearing from many groups, business owners, homeless advocates, even.
You know who I didn't hear you mention.
The unhoused people themselves.
There's a Berkeley and stop being a Berkeley and when they get evicted.
To the black life no longer matter if they sleep on the street.
You know, if they're homeless.
Does the LGBTQ flag no longer apply.
To someone who's on housed, which.
The homeless people are disproportionately.
LGBTQ is a citizen no longer afforded the rights of citizenship.
Because they've been evicted.
Thank you.
Okay, before we proceed with the next speaker.
I want to call attention to a 4G rather of the city council rules of procedure, which says people addressing the council may give their 1st name and an audible tone of voice for the record.
All remarks should be addressed to counsel as a body and not to any member thereof.
Okay.
All remarks should be directed to the council as a body and not seeing any staff person or individual.
So I want to call attention to the role and ask that people comply with that role.
Please address your comments to counsel as a body and establish remember that because you're on the council not too long ago.
So go to the next speaker.
I have.
I'm not you're going to keep that in.
I'm not you're going to keep that in.
I'm not you're going to keep that in.
I've lived here most of my life specifically in district 1, and never have I been more ashamed to be a resident of this district.
Both because the district council member put forth this resolution is from a district, because of the vile classes racist ableist.
I'm not looking you in the eyes.
Ridiculous.
You are treating people like they're not human.
Everyone has said that, but it's just true.
And to the people who are complaining about feces needles, etc.
We're beating a dead horse here, but if the city hasn't been able to help you with those things.
I'm not you're going to keep that in.
I'm not you're going to keep that in.
And that makes you think they're going to be able to solve any of these issues.
You don't actually care about these things.
You want to live in your market rate housing, get on bar, go to your job, and forget that anyone else exists.
Thank you.
3 years ago, you were discussing what was then considered to be the worst encampment the freeway.
And it worked.
Some people were referred to the motels.
It worked.
So the homeless panel of experts is opposing this item without an offer of shelter or housing because it won't work.
It's not effective.
You can't block off every street in the city, and people will merely return to the same location, return a few streets way.
Disperse possibly throughout the city.
They're going to stay in Berkeley.
So we need something that works and you need to get this mental health 5 to 16.
I have a friend through Brooklyn mental health of the homeless full service partnership to be working with people individually that are in these encampments.
So they can support them, help them and mitigate the circuit.
Very circumstances that the community members are complaining about.
They need consistent.
Someone working with them and mental health.
Hello.
It's not my name.
I, I do not understand.
I understand why district 1 representative has put this forward.
I do not understand why the rest of you city council members are voting for it.
Because it what it will mean is that the people who are now encamped in her district are going to move into your district.
That's the only thing that's going to happen here.
That's that's what's happened.
So I don't understand why you're voting for this rather than taking the time to come up with a solution that actually would help all of you and all your district and not result in.
And I say, simply a migration, because the people who are now on Harrison street.
Many of them, I've known them for years.
They've been outside.
They're probably going to continue to be outside.
They began in places where they were not near any businesses.
They were in all the landfills.
Some of them way out there, and they got pushed from there under the Gilman overpass.
And from there on to the Caltrans property at Seabreeze at the university.
And finally.
And finally, I ran out of time.

Segment 6

There you go.
I got another minute.
Please complete your thought.
And finally, they ended up on a place where, on Harrison Street, where now they are creating a big problem for the, both the repertory, I will want to say I'm on the board of the, where do we go? I'm also on the board of Middle East Children's Alliance, which supports the Palestinians.
They also are there on 8th Street.
They are not complaining because they represent people who also, when they were pushed out of their homes, ended up under tents.
And are now in Gaza are going to be under tents again.
And the reason why they are not protesting is because they are empathetic, genuinely empathetic.
And if you folks want to know more about what's going on with people who they really are, there are plenty of people who are real expertise.
I suggest where do we go? Berkeley is happy to invite you to come and go with us and actually talk to these people and find out why you're having this problem and why it's not going away.
Paul, can I have a minute? Okay.
This is typically sung at eulogies, and I'm afraid if you vote on this, this is the end of Berkeley.
We are the home of the free speech movement.
We're the home of crip camp where they came up with innovations.
To work at Berkeley rep innovations.
We are the home of black Panthers and people's park and coming up with new opportunities, doing things differently.
These business owners, we need to help them by doing things differently.
That's the Berkeley.
We just heard a young woman who talked about living in Berkeley, not policing.
We haven't swept.
Everyone else in the country has swept, has pushed.
Let's help those on our streets.
Otherwise, the Berkeley that we stand for the Berkeley that has been commercialized so beautifully on telegraph.
With hippie clothes and Tibetan clothes, which if I were, I would just look like a peasant.
Who we are, it's who our university is.
It's our legacy, and if we start to change that now.
And not think of something innovative to keep Berkeley rep in place where crip camp went to change the laws to change how we treat people.
That's who we are.
We are not this item.
That is not.
Anything that Berkeley has stood for in the past and will never be what we stand for in the future.
So, if this passes, this is the beginning of the end.
This is the death of Berkeley.
Oh, that brought tears to my eyes because we've got so many people here with so many different interests and everyone deserves care.
The Presbyterian minister.
I'm aware of those programs.
I was here in the 60s.
I'm aware of all the programs that do work.
I've been doing this my entire life.
I was in the homeless, feeding the hungry.
It isn't rocket science.
It requires humane recognition that as human beings, we all have physical needs and I've often said, any 1 of us could be there and there, but for the grace of God, I have been there.
So, it's like, come on, we've got to make peace.
We've got to find a way because we can 1 doesn't have to win.
It's someone else's expense.
And there's communities already in operation that provide support.
Just like hospitals provide support, we can find a way to do this.
So that we care for those that need to be cared for.
So that everyone can be okay.
I know we can and we've got to.
Thank you.
Okay.
Hi, I'm Jessica and today I'm here talking to you as a.
As an officer for the Berkeley homeless union so quickly, I would like to address the fire that happened to Lisa.
That happened 2 weeks ago at the 8th and Harrison encampment, which I have to have video footage off and I will tell you that that was actually a failed response from the Berkeley fire department.
The encampment is literally 2 minutes away from the fires 2 minutes away from the closest fire station, but the fire, the fire engine took more than 10 minutes to actually show up to the camp.
I basically everything got out of control camp residents were actually trying to put out the fire themselves with their bare hands, trying to pull people's tents and anything that could continue feeding the fire.
And then the fire never had to get out of control.
Like, what our camp was not prioritize multiple people called and then 5 and then 6 fire engines showed up after the fire was already out just to just to give you an idea.
The fire department also promise or camp residents for fire safety education classes last year.
I have the recording of this meeting, but they never fulfilled their promise and no fire safety measures have been taken with the encampments.
Now, I want to introduce you the Berkeley homeless union, which is an organization that represents all on house people in the city and we stand together today to demand the dignity, safety and respect for our on house neighbors.
The city's ongoing enforcement actions against on house Berkley including threats, arrests, citation and property destruction constitute a pattern or harassment.
This includes, but it's not limited to limited to verbal threats made by city staff, city officials and law enforcement officers for occupying public spaces that destruction and confiscation of personal belongings essential for survival, such as tense clothing, betting medications and identification documents continuous forces placement without offering safe, adequate and accessible shelter neglecting on house people's mental health needs and incarcerating them for bad behavior that could actually be treated.
Can I have another minute? Somebody.
Okay, thank you.
Sorry, and also intimidation tactics and hostility, including threats against members of the press and homeless advocates, preventing them from documenting sweeps and the actions of city staff and police.
We respectfully urge you to immediately cease and desist from enacting this policy as it will exacerbate the harms already faced by our on house neighbors and further criminalize the very existence.
This letter that is being passed down to you is a formal notice for the city of Berkeley who sees all acts of harassment and the criminalization on the house.
Berkeley ends.
It's punitive actions forces placement, issuing citations and threatening arrests are violations for the basic human rights of the members of the Berkeley homeless Union.
If the city of Berkeley does not see these acts, we will be left with no choice, but to pursue legal action and federal court council woman because I want to become a name defendant.
This lawsuit will seek to remedy the harm caused by the actions of city staff and pursue all available legal options, including injunctive relief.
We urge you to rethink the resolution, please read our letter and I want to remind you that November 2021 tenant house plaintiffs from the aid and Harrison encampment challenge the RV overnight parking ban and house cards ordinance.
As a result, the city had to remove these ordinances off the books.
We are not afraid to fight for civil rights.
Thank you.
When you all hear me, all right again, my name is Gordon Gilmore.
This time I'm with the Berkeley homeless union and the Berkeley homeless union urges the city council to work with us.
We propose an alternative path forward 1, that prioritizes care, dignity and meaningful support.
Below are the Berkeley homeless union agreements, which serve as a step towards the solutions that can address the city's concerns while protecting the basic rights of on how's Berkley.
1, protect the right to sleep safely.
The city must commit to decriminalizing and ceasing the penalization of on house people for sleeping in public spaces when there are no adequate alternative shelter options.
This is a fundamental right and aligns with the human decency that Berkeley stands for to focus on care, not punishment.
The Berkeley homeless response team should prioritize humane care and harm reduction over enforcement, communicating directly with residents in an open and honest fashion.
I have another minute.
And.
Story participants do have a minute to say something.
The hat the black cat, are you yielding a minute to this gentleman? And the other thing I want to say is that there are a number of places where unhoused people.
Thank you are protected from harm and harassment.
These spaces should be used to provide shelter and security until permanent adequate and accessible housing is available.
4 work together on health and safety collaborate with on house residents to address health and safety issues at their communities by providing safe alternatives to meet folks needs.
6, keep communities together on how's people rely on community networks to support well, being in the sense of belonging.
We urge the city to respect and preserve these networks 1 more minute.
Anyone one more cool 7 protect the right to have animal companions and the right to live in a safe and healthy environment.
1 more cool 7 protect the right to have animal companions many on how's individuals rely on their pets for emotional support, companionship and protection.
These agreements reflect our deep commitment to a humane and equitable approach to homelessness.
We urge the Berkeley city council to engage with the Berkeley homeless union and other advocates to develop a more compassionate and inclusive policy.
Let us work together to create a fair social contract that prioritizes human dignity, health and community support rather than punishment and displacement.
And together, we can say that Berkeley protects all residents, housed and unhoused alike.
Let's make sure that no one is left behind.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That that's pretty much what we need to do is we need to collaborate.
There are over a 1000 people who are sleeping on our streets.
Something needs to be done.
We can't just focus on the unhoused we can't just focus on the house neighbors and the.
We can't just focus on the unhoused.
We can't just focus on the unhoused.
We can't just focus on the unhoused.
We can't just focus on the unhoused.
We can't just focus on the unhoused.
We need to create a holistic plan.
Okay.
I've mentioned safe stay sanctuary.
You just heard the requests for a respectful social contract from the newly formed Berkeley homeless union.
And I want to say, if you follow this grants pass, if you, if you vote, yes, on item 37, you will continue down that road.
Don't do it vote.
No, let's do something together and be creative.
Hi, council members.
My name is Luca.
And the way I see this, you know, these aren't just words on paper when you sweep somebody off the streets, when you take away their insulin, when you take away their medicine, when you take away what keeps them warm at night, especially as it's getting colder, people die, that's called murder.
You call that murder.
And I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't want murder in my conscience.
I don't want to go home at night, you know, go back to my bed, go back to my family and think about the death warrants I just signed by voting for this bill.
That's all.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Lindsay.
I'm the president of Calvert Democrats.
I want you guys to vote no tonight.
I don't really think I have anything to say that other people haven't said, but I'm going to say it again.
If you vote yes, you're telling people that they don't deserve to exist to say, we don't have anywhere for you to go.
You can't be here.
We don't want to see you.
We just want you gone.
I really hope that you guys are better than that and that you believe that people have a basic human right to exist.
I would really, really hope that you guys think that and it would break my heart if you don't.
There are solutions if you don't like the encampments, there's ways to do it.
Sanction encampments.
There's so many ways to address the root causes of homelessness.
This isn't one of them.
And I mean, yeah, just.
I just can't even with this.
Please don't know.
Yeah.
Please don't know if you believe that people deserve to exist.
Thank you.
Good evening council.
My name is Ben.
I'm speaking today to ask you to oppose item 37.
I just, I, I think we've heard a lot about all the harm this item would do.
So I don't want to focus too much on that.
Instead.
I want to ask you, like, what's the point? What's the point? Because if you're just back in another year, because these people aren't going to disappear, you sweep them up.
They move their back again.
They form another encampment because they they're people they have to live.
They have to live somewhere.
And it's just another constituent complaining from another street or near someone else's business or near.
And whether it's North Berkeley or South Berkeley or the.
I just, I don't see what you hope to accomplish by this.
Anyway, thank you for your time.
Hello, I'm Evan and I am a lifetime resident of the barrier.
This issue has divided us in this room, but I want to reinforce something.
I want to reinforce that unhoused people are humans.
The thing is, is this this is this this motion to to criminalize homelessness is dehumanizing people.
What homelessness people what unhoused people have to deal with is not frivolous things.
It is serious things.
What unhoused people have to deal with is they have to worry about if they're going to have if they're going to have a meal tomorrow.
They're gonna have to worry about where, where, where they're going to sleep tonight.
They're going to worry about if they get sick.
How are they going to get medicine? They do not have what happens is when you, when you, instead of instead of giving a helping hand to unhoused people and responding with a police baton, you were not helping on house people.
You are hurting them on house.
People need help.
And by criminalizing it, you are causing major issues about it.
Hello, I am a Berkeley student and a lifelong resident of the Bay Area, and this is my 1st time giving public comment, but I'm absolutely appalled by this item.
Not only because of just how cruel it is, but the fact that it just increases issues that we're going to have, because not only are you dehumanizing unhoused people, you are also increasing their vulnerability by stripping away their access to medicine, their access to documents that they may need, you know, a shelter, a community.
So, I think that rather than pursuing these reactionary policies, we should be focused on coming up with better solutions and listening to our unhoused neighbors and their advocates.
And I just think that we really need to vote no on this bill, because otherwise it will take us down a very dark path.
Thank you.
All right, my name is Jackson.
I'm the operations director for Cal Dems.
I'm asking you today to oppose item 37, as we have heard from many people.
It is a cruel policy, as it will basically permit the city to both cite and arrest the homeless people without offering them 1st a shelter.
This is cruel in that housing is a human right.
You need it, like with food, with water, clothing, to survive.
And it is also illogical in that citing and arresting people will only increase the fines and fees that they have to pay.
And consequently, this will only further the cycle of poverty.
And this easing goods like medications, legal documents, and other important items will only make it harder for them to apply for government help, to get health care, to find jobs, and so on.
All right.
Peace.
Yeah, just finish your complete your thought.
Your time is up, but complete your thought.
So, for those reasons, I recommend this city to vote against item 37, which would only worsen the homeless situation here at Berkeley.
Thank you.
I say, thank you.
1st.
All of you got us here and all you got us.
Pass this, my name is art.
I'm a Berkeley board, butane resident on my life, and I've seen.
Just a little bit of how much we love our community and all the different aspects.
And 1 day, we're probably going to see a.
A whole nother way, looking at mental health and being like, wow, that's just different folks in their expectations and who hit walls and what.
We do with all the most neuro spiciest most.
Beautifully special extra extra double decker yellow bus kids.
I am.
Just at grace.
Thanks.
Because the community in different aspects also connects and helps each other out in no matter what it's going to make it through.
But it would be nice to do it all together and with all of you.
And that's it.
Thank you.
So, when you have sweeps, people lose all their items and it takes months.
To get them back if they can get them back.
And it puts a lot of trauma, just like receiving the notice.
That's when the.
That the sweep is going to happen the trauma begins.
You know, you don't never.
You know, you don't.
You don't have the time.
With services to help people dealing with these sweeps.
When they're happening, they shouldn't happen at all.
And, yeah, I'm sorry that the community members, you know, don't like to to see the on house.
But.
The community is trying to get to the root cause trying to help people.
Meeting with them on a daily, regular basis to solve issues.
And you have to realize this is a fascist.
Way of dealing with our on house community.
And it's a, it's a, it's a.
It's a, it's a, it's a.
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a.
Those the people over there are living in tents and getting bombed.
A sweep is similar.
So you can't continue to harass people that are already.
You know, a marginalized on so many levels.
They need respect.
They need love and they need care.
Just like you need those things.
They are no different.
The only difference is that they're living on the street or in their vehicle.
They still.
They eat shit and do everything else like you do.
And they don't have a place to do those things actually.
And if you could, if you gave them those services, if you provided Porta Polly's bodies.
If you provided water and not in a plastic thing, but something that's more reasonable.
And provided showers on a regular basis.
And picked up the trash, you wouldn't have rats.
You set this up.
To, to, to justify your item.
And you continue to do it and nothing's changed.
When I was on the council and I got a homeless.
Task force.
Her swanning was on that task force.
Did she ever give any input, nada, nada word.
Yes, it was there.
There are lots of unhoused people, but she never came to the meeting.
She sent her a miss.
She doesn't care.
She never has.
And you need to start hearing.
You're trying to get to higher offices and it's not going to happen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
For the next speaker.
Hi, my name is Shane.
I'm a student.
Frankly, this is just deplorable.
I'm shocked that this is even up for discussion.
How is this selling up for discussion? These are human beings.
Where are people supposed to go? People are already in the streets.
Just push them somewhere else.
Push them again.
People are going to be have their possessions taken from them.
Their pets, their identification, any semblance of humanity.
How are people supposed to live that way? Where are people supposed to go? That's.
I have to say, frankly, deplorable that this is even up for consideration.
All right, unless there are any additional in person speakers.
Any additional anyone who's hasn't spoken to yield the time.
We're going to go to the zoom speakers.
Vanessa followed by Catherine Falk.
Hi, good evening.
Can you hear me? You can hear yes, please proceed.
Okay, thank you.
Mayor.
I just want to speak to the humanity of Berkeley, the Berkeley that I moved to 20 years ago from New York City.
Was a Berkeley that believes that all people can thrive no matter what your background is.
My concern about pipelining folks into incarcerated systems.
Is it really is an active oppression and it's not an institutional oppression.
It's actually very overt.
I wanted to remind you all that the UN rights, human rights commission or council.
Discuss this as well that this that the way we treat human beings must be like human beings.
I lived in district 4 for 20 years and I had mice, rats, needles, all sorts of things on a very high price block.
So, what I would love to see from us, given that we have people from all over the world that study here.
Is of use a participatory action.
What is it that we can do together to promote a solution? That's going to uplift humanity.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Catherine Falk followed by Beth.
Hi, so I'm Catherine and I grew up in Berkeley and I'm temporarily living in Berkeley again, because my daughter is at Berkeley high and I am asking the council to vote against item 37 as well.
It just, I appreciate that council tried to rewrite it to soften it a bit, but the effect is still the same.
Sweeps are really destructive and they don't really fix anything.
Like, somebody else mentioned that the unhoused get pushed to Oakland where I also have a home and we have the same problem.
Possibly people get pushed to where it's harder to get services and harder to get the firefighters to put out a fire quickly.
And it's really bad for the unhoused people themselves.
And it's not that I want to see people living on the street, but this grants pass ruling, it just seems to amount to you get these people out of my sight.
And that's a terrible approach.
That's that's not anything.
Okay, thank you.
Beth Rosner followed by Steve McFessel.
Thank you.
Good evening, Mayor and Council.
This is Beth Rosner, CEO of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce.
I urge you to vote yes on Councilmember Kastorwani's encampment policy item.
This policy is a balanced and reasonable approach that continues the city's commitment to offer shelter whenever available.
But more importantly, it also allows city staff to address encampments that pose a fire, imminent health hazard, or other serious risks.
We've seen the city reports tonight that detail the hazardous conditions, including rats, feces, syringes, fire, and more.
It is not progressive to allow people to live in unsafe conditions that are detrimental to themselves, as well as their neighboring residents, workers, and visitors.
Residents and businesses have been patient long enough.
Now is the time for action.
Please vote yes on this resolution.
The taxpayers of the city deserve clean and safe neighborhoods.
Thank you.

Segment 7

Our next speaker is Steve McFessal, followed by Friends of Five Creeks.
Hi, can you hear me? Yes.
Hi, I'm Steve McFessal.
I'm a small business owner in downtown Berkeley, was a long time Berkeley resident.
First of all, I want to say, I'll start by saying I support this measure, and I support it because logically, not philosophically necessary, but the reality is Martin v.
Boise and Johnson v.
Martin has increased homelessness dramatically.
50% of the people who were offered shelter since those were passed have refused it.
Occupancy and shelters have decreased as a result of this, and there are many, many more deaths on the street.
I do want to say it breaks my heart.
Both sides break my heart.
I did have a business that was destroyed because of an encampment in front of it.
I don't ask for any pity for that.
All I say is we need to be compassionate to everybody.
It bothers me immensely.
I've spent half my life working in nonprofits and supporting nonprofits.
I want to say, I know everyone on the Council is a compassionate person.
I know everyone who spoke tonight is a compassionate person.
I wish everyone who spoke could acknowledge that everyone else was a compassionate person.
That truly bothers me.
Thank you.
I trust you to do this compassionately, but I support the measure.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Friends of Five Creeks, followed by Elaine Jeffrey.
Thank you.
Can you hear me? Yes.
Thank you so much.
I'm Susan Schwartz, the head of Friends of Five Creeks.
We're an all-volunteer group that has worked for creeks, watersheds, and nature for 29 years, including on Cotonesus Creek, adjacent to the 8th and Harrison camps.
Our bylaws wisely limit us to matters directly related to our mission, so we have no general stand on the tragic and ever-worsening problem of homelessness.
Mental illness and addiction that we deal with on the creek.
The struggles of the small business people there, the very real efforts of the staff, and the, of course, the things that the residents face daily.
Our work to create an oasis for people and wildlife has been repeatedly destroyed up to four times, often by people you can't be angry at, because they're mentally ill, and they often think they're helpful.
We do ask that whatever rule you make, it should apply to the city's natural areas, as well as streets and sidewalks.
If the 8th and Harrison camp, for example, is cleared, people are going to again flock to the creek bank south of Cotonesus, or the south bank of Cotonesus.
It's publicly owned, and the city cannot even post signs there saying, no camping or no fires.
You have our letter with examples and photographs.
The council has to consider the entire city and unintended consequences.
Please don't sacrifice our natural areas, Aquatic Park, the waterfront, to a narrow policy.
Thank you.
Elaine Jeffrey is our next speaker, followed by Matthew Berry.
Hi, I'm Elaine Jeffrey.
I'm a volunteer with Berkeley Need, and I urge the council members to vote no on item 37.
It doesn't present any real solution to homelessness.
Instead, it just presents an expensive way of harassing unhoused people.
I personally know folks in Oakland and Berkeley who lost housing opportunities because their caseworkers couldn't find them after sweeps.
While I do understand the frustrations of house folks and business owners, there are numerous ways that those residents can be part of the solution instead of whining for somebody else to make it go away.
Like, don't like needles in the street? Berkeley Need and other programs provide sharps containers for free.
Help us hand them out.
These kinds of harm reduction efforts don't just serve homeless folks.
Public toilets benefit everyone.
Sweeps don't end homelessness.
They prolong it and make it more dangerous and miserable.
The solution to homelessness is adequate housing and community care, not incarceration or harassment.
Please, please vote no on 37.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Matthew Berry, followed by Becca.
Hey, everybody.
My name is Matthew Berry, and I am someone who has worked in the Gilman District for the last nine, almost 10 years, and I'm in strong support of this.
I feel like the entire thing has been very mischaracterized, and I want to start with the first sentence of the resolution.
Adopt a resolution affirming that City of Berkeley will continue to offer interim housing, shelter offer, with a preference for non-congregate options when closing encampments.
This is the least that the City of Berkeley can do.
These are exceptions.
These are adding exceptions for extreme cases to help deal with people that are dangerous and that should not be in these communities.
There's been nothing done over the last seven years, and I understand why.
Many roadblocks, legally and politically.
To do nothing and to continue to do nothing is insanity.
This is the base level and the bare minimum that the City of Berkeley should do to help give the tools to the city and to the police department to be able to help clear and clean up some of these encampments.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, our next speaker I see now is Sam, followed by Ava.
Good evening, Council Member Aragin.
As you know, I worked in City Hall for one year, and one thing that remained constant during that time was that this City Council prided itself on addressing homelessness better than other cities.
While everyone else was busy hunting encampments between neighborhoods, Berkeley was proud to be doing the work to actually reduce homelessness by acquiring home key units and massively increasing shelter acceptance.
You resolved longstanding encampments through Project Home Key offers, and as a result, homelessness has fallen in the most recent point in time count.
Berkeley's making so much progress, but if you pass this today, you're undoing that progress.
San Francisco has seen complaints about encampments double in some wealthy neighborhoods where there weren't encampments before.
Because when you tweet people and tell them they have nowhere to go, they still have to go somewhere, and that somewhere will be Berkeley's residential neighborhoods, because unhoused people do not evaporate.
Please don't undo the progress our city is making for a headline.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Ava.
Ava, followed by Wynn, Fitzgerald.
Thank you.
I just wanted to note the irony.
Your first Asian American City Council member, Ying Li, was actually homeless several times in her life, and so was her younger sister, who was my mother.
Berkeley gave them a home, and Berkeley has given me a home, and I want to express my incredible gratitude to the city for that and for providing a home for my mom and my aunt.
I do want to point out that this sort of policy has a legacy, a kind of history, in California, and even though this one isn't racially motivated, there was a long history of sweeps, if you want to call them that.
Some people call it the Truckee Method, things used against Chinese-American communities, and I hope you will not pass this.
I think you guys were doing a good job.
I think a lot of this, we should look at where the feds are failing, and there's a KQED article by Vanessa Roncanios from September 9th.
It's very, very good, and it talks about how the feds are failing, and how they're not doing a good job.
So, thank you very much, and I hope you guys will continue to do a good job, and I hope that we can continue to talk about what's happening, what's missing at the federal level.
Thank you for your comments.
Ren Fitzgerald is our next speaker, followed by Anthony.
I'm going to start by saying that I was an unhoused child.
I remember the moment that my clipper card ran out, and I couldn't make it from one friend's house to another to sleep inside that night.
All I could think about in that moment was how incredibly lucky I was that I had a roof over my head.
You have no idea how terrifying it is to be unhoused as a 17-year-old, and you have no right to dictate what that experience looks like.
Voting for this resolution will displace people into your districts.
There are real solutions you neglect to implement, like shelters, housing, and outreach.
This is not a solution.
This is an intensification of a problem.
When you go home tonight and get in your bed, I hope you think of the coldness of outside, the fear, the grief, and the injustice you are electing to cause if you vote for this.
Thank you.
We'll go next to Anthony, followed by Kylie Lange.
Hello, I'm a district 7 resident asking you to vote no on item 37 because I'm opposed to sweeps without an offer of shelter.
The council recommendation spends a lot of time discussing the success of a housing first approach, and I don't understand why that's in there if we don't intend to continue that.
The language in the resolution is overly broad.
I've never seen a homeless encampment that isn't along the side of a road, and I think we need to be honest with ourselves about the lack of a fig leaf that is offered by the so-called extreme exceptions in this proposal.
This would take advantage of the 6-3 majority on the conservative Supreme Court to allow us to cruelly sweep people who have no other option, not just without offering them housing, but without offering them a spot in a shelter bed or another place to go in the city.
All we need to do as YIMBYs on the city council is build a couple more shelters, and then we can sweep people as much as we want.
If we're not even willing to do that, I don't know how we can live with ourselves.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Kylie Lange, followed by Heather.
Good evening, council.
My name is Kylie, and I am the program manager at Downtown Streets Team Berkeley.
Our organization employs and assists unhoused people throughout the city and cleans and provides outreach to residents of the Harrison encampment.
My chief concern with this policy is the lack of safe and amenable shelter options for those who are being asked to move.
Instead of allocating funding towards sweeping and displacing unhoused people, funding should be directed toward improvements to the existing sites.
While Berkeley's commitment to expanding shelter beds and permanent supportive housing is admirable, this is not enough.
On August 25th, a resident and participant employee at Downtown Streets Team, Marcel Jones, was shot and killed by his bunkmate at the Harrison House shelter.
This was preventable.
I would like the city to provide oversight and allocate funding to improving the conditions, security, and staff preparedness at local shelters.
To increase acceptances of shelter offers, we need to improve the conditions in these shelters so that they are more amenable than the conditions that people are currently living in on the streets.
And speaking to our participants who sleep in the encampments and on the street, their number one reason they have cited for not accepting shelter offers is the unsafe conditions.
If you truly wish to end homelessness, you must house people, not push them out to the fringes, arrest them, or make them disappear.
If you'd like to work toward real solutions, please vote against item 37.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Heather, followed by Judy Ann.
Hi, my name is Heather Mulhall, and I live in West Berkeley.
I am a third-generation Berkeley resident, and I too, when I was a young adult, was unhoused, living in a storage space on Adeline and spare changing on Telegraph Avenue.
But it was because I had an addiction from which I am now in recovery.
I know that we have a number of resources that go unutilized, and because people want to stay in Berkeley, they do not accept shelter in other places like Contra Costa County or Alameda County.
I happen to know people who work in the system for recovery, and I just want to support this resolution.
I know that the city of Berkeley does everything they can to make sure that people get placed in shelter and supportive and treatment housing, and I just want to make sure that we're doing everything we can to get people out of what is often a horrible situation that they're going into the road of recovery.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Judy Ann, followed by Nathan Mizell.
Judy Ann, you should now be able to speak.
I can't real quick, and I'm just going to say this is really a problem.
Okay, Judy Ann, are you there? It looks like you're unmuted, but we can't hear you.
While we're waiting, we'll go to Nathan Mizell.
Hi, Mr.
Mayor, can you hear me? We can.
Yes, thank you.
Thank you, Mayor and Council.
My name is Nathan Mizell, and I was the chair of the city's 17-member Reimagining Public Safety Task Force.
As you all know, the issue of homelessness is a bit beyond what the task force itself covered, but I can say quite strongly that, at least at that time, I recall us talking about how fines and fees were not a logical nor effective tool for solving a number of social problems in the city.
I remember us discussing how important Black lives are, and how Black lives matter, and how our policy would reflect that in the city.
And I fear today that your colleagues are now asking you to endorse the logic of a nearly right-wing Supreme Court majority that has eviscerated the constitutional rights of women and many other groups, and has now eviscerated the constitutional rights of many poor folks and disproportionately Black folks in our city.
This is simply not something that can be okay.
Are we leaders in this city, or are we simply followers? I'll leave you with a quick quote for Angela Davis.
You all may remember, all of you voted in favor, who were there at the time, of Item 18D.
They also quoted Angela Davis.
They're anti-racist, but I'll quote her here.
Prisons do not disappear social problems.
They disappear human beings.
Vote no.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Jess, followed by Ava Tung.
Jess, are you there? Hi.
Can you hear me? Yes.
Hi.
I urge you to oppose Item 37.
We already got a preview of policies like this, in case you forgot, People's Park, which did result in deaths because you scattered folks and cut them off from resources that could have saved them from things like overdoses.
NIMBYs like to use the excuse of rats and health hazards to dismiss people who have to live on the street, but don't you think houseless folks deserve to live free from those too? I don't think you fully understand how few public restrooms and resources we have in this city.
When People's Park was swept and folks set up a care site on Dwight Triangle, your cops threw out their safety supplies, their first aid kit, and their fire extinguisher.
So I question who's actually making the city unsafe? And I also ask you, what if you give all the hundreds of thousands of dollars that you give to cops to brutalize houseless people and send them to jail directly to those folks instead so they can afford safe and affordable housing? This is just lazy politics, and I'm ashamed to be a resident of Berkeley.
Our next speaker is Ava Tung, followed by Sanjana Shah.
Sorry.
So item 37 claims to uphold Berkeley's commitment to not sweeping without alternate shelter, but it uses exemptions that default to settler colonial structures that have always relied on displacement and death.
So do you realize that it's your dependency on criminalization, sweeping, displacement, and incarceration that create the conditions that you, one, are not experiencing, and so you're not in a place to determine the safeties of the folks who do experience them daily, and two, are now trying to use to protect your decision to keep acting in these deeply violent ways? You say that it's important to protect the safety of our communities, but you label homeless folks and their needs inconvenient to your capitalist agenda that you seem ready to defend indefinitely, but are still unable to speak on why in any truly honest or meaningful way.
Who are you seeking validation from? Your stakeholders? Because they will also dispose of you.
Your fear of your own disposability is not an excuse to use your power to try to dispose of our community.
Thank you.
Okay, our next speaker is Sanjana Shah.
Good evening, Mayor Erdogan and council members, fellow attendees.
My name is Sanjana Shah, a District 7 resident and political science student at UC Berkeley.
I'm here to express my opposition to Item 37, which authorizes the city to dismantle unhoused encampments through law enforcement and displacement.
While this proposal claims to address safety concerns, moving encampments across the street or to another nearby location does nothing to resolve the root issues.
Instead, it perpetuates the cycle of displacement and destabilization, pushing unhoused individuals from one area to another without addressing their basic needs for housing, mental health services, or economic stability.
By constantly moving these communities, we only prolong their suffering and force them into further marginalization.
Further, the resolution frames enforcement as a means to promote healthy and safe neighborhoods.
But my question is, safety for whom? This approach creates an unjust hierarchy where conditions of housed residents who are equipped with immensely more resources are placed above the basic human rights of the unhoused.
If we are truly committed to public safety, we must consider the safety and well-being of everyone in our community, including those without homes.
By voting no on Item 37, you reject harmful policies and make room for Berkeley to prioritize long-term solutions over succumbing to the punitive measures of the Supreme Court.
Thank you for your time.
Our next speaker is Lorraine H., followed by Dajon West.
Lorraine, you should now be our speaker.
Hello, my name is Lorraine, and thank you for the opportunity to speak in strong opposition to Item 37.
I'm a Berkeley resident, and I'm a direct service advocate for survivors of interpersonal violence who are overrepresented among the unhoused and highly at risk for losing their housing.
Every single day, I take calls from people who are fleeing violence and trafficking and their advocates.
More than at any point in my career, it is impossible to find safe and dignified housing for them.
For those in support of this item, please picture the very worst day that you've ever had and now imagining that happening outside.
Then imagine your community and your neighbors choosing criminalization and further violence first before care, support, and housing.
I urge you to vote no.
I urge you to vote no.
Our next speaker is Dajon West, followed by Molly.
Dajon West, please unmute yourself if you wish to speak.
Dajon West, last call for Dajon West.
Okay, we're going to Molly, followed by Maya.
Hi, my name is Molly.
I was born in Berkeley.
I'm a resident of District 1, and I oppose Item 37.
To solve homelessness, we need to address the issue of homelessness.
I'm a resident of District 1, and I oppose Item 37.
To solve homelessness, we should not be exclusionary.
We need to be creative and think outside the box.
Otherwise, these issues will just get worse.
The Supreme Court decision that encourages this was literally decided about a woman who was homeless because a wildfire burned down her house.
In the age of increasing natural disasters due to climate change, we need to be building community resilience, not neglecting each other.
There are already established community organizations at the encampments in West Berkeley doing self-advocacy and mutual aid.
If the city supported them, they could do even more.
One idea would be to set up public campgrounds in every neighborhood, such as the RV park that recently closed.
Residents of the campsites could delegate representatives that would be included in any policy decision that impacts homeless people.
The city could provide amenities like public restrooms and waste facilities at these campsites, just like any other campground.
In addition to biomedical waste receptacles, it has been proven many times that harm reduction is the best policy approach to substance use, such as needle exchange and biomedical waste containers.
I am as concerned about violence as anyone else, but it is an indisputable fact that violence is almost always caused by poverty, abuse, isolation, hatred, and neglect.
Forcing homeless people in our city to leave makes all these issues worse.
Using aggressive force via the police to do so is adding more trauma and is inhumane.
Thank you.
We're going to go to Maya, followed by Megan Woxpress.
Hi, my name is Maya.
I live here in Berkeley, and I've heard countless folks plead with you to take another path here tonight, and I truly hope you thoughtfully heard them.
These are our neighbors.
They're our neighbors.
We are responsible for them.
They deserve dignity at a bare minimum.
They did not create the circumstances that pushed them to these living conditions.
We can thank greedy folks, capitalism, and corrupt governments for that.
I hear you allocating more and more money to the police, so I know that you have the resources to actually improve their material conditions, but you're choosing to put money elsewhere.
Some of our unhoused neighbors were here tonight asking you to support them, to provide sanitation, bathrooms, fire safety, and more.
You say you care about them, so I don't understand how your response is kicking them out.
You say you have tried many things to care for them, and it's clearly not enough.
Do more.
Do something different.
People here are asking to collaborate with you, to offer solutions, to be creative and compassionate, but your response is to sweep it away.
I hope you make a different choice here tonight.
I hope that you vote no.
Thank you.
Okay, we'll go next to Megan Wattspress, followed by Charlotte.
Megan, you should not be able to speak.
Please unmute yourself if you wish to speak.
Hi, my name is Megan Wattspress.
I'm a resident of District 1, and I'm a former member of the Homeless Services Panel of Expert, although I'm speaking only in my personal capacity.
I've met with a lot of the individuals from these encampments, as well as unhoused folks throughout Berkeley, and I think this measure is really wrong, and it will further eat away at any trust that has been built between the city and these individuals, and make it harder to find solutions and build towards mutuality between those communities and those who feel adversely affected by them.
I think the lack of mutuality in the encampment policy itself is really problematic.
Someone comes to my house once a week and collects my trash, and when we, yes, in our owned home, had a rat infection, we were able to resolve that without being asked to move, and I would just really urge that any policy and steps moving forward comes from a place of mutuality, and that we vote, that everyone on the Council vote no on this policy, which I think will damage relationships and really hurt people.
Thank you.
Charlotte is our next speaker, followed by Matt.
Charlotte, you should not be able to speak.
Hi, sorry.
Hello, can you hear me? Can hear you.
You can? Okay.
Hi, I'm calling to join the many people in voicing my opposition to item 37.
I am a current and a long time, most of the last 20 years of my life, resident of West Berkeley.
I, there's so many, so many troubles with this resolution.
From the humanitarian, human standpoint, that people should have a right to shelter, and that if their only option for shelter is living in tents on the street, that they still deserve to be alive.
Also, for people who do have concerns about their own comfort and safety of garbage that might be in front of, on the sidewalk and things like that.
Even within those, or businesses who are uncomfortable with the sight of people living out their lives in public while those people are struggling, the resolution won't solve those problems.
Berkeley has cleared encampments for years and years.
There are still people living on the street.
They are not going to disappear.
They shouldn't have to disappear.
And arresting people or moving them to other parts of town is not going to solve the problem, even for business interests.
So, yeah, thank you.
Matt, followed by Nancy.
Matt, you should now be able to speak.
Thank you.
My name is Matt.
I live in District 1.
I am a long time volunteer and board member of a non-profit housing developer, and I deeply feel the issues that are being spoken about tonight.
I would say that while homelessness is a challenging issue, I think what is being proposed is a common sense approach.
There are a lot of services and offerings, and I think those should continue to be expanded.
However, I think that we need to give the tools to the city staff who are interfacing with these homeless individuals on a daily or very regular basis the ability to address health and human concerns.
And that doesn't always mean moving people.
I would strongly recommend support of this measure to give city staff and the frontline workers the ability to do so.
And on a personal note, myself and my 11-year-old son walk and ride bikes to a soccer practice at Gay Patafo Field, and we've been verbally, emotionally, and physically abused numerous times, both going down Harrison Street, going through UC Village, going along Cordanices Creek.
Of course, it's not all homeless people, but we do need to do something to make sure that this place, this city is safe for all, and that includes both the homeless individuals as well as the residents that are trying to use the services of the city.
Thank you.
Nancy is our next speaker, followed by Bridget Nicoletti.
Hi.
Yeah, my name is Nancy.
I have lived in West Berkeley since the year 2000.
I also ride my bike past encampments frequently, but I don't agree with the previous speaker.
Kicking the can down the road and giving the city the ability to make arrests of people who have no choice, who are homeless and are on the street, they don't need to be arrested, and being arrested doesn't help.
The city needs to do more to house people, to provide the services, to reach out more community health workers, more peer support specialists.

Segment 8

I don't think that we've done what we need to do and to just now throw up our hands.
And also, there are already laws against bad behavior.
There are already laws against harassment.
So, as the previous speaker was addressing, you don't wipe out a community because 1 or 2 people have done something wrong.
That's what we have laws for.
Brigette Nicoletti is our next speaker.
Hi, my name is Brigette Nicoletti, and I work at East Bay Community Law Center.
I'm speaking in opposition of agenda item 37.
This item is a blatant attempt by the City of Berkeley to arrest and displace its unhoused residents.
This will do absolutely nothing to address the housing crisis that Berkeley residents are facing.
It will only lead to more pain, suffering, and death in the unhoused community, and the burden of this policy will fall heaviest on unhoused people of color and people with disabilities.
Beyond the grave human rights implications of this policy, I'd like to draw the Council's attention to the letter submitted by 14 local and national advocacy groups outlining the illegal and inhumane nature of this policy.
Berkeley deserves better, and you've heard from many of your unhoused residents solutions that are actually workable.
I hope that you consider those instead of this policy.
Thank you.
Okay, our next speaker is Matt.
Matt, you should now be able to speak.
Matt? I've already spoken, thank you.
Okay, thank you.
I don't see any additional hands, so we will complete public comment, and the clerk has informed me that we are overdue for a captioning break.
We have a remote captioner that's live transcribing the meeting, so we'll be back in 15 minutes, and then we have to do a 15-minute captioning break, and then we'll begin our deliberations.
Recording stopped.
Yeah, right.
Thank you.
Okay, the City Council's back in session, and I'd like to ask Council members, if you would like to speak, please press your button to be added to the speaker's queue.
I will recognize Council members based on the order of the parliamentarian, and so I'll first go to you, Councilor Kisarwani.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Mayor.
Thank you to everybody who has given public comment tonight, and I want to acknowledge the hundreds of emails we received on this issue.
I do look forward to hearing from my colleagues as well.
For the purposes of discussion, I'd like to make the motion to pass Council's motion to add a captioner to the meeting.
I move that we pass the resolution as amended, and related first reading of ordinance amending Chapter 14.48.
Second.
And reflecting, just to clarify, the amendment that you raised.
Yes, as amended.
I said pass the resolution as amended, and when we get closer to being ready to vote, I will show those edits again.
And I do want to thank Susan Schwartz for expressing concern about Cordanese's Creek and the sensitive habitat.
And I do want to publicly state that it is my commitment to work on an item to establish a park at Cordanese's Creek that could be publicly accessible.
And so that's something I just wanted to put into the public record and I want to reiterate again that we will offer shelter when feasible and that's not just empty rhetoric.
We have a measure on the ballot to raise more revenue.
It's projected to raise 4 million more than we currently receive from the existing transfer tax so that we can acquire those couple of more shelters that somebody gave public comment about.
So that is our intention that we will make shelter offers and I continue to stand by the description that we are striving to have a balanced, reasonable approach so that people can walk down the sidewalk.
They can go to their place of business and not be worried about the fire risk.
You know, we want our public spaces to be safe for everybody.
And so we will continue to make the commitment to offer shelter when feasible and continue to expand those shelter options and also promote the safety of all in all of our neighborhoods.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
We'll go next to next counselor in the queue.
Council member Humbert.
Thank you, Mr.
Mayor, my comments will be relatively brief.
I want to thank council member for her efforts on this item, which I think does an excellent job of keeping our housing first approaches at the forefront and resisting the less humane approaches that the grants pass decision has the potential to enable.
I don't want to mince words.
I have to say, I am appalled by those who are trying to make out council member to be callous or anti homeless with the possible exception or the mayor.
I don't think there's a single person on the council's worked as hard as council member to create new housing for homeless individuals or been as willing to host such facilities in her own district.
Council member Kassarwani has stuck her neck out more than anyone else on this diet to help people and address our homelessness problem.
Her recommendations are about reiterating basic safeguards around public health and safety.
And the city's ability to maintain its infrastructure to attempt to recast it as some sort of right wing anti homeless effort is wrong headed.
And I would say, read that as disinformation and out of step with Berkeley voters.
And I would say, read that as disinformation and out of step with Berkeley voters.
And if the people disparaging my colleague had their home catch on fire due to a neighboring encampment, or regularly found their sidewalk strewn with human waste and hypodermic needles, our offices would be hearing from them about how something needed to be done and I'm going to be supporting council member Kassarwani's very reasonable proposal.
Okay, thank you.
We'll go next to council member Luna Parra.
Thank you, I am.
Deeply disturbed and frankly heartbroken by this proposed resolution and ordinance for a number of reasons.
I have received critique for being young and idealistic and to that I say our community is capacity for envisioning worlds without punitive approaches to poverty is not naive.
It is not impossible.
It is the future.
I have heard people say that we have done everything we can.
We have offered shelter and food and this is our last resort.
I am appalled by that approach.
Our only resort is to further displace people to destabilize the communities they have built.
We know that won't work.
91% of homeless people surveyed after a sweep report remaining outdoors, most often just moving 2 or 3 blocks away when they received a move along order.
Are we not asking people why people are refusing shelter.
We act like we are benevolent saviors by offering them a prison cell.
The cruelty of this policy cannot be overlooked.
I understand its intent is to disband encampments, but the reality is that it's nearly impossible to be unhoused in Berkeley without violating the BMC.
I don't doubt that my colleagues genuinely want the best for neighbors and our friends and our community members, but this approach either reflects a profound misunderstanding of the lived experiences of unhoused residents or at worst a willful disregard for them.
I have a few questions to ask city staff if they're on the call.
Who, in particular, do you want to do.
If you do still on the zoom yes, council member, he is on the show.
Thank you so much.
My 1st question is how many open shelter beds does the city of Berkeley have at this moment? Thank you council member for that question.
The number of shelter beds we have.
There is literally by the hour we get a report and city staff are not the only source of referrals for those beds.
So it's hard to keep track of things.
We get a report.
Every morning I can, if you give me just a moment, maybe while you tee up any other questions, I can pull up this morning's report to tabulate exactly how many beds we had as of this morning.
Okay, thank you.
Should I wait or ask my next question if you give me just a moment, I can pull that up.
I apologize.
Typically, it's my staff that are.
More familiar with these numbers on a day to day basis than I am.
Okay, as of this morning, we show.
11, I'm sorry, I'm 15.
Congregate beds that are available and again, I can't speak to whether or not there's also going to be 15 tomorrow that changes.
In terms of non congregate units, I know we have fewer than 5 at this time.
And those are, and we are actively working with.
Advocates from the Harrison street encampment to try to prioritize those to people in that in that encampment.
Okay, thank you so much.
This is.
Definitely fewer beds than on house people in our city at the moment.
My next question is, if a person is given an administrative citation or infraction.

Segment 9

Uh, what are the immediate consequences well, with respect to, uh, homeless encampments and people who are unsheltered.
I can tell you that we haven't issued any administrative citations to them.
Um, and we don't plan to do that.
Um.
So, typically, um.
You know, in typical code enforcement circumstances, when a administrative citation is issued, it will come with financial penalty that if not paid, you know, future, if the violation continues future citations can be issued and that balance will continue to accrue.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Um.
Another question that I have following that is what are the consequences if the person who.
I would like to remind is on house does not is unable to pay these fines.
That may, um.
May result in a work for their arrest.
Thank you.
I want to point out that most homeless individuals can't afford these fines and may as a result.
Skip court dates, and many also miss court because they have no address to receive court notices, or because they lack the money for transportation missing court can lead to arrest warrants to more charges in jail, thus driving them deeper into the criminal justice system under federal law.
So, I would like to point out that most people who have spent more than 90 days incarcerated lose their chronic homelessness status, and they're no longer a priority for permanent housing.
I have 1 final question is there anywhere in the city of Berkeley that an unhoused person can legally camp if this passes.
Uh, not at this time, thank you.
Okay, thank you so much.
I'm going to move on to some questions for the authors of the policy as well.
My 1st question is the East Bay housing organization, the East Bay community law center and the along with many on house residents and advocate groups express a strong concern regarding the effects of criminalization and displacement in this policy what on house people organizations or advocates were consulted during the drafting of the policy.
So, I'm going to move on to my 2nd question, which is related to this item was made public and I read all of the comments that we received.
Um.
What I'm sorry.
What I'm sorry.
What I'm sorry.
What I'm sorry.
What I'm sorry.
I would refer you to the attachments in the item that document the abatements that occurred at at these 2 encampments as well as the data that we included related to police and fire calls at these 2 encampments.
I have some statistics that I'd like to share with my colleagues to highlight exactly who this policy will disproportionately affect for young people, family, dysfunction and rejection, sexual abuse, juvenile legal system involvement, aging out of the foster care system and economic hardship make them particularly vulnerable to homelessness.
So, for example, in the state of San Francisco, 1.5% of San Francisco's homeless youth just across the Bay are LGBTQ with even higher rates among transgender and non binary youth and 10% of UC Berkeley students experience homelessness while enrolled.
At the same time, 80% of the homeless population in the Bay Area has an increasing rate of housing insecurity and unsheltered homelessness in the Bay Area in 2019, the indigenous population made up 0.6% of the general population.
But comprise more than 6% of the homeless population, 50% of the residents at 8th and Harrison identify as black, while only 8% of Berkeley residents are black.
The city of Berkeley does not have a 24 7 domestic violence shelter.
The closest one is in Oakland, which also really has vacancies at the current rate of production.
It will take 32 years to produce enough affordable units to meet the barriers growing need.
If all affordable units, all current affordable units are preserved.
Fundamentally, homelessness is a policy choice.
The city of Berkeley and the Bay Area have not built enough housing have not built enough affordable housing to accommodate our housing crisis.
If we pass this tonight, we are effectively criminalizing the mere status of being on housed without providing any sort of reasonable alternative.
These are the people that we will be burdening with our regional failure in affordable housing.
I understand and empathize that many house neighbors and business owners are concerned and frustrated about encampments and the physical and environmental dangers within them.
And I was thrilled to see that recently the city's homeless response team conducted a deep cleaning of an encampment in collaboration with advocates and residents that was successful in reducing these risks.
I'll also point out that on house people are statistically far more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators of it.
So what I've seen from other cities as well is what happened when the West Berkeley rise in transitional shelter closed at the end of 2022.
This will not stop encampments from popping up.
It will not cause them to be safer or cleaner and it will not cause any fewer people to be living on our streets.
If someone is arrested and an encampment tomorrow, they will simply spend a 24 hours at Santa Rita and then return setting up a new place to sleep a few blocks away.
In fact, one could argue that the size of the encampment on 2nd Street increased as a direct result of closing the West Berkeley sanction encampment.
Human beings need to sleep and this policy will just shuffle around on house people from street to street block to block neighborhood to neighborhood without solving anything to be clear.
Encampment safety is an issue that I take seriously and there are solutions to it such as working to create a new sanction encampment.
However.
This policy is a false solution.
It is a reactionary policy that only kicks the can down the road.
Creating new crises, new trauma and new incarceration as we wait for affordable housing to be built and we don't have to accept it.
I've heard today that this policy.
I've heard today from supporters of the policy that it is not progressive to allow people to remain living in harmful conditions and to me it is unfathomable, dangerous, cruel and utterly inhumane for the proposed alternative to be Santa Rita jail.
What is progressive is finding solutions in direct collaboration with the folks most affected by the policy.
What is progressive is finding ways to expand and preserve our affordable housing stock and housing at all income levels and prevent displacement.
What is progressive is treating people like human beings rather than trying to sweep the structural problems that we have to address under the rug.
And what is progressive is our residents being able to hold us accountable rather than allowing for unilateral management discretion.
What is progressive is humanely responding to the question.
Where do we go? I would like to see this policy at the very least be sent back to a policy committee and the homeless panel of experts for review be brought back to us again with it again at the very least a thorough and comprehensive safe state sanctioning can't plan to partner with it.
Otherwise, this body would be reactively and dangerously effectively criminalizing the mere status of being on housed without providing a reasonable alternative and I find that a point to its core.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Council member Barlow.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm sure you've been on the front of the local crisis.
And you've also been front and center with the solutions.
I watched you confront your neighbors who are upset about the things you're doing for the for the unhoused persons and and you also housed, you know, my pet project step of housing.
This is a great question and I think that when we take it out, it's going to be great and should be if it goes well a solution to what we're talking about here as we scale out.
And so, you know, as I go through this journey of understanding how to approach the problem that we're describing a quick question from Mr I do if you're still with us in the ether.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I never get used to this.
It's so strange.
I just, you know, it's like I'm laying in bed.
Are you there? God, it's me, Ben.
Right.
So, so.
You know, care court.
And I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about the status of care court and and really what it is and if it's ready to be deployed for circumstances such as ours.
I appreciate that question council member.
I see that director Gilman from is on and I would defer to him to speak to that.
Thank you.
So, care court actually is the responsibility of the county.
We're actively participating with the county.
As they develop it.
It's scheduled to be implemented by December.
And as far as we know, they're on track with that.
And so, at this point, we're waiting for more information on how to refer and all those things.
And I should also mention, it's a court driven process.
And so the court across the state has been working on a lot of different things.
Okay, thank you.
Yeah, that's that's what I thought.
And so care court, of course.
You know, is 1 of these things that we're working on, but it's also a part of the process.
And so, as I mentioned, we're working on a lot of different things.
And so, we're working on a lot of different things.
And so, as I mentioned, we're working on a lot of different things.
Okay, thank you.
Yeah, that's that's what I thought.
And so care court, of course.
You know, is 1 of these things that we would hope to to help this issue because listen, a generation ago or longer, the California and the country as a whole demobilize it's mental health infrastructure.
Stop funding and close down mental health hospitals and never replace them.
And then after Vietnam, people came back and it began I remember as a young boy, when the homelessness epidemic first started, it was on the news is on TV newsweek and time and the movie down Beverly Hills was about it.
And I remember we were all shocked that there were homeless people on the streets.
And now, of course, 50 years later, I'm younger than that.
I'm younger than that, but years later, there was it's become the backdrop to urban life.
And we've all become a newer to it and we've all had to walk by people and suffering and pretend it's not happening.
And if you have children, you all know the feeling when they ask you what's going on when they pull your finger and pull your hand and say, what? Why are they on the street? Daddy? What's going on here? Help them.
We can't have a house.
You all know this.
If you have kids and it renders the soul to even begin to try to answer it.
And so somewhere in that time, these decades, despite our tremendous wealth as a state, California, the 4th largest kind of in the world now, we never replaced that infrastructure.
And so now I hear numbers of half a million people on the street in the state and someone tonight in the room mentioned 110,000 beds are short in this region.
And, you know, so we're really caught in a deep, deep pit of mismanagement that's gone on for a very long time and disinvestment.
And I think we need some help at the state.
Because we can't do ourselves out of this on the local level.
It's just too much, but we do have to manage it.
And, you know, I, for 1, I'm a critic of the housing 1st model that California subscribes to where you can't condition services for care.
And so, as a result, you have a lot of bad decision making going over and over again, which is what we're hearing about from our community.
You know, but again, as we manage it, I just don't I don't I don't know that criminal sanction is an effective tool and I think that, you know.
We've worked we've worked hard in this city and other places as well to move public safety into a health care realm and to allow police to focus on violent crime.
And to to let let experts do what experts do and let social workers and health care folks work with people who are in discomfort, mentally, socially and let police investigate interdict crime.
And we get our best results when we have that, because we know that 80% of our police calls are going towards mental health crisis.
So, you know, I, for 1, I, I do want to get a handle on this and we have to because we know that other cities are now sending people here due to the same court case that we're talking about and we need to manage our population and our police response.
So, you know, I think that we need to be a little bit more careful about how we're going to manage this.
I think we need to be a little bit more control.
But I think that we need to really sit down and be creative and figure it out.
And so, you know, I'm kind of leaning towards advising us to engage in more study on this matter to really come up with a good solution that doesn't involve.
Thank you.
Okay, we're going to go next to counselor taplin who's participating on soon.
Thank you very much and good evening everyone.
First I want to say that just because someone is sheltering intent doesn't mean that there's an imminent health or safety hazard.
And I want to thank you for taking this on.
I've watched this council since 2016 make homelessness it's top priority in alignment with the community's priority.
And I've watched my colleagues pursue creative solutions, one after another to address this from every single angle.
Sorry, can you hear me.
It's hard to.
Yes.
Thank you.
And you know, my district.
Alongside district one is also impacted by enhancements and RVs and I was proud to have the Grayson site, and the spark program in my district and I worked with the neighborhood and I got buy in, and they trusted the city.
And we were able to get people into permanent housing through the transitional housing village and the safe parking program.
That being said, after it closed, we spent years trying to find a replacement for it and we send letters to the UC to large industrial landlords to the golden gate fields to everyone in the area and no one responded.
I'm committed to still pursuing a relocation to host those programs.
But the residents of my district and Russia's district don't have the luxury of pontificating away the things that they're experiencing a daily basis.
So, I don't think that.
People are not emailing my office, or our offices about people.
Sheltering intense or just experiencing a houselessness.
People are only reaching out because they are experiencing instances of violent harassment.
So, I think we should be blaming people who are who are in these situations and we should, I think we should continue to get them the services they need, but we have to be able to manage our public right away for the benefit of the entire city.
Impacts my district, my neighborhood and Russia's district as well as, you know, the downtown and.
As well.
We are infinitely committed to housing 1st, even those of us who are critical of that.
And, you know, we're, we're putting the renewal of the measure on the valid.
But we, but I'm getting asked, why are we asking for more and more money to fund programs and people are seeing.
Their conditions deteriorate.
Why are people saying that they feel like they can't walk home in their own neighborhoods.
It's not because someone is just down their luck or doesn't have.
Doesn't have a roof people are experiencing behaviors that are making it such that they and their families do not feel safe.
Experiencing the public realm, and that is a problem.
And there's not going to be a 1 solution.
And I don't I agree that, you know, a criminal law enforcement response is not the answer, but that's all that's all we're talking about.
We're not like, like.
There's I am.
I don't see how we're going to be sending cops to deal with.
Encampments on an arbitrary reactionary basis.
The amount of things we have to clear in order to do a basic response is so high.
That I don't think that that's likely to occur.
City admin will still have to make a qualified valid finding.
So, I will be supporting the item in the motion.
Thank you.
To declare a nuisance in order to initiate.
A response, and even that would be a last resort.
And that's based on our current practices in our policies.
So, I will be supporting the item and the motion.
Thank you.
Okay, that's my trigger.
I also want to echo.
I remarks and acknowledge council member.
For for in taking on this difficult issue.
It is an issue that all of us find hard to grapple with.
And we all understand that there is no.
Ideal solution, other than providing adequate housing that includes services.
To help our house neighbor stabilize, recover, heal.
And we enter our community with dignity.
I also want to relay that I deeply sympathize with our house neighbors and the immense challenges and trauma that they face every day living on the streets.
The situation truly is inhumane.
I also.
Sympathize with our homeowners.
And I also want to express my deep gratitude to our city staff and other workers.
Who are working in our community centers, business owners, workers.
Predominantly working class or middle class.
Or trying to make it work under challenging circumstances.
And at times face unsafe conditions.
I also want to express my deep gratitude and extend recognition to our city staff and other workers who are tasked with the impossible job of ensuring that our streets are kept safe.
All of our residents.
These are the people that often come face to face with human suffering and conditions that are difficult to bear.
The ordinance before us is a response to the outcry we received from many members of our Berkeley community.
And I also want to express my deep gratitude to our city staff and other workers.
Who are working hard and compassionate toward our unhoused neighbors.
But they also demand healthy and safe conditions for themselves.
Their families, their children, the elderly, and their friends who visit them.
Their property is not vandalized and customers feel safe patronizing their businesses.
As council members were tasked with considering all sides of any issue.
For me, the red line for this resolution.
Was that I would not support criminalizing people, including citing or arresting them simply for sleeping on the streets.
As a peace and justice commission, both in this letter to us.
However, I do believe that we should hold everyone to the same standards that we would hold everyone in our society.
And that does mean that being unhoused does not automatically shield them from the consequences of unlawful behavior.
If that behavior is unlawful and our staff does need the tools to do their job safely and effectively.
I was very clear with my colleagues to the extent allowed under the Brown Act.
That I would not vote for anything that criminalizes people for simply sleeping on our streets.
If we cannot provide them with adequate shelter.
I'm very grateful to the author for agreeing to amend the ordinance to reflect this stance.
And I've also heard police from our Berkeley residents who are concerned about our environment and how we're treating our creeks, our watersheds, our parks, the other sensitive natural habitats that we're fortunate to have in the city.
To this end, I do have some questions, both for my own edification and to provide the information for residents so that we and they can make informed conclusions about the legislation before us today.
That said, the public comments that we have received from my district have been split down the middle, and there are passionate views on both sides.
So, in my two and a half months on the city council, this is the most agonizing decision.
And I am determined to keep an open mind.
Whatever the outcome is today of how we vote, tomorrow, I continue campaigning for Measure W, the extension of Measure P.
I will continue.
My staff and I just met with Robin Montoya, who does excellent work with the Dorothy Day House.
We're committed to working with them.
We're committed to working with Insight Housing and supporting additional opportunities, working with my council colleagues and staff to increase our opportunities for housing of all types.
And this does take a regional approach.
And this is also on our neighbors, some of whom have not been holding public open meetings like this one, frankly.
And where the policy has been, at times, giving folks a one-way ticket would then end up in my district.
And in Councilmember Casablanca and Councilmember Taplin's district, and Councilmember Bartlett's district as well.
So, it really does take a regional, evidence-based approach.
And whatever the outcome is tonight, that is what I am 100% committed to.
With that, this is for Peter.
I have received concerns that the nuisance can be defined broadly and used to move people outside of the most urgent circumstances.
Could you walk me through the process of declaring something a nuisance? Yes, thank you, Councilmember.
I just want to reiterate that making this determination of a nuisance, including fire hazards, imminent health hazards, things like that, are decisions that are made by trained and credentialed staff whose professional integrity is on the line.
So, it's not something we take lightly.
And typically, that is a last resort.
Usually, actually, that is a last resort.
It is rare that we see something that we will jump to declaring a nuisance.
Our process in the Homeless Response Team is to reach out to people, try to provide deep cleanings, garbage runs, other efforts to work with the person to try to mitigate the circumstances that are contributing to the nuisance.
If all those things fail, that is a tool in our toolbox.
But it is used relatively infrequently.
Thank you.
I wanted to clarify or get clarification when you were addressing a previous question.
I wasn't clear if you responded in this way, but would you consider this ordinance to be adding to the criminalization of homelessness? No, I really think that as I read this ordinance, these are relatively rare circumstances that we nonetheless do repeatedly encounter at some of our more impacted and impactful and frankly dangerous encampments.
And this is, as I read this, these exceptions to the Martin versus Boise standard that are enumerated in the item would really allow staff to continue our job, which is to try to balance the needs and the rights of people who are unsheltered living in these unsheltered situations in these encampments.
Against the reasonable expectation of the public to having clean, safe and accessible spaces.
And we really do take it seriously to try to individual to try to analyze these situations on an individualized basis and make that determination.
And this is, I will also state that we take very seriously that we are a care first jails last jurisdiction and we will continue to lead with outreach and efforts to achieve voluntary compliance.
If this item is passed, it's not going to lead us to start jumping to enforcement right away and certainly not to arrest.
I hope that answers your question.
Yes, I have two more.
Thank you for your patience with me.
Can you speak to how many offers for housing are being made on an annual basis and are rejected? And what are some of the circumstances or reasons for the rejection? I can tell you that in the past three years, I don't actually have it based on per year, I can get that number for you if you wish.
But over the past three years, since the launch of the response team, we've made just shy of 700 shelter offers total across the entire city.
And we have an acceptance rate overall of roughly 44%.
And that includes when we offer congregate shelter.
When we offer non congregate shelter, that acceptance rate nearly doubles to more than 80%.
It's at 81% right now.
And that is really when we are, you know, in the course of intervening at an encampment during a deep cleaning or a closure.
And that is when we are in the process of making sure that we are providing the services that we need.

Segment 10

That were especially effective at getting people to move inside some of the reasons that people decline shelter primarily what I have noticed is the distinction between congregate and non congregate folks are generally way more interested in and it better meets their need for privacy and dignity if they have their own space in a in a non congregate room.
Thank you.
And lastly, there were some public comments made around instances of.
Following sweeps case workers, not being able to find those former residents of the encampment to offer them housing.
Can you speak to the extent to which it has been your observation and.
If that has been absorbed, do we have existing policies to minimize the impact on the on housed following those sweeps.
We call together neighborhood services.
My division calls together.
On a regular basis, a case conference with our outreach providers, and with our homeless services providers, it's been on hiatus for some time now, but we do intend to to bring that back.
And in those case conferences, we talk regularly to the extent, of course, permissible under privacy laws that about the people living in these encampments and other unsheltered situation.
So that we can stay coordinated, update 1 another as to where folks are both physically and in terms of their care plan, and we will continue to do that.
Thank you so much.
Okay.
Thank you.
I know we have a couple more counselors.
I want to speak, including myself.
So I'm gonna make a motion to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 1130.
So, if you can please call the roll on that procedural motion to extend to 1130.
Okay, council member.
Yes.
Yes, Bartlett.
Yes, I.
On yes, 1 graph.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
If it's okay, I just want to briefly make some comments.
So, I want to pick up on something that counselor trigger ways, which is the need for a regional approach to how we address the humanitarian crisis of homelessness here in the Bay area.
And it's really unacceptable in the wealthiest part of our country.
In the 5th, largest economy of the world that we have such widespread poverty and I have to say that we are doing more in Berkeley.
And I would acknowledge that there's a lot more we have to do, but we are doing more in Berkeley than any other city in Alameda county.
We spend more per capita than any city in Alameda county on housing and interim housing on direct services to addressing homelessness.
And that is why we have seen a 45% reduction in unsheltered homelessness in Berkeley.
And that's why I hope the voters of Berkeley approved measure W to provide more resources.
So, we can further reduce the number of unhoused people on our streets because our goal should be to get everyone off the streets.
It's a permanent, stable and affordable housing, but not every city's doing that.
And so I, over the past several years have been working with my fellow mayors in Alameda county and with the county government to work together to see how we can address this issue from a regional approach.
And I've chaired an ad hoc working group of the mayors from the 14 Alameda county cities and we have worked with the county to actually put in its 5 year strategic plan on addressing homelessness to give priority to local investment and local programs so that we can work together with the county who controls billions of dollars, billions of dollars and behavioral health and public health and all these social services to make sure that what we're doing in Berkeley is aligned with the county.
So, we can maximize impact and actually help people, but it's difficult and what we have seen since Grant's past is a race to the bottom where San Francisco is doing widespread enforcement with with no offer of shelter.
And I've been informed by our city staff that the city of Richmond that police in the city of Richmond have are telling homeless people in Richmond to go to Berkeley.
And while they're doing enforcement, that is a fact and other cities like Emeryville are doing enforcement as well.
Where's the outrage about what's happening in those cities to that's not acceptable and so we need to be thoughtful about this.
I agree, but we need to work together.
So I intend to bring the mayors of Alameda county together next month in a conversation here in Berkeley.
We're hosting our monthly meeting in Berkeley to talk about what each jurisdiction is doing since grants pass around encampments and to see how whether we can work together on a coordinated approach.
So, it's not a race to the bottom.
There's no doubt that we've seen more people who are experiencing homelessness on our streets of Berkeley these past few weeks.
Not surprisingly, because San Francisco and Richmond are sweeping encampments on a weekly basis and that may continue.
But that does not change our approach that's focused on housing 1st evidence based practices, reading with compassion.
That will continue to be our focus and how we address this issue in Berkeley, because that's what our residents expect and that's our values, but I call on all the cities of the Bay Area.
We have to work together.
We cannot be pushing people from city to city.
We have to work together.
I call on our governor and our state government who is asking for cities and enforcement.
Give us the resources so we can build permanent supportive housing.
And so we can expand supportive services so we can work in partnership to address this issue.
So, while this addresses how we're going to deal with very, very specific agent circumstances in Berkeley, where in the most most cases, we will continue to offer shelter.
1st, we need to do better as a region and.
And so I call on all of us to really continue to put pressure on other jurisdictions in the East Bay to step up.
No, Albany doesn't have an incentive.
To step up and address homelessness, and when they close the Albany bulb, that's when we saw the proliferation of encampments in West Berkeley.
Not surprisingly.
When Caltrans removes an encampment, that's when we see the Harrison street encampment and encampment on 2nd street.
People, but we are working to still address those issues because these people are neighbors as well.
So.
We have to get to a point where I think it's something the state should mandate as a condition of funding that in order for cities and counties to get direct resources that they have to coordinate and they have to work together and they have to meet some responsibility of housing people who are experiencing homelessness in the jurisdiction that they can't push those people.
Into another jurisdiction, but until that time.
We have to address this issue here in Berkeley, and we will continue to address it in a thoughtful, compassionate way.
And I think counselor for bringing this forward.
I intend to vote for it.
I think this is this is a balanced approach and not everyone likes it.
By really trying to find a way to deal with these very specific, very limited circumstances where people are living in very dangerous conditions and I hear you that.
You know, there are reasons why that's happened and we have responsibilities to make sure that that doesn't happen, but we also have responsibility to not let people continue to live in dangerous conditions and not let conditions be so dangerous of threatening the immediate businesses and neighbors as well.
We are responsible to keep everyone safe to make sure the quality of life of everyone housing on house business owners and residents is protected.
So, for that reason, I will go for this today.
Council.
Well, thank you, mayor and thank you to all my colleagues.
1st, I just want to say that.
I really didn't appreciate the personal attacks on council member or on Mr.
who works for the city and does I don't think there's I've never met someone who cares more about ending homelessness through compassionate.
Um, I mean, and and more committed to shelter and housing and more knowledgeable and I really.
I didn't appreciate those attacks on either of them.
I know people are passionate about these policies, but it's not appropriate to question the goodwill of the people who who are involved in trying to.
Find a way through what is a really very, very complex and very heartbreaking set of circumstances.
I was going to ask Mr.
do some general questions about how we approach shelter and housing.
Um, but I do think some of that has been covered, but Mr, I do, I just want to give you just a little bit of an open opportunity here to just maybe.
Tell a little bit what our practices are in the city of Berkeley in terms of working with outreach, housing, offers, shelter, et cetera.
Um, and, and, and, and, you know, what does that look like when, when, when we go out and try to work with folks who are experiencing homelessness and I know that's a big question, but just kind of a, just a little an overview of the approach.
About a month after the council created the homeless response team with the budget item in 2021, this council adopted the whole home regional action plan and that committed the city to a very bold goal of a 75% reduction in street homelessness in 3 years and that we took the homeless response team.
We took that as our mission to do everything we can to try to be the tip of the spear for implementing that.
Obviously, something like that is a big city wide effort, but the homeless response team would be the tip of the spear.
And so we coordinate with all the departments in the city who are impacted by this and have a role to play in this and we coordinate very closely with health, housing, community services, and all the agencies that provide outreach and shelter and homeless services that they contract with.
To do this work as best we can.
We understand that outreach is an iterative process and that it is, you know, we're dealing with people.
And so 1 thing that I'm very proud of that my team has brought to this is understanding that encampments are not just, you know, situations of, of others, right? They're communities of people and they really take the time to get to know who's living there and to try to form relationships with people living there.
And we prioritize as best we can when we make shelter offers based on, you know, not just who's sort of vulnerable in the encampment and who would really benefit from and use those opportunities at that moment in time to meet their needs.
But also taking into account, you know, how can that shelter offer be something that we use to help mitigate some of the community impacts that encampments are creating? So, it's very complicated calculus, but we try to keep it based on on the person and the relationship that we try to build with the person.
Thank you very much.
And so would you say that the, the all read, I forget the name, the all region action plan, all home region.
I was on the steering committee.
I helped develop.
What's the right name for it? All home.
All home.
Yes.
The all home plan.
And you had also mentioned some federal standards in the past that you use as guidance.
Would you say that those 2 documents kind of are the basis for how you approach rehousing and service provision to people experiencing homelessness? Are those the guiding documents? In a word, yes, I would say the all home regional action plan is something that's.
About our broader homeless system and so that was the subject of the analyses that we presented to this council on July 9th when we had that broad overview of the homeless system.
The other documents that you were mentioning are the United States Center agency council on homelessness.
They have promulgated a series of best practices and white papers with respect to how to address and resolve encampments and we do our best to follow those.
Okay, thank you very much.
Those were the questions I had.
I appreciate.
So I'm, I'm going to do a little history.
And a little law, and then I suddenly realized, oh, yeah, I was a history major and I went to law school.
No wonder.
That's how I think about these things.
And I want you, I want folks to bear with me a little bit while I, while I do a little bit of those 2 things.
So in 2017, 2018, the city of Berkeley adopted what can only be described as a new paradigm in its approach to addressing what I consider to be.
Our, our city and our states and our country's biggest human rights catastrophe, which is homelessness after more than a decade of outright hostility towards homeless individuals, including nighttime raids, confiscation of personal belongings.
And other harsh practices, the city shifted to a set of humane policies and programs.
That put housing and humanity 1st.
This new paradigm and a series of new policies, programs and facilities that were launched in 2017 and accelerated.
With a generous funds made available through voter approved measures in 2018 have resulted in rapid.
And unprecedented success, a 45% reduction in unsheltered homelessness and over 20% reduction in homelessness.
Overall, this success is unique.
Among communities in the Bay area, and let me say, it's not just statistics that make it a success.
This is.
Human beings who have been relieved of the suffering of living on the streets.
It's not just percentages.
It's people.
This success is unique among communities in the Bay area and across California that are significantly impacted by the crisis of homelessness and is directly attributable to the policies, programs and facilities.
The city of Berkeley has been able to put in place.
And the tireless work of city of Berkeley and partner agency staff.
Who have worked with a compassion and professionalism to increase the well being of Berkeley's homeless population and above all to build the trust necessarily to successfully rehouse over 1500 homeless individuals.
And there was someone who said that they had done a PRA request about how many actual people.
And I was given the number around 1700 since 2016.
And since 2019, which is the 1st year that we were able to deploy the funds we got through measures.
Oh, and P it's been 1500 people.
So, I hope that we can get that to you directly, but I want you to know that I actually have a list of people that I've been able to reach.
And I have a list of people that I've been able to reach and I have a list of people that I've been able to reach and I have a list of people that I want you to know that I asked that same question and and and and this is a very large number of people.
It's unprecedented.
We are not pushing people off to other communities.
We are rehousing them.
That is why we have this level of success.
And I want to make a point that I want to make.
This is a policy that we have been working on for a long time.
It's a little arcane, but it is, it is attached to council member cast one item.
This policy is something that we spent a lot of time on when we wrote that policy.
We specifically chose to address accumulations of belongings.
And this is a policy that we have been working on for a long time and it's a policy.
We have a policy to manage the accumulation of belongings.
And belongings, when they spill over into the normal path of travel on our sidewalks and into the street, and it also governs the accumulation of belongings in a single location.
And that is a policy that we have been working on for a long time and it's a policy that we have been working on for a long time because we understand that human beings have to be able to survive on our streets.
They are human.
We understand that, but we tried to strike a balance by addressing accumulations of belongings that were so excessive that they really impeded the ability of other people trying to use the sidewalk.
And we have a policy that we have been working on for a long time.
And we have a policy that we have been working on for a long time.
It's a policy that we have been working on for a long time.
And we have a policy that we have really, we really had a big impact.
On on businesses and neighbors and people trying to use these spaces.
So it really is a shared use.
Of space policy, so we sought to address accumulations of materials, not sleeping or other human activities.
And we also sought to address the lack of storage facilities and the number of sessions necessary for survival and ensuring they could be maintained in addition at the time we establish voluntary storage facilities, free storage so they could store their belongings at no cost and another regulation specified that we also spent a lot of time on specified that belongings removed by the city, except for things that are sort of excessively soiled or or really can't be stored.
Must be stored for retrieval.
So these regulations focusing on the management of objects and not people have served the city incredibly well for close to 5 years and have complimented.
Are incredibly successful efforts to rehouse our homeless neighbors through compassionate services.
And offers a shelter and housing at the same time, the city has been able to reduce the impacts of accumulated belongings on the broader community striking as good of a balance as possible when managing a truly harsh.
Set of realities in the overwhelming vast majority of instances, the city's combination of intensive housing, health and mental health outreach, trust building and assistance with management of personal belongings has resulted in homeless individuals accepting offers of shelter in large numbers and moving at a relatively quick pace towards permanent housing.
So, in short, our city's policies and programs and facilities on a macro scale have been working incredibly well.
And we should compliment ourselves interrupting please, but in a few circumstances, notably, but not exclusively the 2 West Berkeley locations described at length and the item.
The city's extensive efforts, which are documented.
In this item to work with and invite homeless individuals into shelter and housing have not been accepted and individuals and their belongings have persisted and accumulated in these locations to the great detriment of both people living in these encampments.
And to the businesses and residents in the vicinity accumulations of debris food and other organic and human race furniture and other materials along with open flame camp stoves have resulted entire block faces that are dangerous unsanitary attract rodents persistent fire hazards and are unacceptable by any measure.
And to the businesses and residents in the vicinity accumulations of debris food and other organic and human race furniture and other material along with open flame camp stoves have resulted entire block faces that are dangerous unsanitary attract rodents persistent fire hazards and are unacceptable by any measure.
At the same time, the city has worked extensively with individuals and communities in these locations offering assistance, shelters, housing and other services and opportunities over and over again only to be met in many cases with rejection.
We have been met with lawsuits.
It's not acceptable.
There is no question that for the well being of both the individuals experiencing homelessness and for nearby residents and businesses, these conditions absolutely must be addressed.
And while I reject the idea that sleeping can or should be criminalized when no other options exist for an individual experiencing homelessness.
And by the way, my definition of available options includes a bona fide shelter or housing offer previously made to the individual and rejected.
I do welcome clarification of the city's authority to manage catastrophic.
Persistent accumulative accumulations of materials and dangerous unsanitary conditions like those in a few locations in Berkeley.
And potentially in other locations, including the city's ability to ask people to move from a specific location.
So, it can be cleaned and return to the use and enjoyment of the entire community.
These are exceptions.
So, in 2018, the 9th circuit and Martin versus Boise created a new standard addressing criminalization of sleeping.
While Berkeley has been focused on managing accumulations of materials.
And Martin focused on camping, I sleeping Martin and other cases decided under Martin have.
Severely limited the city's ability to manage these large accumulations.
And to move otherwise deeply and sanitary encampments that pose a hazard to people living in them and.
To others, the city council.
In passing our own regulations of objects and materials never contemplated that huge and permanent accumulations in a single location would be allowed to persist.
I know that because I participate in writing them on the contrary, the rules were written to explicitly allow the city to limit.
Materials on sidewalks and in the right of way, and remove materials that individuals would not manage or limit voluntarily themselves.
The recent grants past decision by the Trump Supreme Court majority overturned Martin.
Arriving at what I also believe is an absurd conclusion that sleeping can be criminalized.
I reject that dangerous paradigm, but I also don't support the other absurd idea.
That it is okay for people to languish dangerous, dirty circumstances on our streets, or that it's okay for people to repeatedly reject our city's bonafide offers to help manageable belongings and our offers of shelter and housing.
And for them to remain in terrible conditions with horribly unacceptable impacts to the adjacent area.
So, where do we go from here? I'm going to start with the question, how do we thread the needle to address the kind of encampment conditions that we're facing? Clearly, the path is somewhere between these 2 extremes.
The question is, how do we thread the needle so that our policies give us just enough authority to address the kinds of encampment conditions we're seeing right now in these few extreme locations without opening the door to the other extreme.
And how do we thread the needle to address the kind of encampment conditions that we're seeing right now in these few extreme locations without opening the door to the other extreme.
So, I understand that this item is an honest attempt to thread the needle and I also understand the urgency because the conditions in numerous locations in Berkeley are intolerable and need to be addressed as quickly as possible.
So, I understand that this item is an honest attempt to thread the needle.
I also understand the urgency because the conditions in numerous locations in Berkeley are intolerable and need to be addressed as quickly as possible.
I don't know how they perceive of this homeless advocates oppose this policy because they believe it enables the city to sweeping campments as a frontline policy and criminalized sleeping.
So, I understand that this item is an honest attempt to thread the needle.
I also understand the urgency because the city has the authority right now to clean and manage encampments and even new folks to other locations.
But let me get clear.
What is going on here is the exact opposite.
We are and always have been governed by constitutional and case law as the limits.
To how we work with encampments so when Martin was passed by the Supreme Court, our authority was vastly expanded.
It is not constrained by any local Berkeley laws or regulations right now.
Our city has all the authority provided by that decision, quite frankly, more than our city would ever want to exercise.
So, the case you're wanting when graph item is trying to restrict our authority.
Not expand it I know it's hard to get your head around, but that's what is happening.
So, anyone who wants a city to limit the powers given to us by the Supreme Court should support this policy.
And I'm not going to go into the details of that right now.
I'm going to go into the details of what it is that the Supreme Court has to say about it.
Ironically, however, the limits provided are so wide open and so broadly conceived that they're kind of not worth the paper they're written on.
So, as an example, I looked up what the BMC's definition of a nuisance is, and I invite anyone here in the room to just go to our Berkeley municipal code and search the word nuisance and you will find, I mean, there were so many pages of definitions of nuisance that I just stopped going through them and some of these things were written, like, in 1919, vicious animals, feral cats.
It's quite an interesting mixed bag of things that are nuisances in Berkeley.
It's extremely broad.
It's a very broad definition of a nuisance.
It's a very broad definition of a policy.
So, that supposed narrowing of our power, then by referencing a concept that's huge, then it gets big again.
Someone's actually following me.
I hope I'm being clear.
Maybe I am making sense.
I'm almost there, Mayor.
So, I think we have to be very careful about what we're talking about here because we don't have a policy.
We just have what the Supreme Court gave us.
We have a massive amount of authority right now.
Keserwani's item is seeking to limit that authority.
It is seeking to say, well, we can only use it in these limited circumstances.
But.
I think, perhaps, in the rush to get something on paper.

Segment 11

And I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the things that we've seen in the last couple of weeks.
And, you know, what they need to see to be able to go out and manage things in these terrible locations is that the exceptions are too broadly rendered.
So, I will say that my preference tonight is that we provide clear authority for our staff to address the conditions at these 2 extreme locations.
Which simply gives the normal, typical rulemaking authority back to the city manager and that we refer the larger policy to staff to come back with something more limited and nuanced than what we have here.
But most importantly, that more fully articulates what I know is our practice, which is to do extensive outreach, offer shelter in housing and work humanely with people.
And to do that, we need to make sure that we have a clear policy that is consistent with what we have here in this current policy assumes all of that, because we all know that's how our city operates.
This is, in fact, our practice, but a written policy, this would be our 1st, 1 can't just assume half the equation when you put your pen to paper and this is literally would be the 1st encampment policy we ever put on paper in Berkeley.
So, I would like to ask the board to make an alternative motion.
A substitute motion.
Sorry.
Thank you.
A substitute motion to 1.
Direct staff to enforce our.
TNC, which is temporary non commercial item policies as written at the 2 West Berkeley locations that have been so severely impacted for so long.
2, I would like to ask the board to make a 2 amendment.
2, I would like to ask the board to make 2 changes to the BNC.
What was it? 1224, 14, 1448.
Sorry.
I.
As presented with the with any amendments that were made and then 3 refer to staff the concepts in this item.
The 2, I would like to ask the board to make a 2 amendment to the 1.
The 2 amendment that is presented to us with a much more.
Carefully nuanced written item with the effective policy that articulates our affirmative commitments to shelter services in long term housing.
And that provides a clear and more more actually limited set.
My motion 2nd, by counselor Bartlett.
Okay.
Thank you.
Vice mayor Weingarten.
Thank you.
Well, I have to say that I was quite shocked by all of the comments that we heard tonight from.
Many of the attendees at the meeting, not all of them, but some of them.
Because it seemed like they were responding to a very different item than what I had read.
And I'm concerned that there was a lot of misunderstanding.
Of what the intent of this, uh.
A council member, because I don't is.
I want to thank council member for working so hard on this.
I know she collaborated very, very closely.
With staff and with legal and.
And that it was a tremendous amount of work to put it all together.
I also want to thank you for all of the work that you have done regionally on this.
Your, your comments were actually very inspirational to me because.
I've been trying to do the same thing on now.
Wildfire risk and.
I really think that a regional approach is the only approach that makes sense.
And I want to thank you council member.
For your work on measure and measure P.
Because measure and measure P have been extremely.
Important in our efforts.
To approach this problem, which is extremely complex.
But I don't think you'll find a city.
In the country that approaches this city, this problem with more.
Compassion and more sensitivity than Berkeley.
And we've made a huge investment.
We've put we've put resources behind.
Behind that behind our compassion and behind our, our sensitivity and behind our real concern.
For the people who are on housed.
I'm going to support this item.
I trust staff.
To implement it.
In the most narrow way, and only under the most extreme circumstances.
I think we have very, very dedicated staff.
And, and, and I think we need to, we need to trust them to do the right thing.
And if it's not working, then you always have the opportunity to come back and amend it.
So.
Yeah, so I'm going to be supporting the main motion.
And with that, I'd like to call the question.
And I'm going to ask council member Hans to substitute the motion.
Okay, well, we have councilor Kisarani, I think wants to just clarify the motion before we vote.
Yes, I did want to ask on council member Hans substitute motion and this is actually a question for Mr do the 1st part where you want to direct staff to enforce TNC at 2 West Berkeley locations, the 2 encampments cited in the item.
And I'm wondering if you could clarify the resolution and the detail in it about deterring re, encampment and the signage are you clear on what that direction is in the 1st, part of that substitute motion.
I, I'm, I'm not sure that I actually cop council member Han, would you mind restating that very 1st, part of your motion? I'm sorry.
I was scrambling to write it down, but I think it was to enforce that Harrison street and 2nd street and similarly, similarly impacted locations.
Yes, and I did refer to the TNC regulations that allow you to.
Request that objects be reduced to a 9 foot square foot footprint requests that the objects be moved to another location, remove and store objects or and or issue an administrative citation or infraction and and everything else.
I'm sure you're very familiar with the whole policy, but those are the enforcement elements.
Yes, thank you for that.
And so to your question, council member testimony, I can say that we have been desperately trying to enforce and the provisions and the municipal code on our sidewalk policies at these encampments for the past several years.
And I don't say this lightly, but I believe we are at the upper limit of what our current policy allows us to do in clearing the right of way and maintaining it clear and so we do spend a great deal of time in these encampments.
In fact, over the past 3 years, we've performed 120 encampment interventions overall 43% of them were at Harrison street and 2nd and 2nd street.
And we've done a great deal of work in those 2 locations.
So we spend a lot of time here.
And whereas our policies are effective elsewhere, they, they just have not been effective at clearing and maintaining clear the conditions that these encampments.
Okay, thank you very much.
I'm ready to vote.
Okay, we have a subsidy motion.
Okay, thank you.
I wanted to make a friendly amendment.
Ask for a friendly amendment to the motion.
Would you accept to include in that a.
Referral to staff to come back with a policy that also includes the affirmative.
Okay, thank you.
I'm going to go back to the affirmative pieces of how we work at the beginning of your resolution to, you know, how we, we start with offers of shelter and housing something that would articulate that with more.
In a, in a more robust and complete manner and layout, not just kind of the end piece when all of that has failed.
No, we keep saying here, like, we have faith and order.
I called the question.
You have to well, you have to vote to to call the question, which is a motion to suspend debate and that requires 6 affirmative votes, but let's just let her finish.
You understand the friendly and what I think you're asking for council member on is some kind of off agenda memo that goes into detail about the existing practices in terms of our city staff engaging the outreach providers prior to any kind of.
Enforcement action that is contemplated in this item that articulates it so that it's known.
That's fine.
And just Madam city manager, is that fine that we can prepare an off agenda memo that explains our practices related to outreach at encampments? Absolutely.
That's okay.
Yes.
I made it available to the public.
Yes, and who's the 2nd or Humbert I am and that's fine.
Okay.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Mayor.
Thank you.
Council member.
Yes.
Of course, and so, in terms of proceeding to the vote, we're going to vote on the substitute motion 1st.
Yes.
And but council member Bartlett, do you want to see the edits? Of the main motion, or let's do that briefly.
Okay.
15 minutes.
Sorry.
I.
Okay, let's let me go to that.
Okay.
Share screen, let's.
Okay, so we are here with the recommendation.
I do want to know council member Humbert is a cosponsor.
He's been added.
In this version that we've amended on the dais and so again, we are.
Stating that the main change from what we had posted is that we are removing the language about.
And so that's what we're talking about.
We're talking about.
Explicitly say stating citation arrest.
What we're talking about is enforcing state and local laws.
We, I do want to say it as Mr.
I do have stated.
We are a care first jails last community.
An arrest is possible.
It is a considered sort of a tool of last resort.
And so that's what we want this language to be more precise.
We're talking about enforcement of state and local laws.
This is the same thing where when we instead of saying citation arrest, we're talking about enforcement of state and local laws.
This is just some clarification related to the administrative regulations of of how they need to be updated to conform with this policy.
These are just corrections to the background section, but are not as important.
And then I'll just take you to the resolution where you have the same corrections or changes.
Removing citation arrest and changing it to enforcement of state and local laws.
Arrest continues to be a possibility, but it's not something we feel is necessary to emphasize here because we just want to be more precise about what we're asking.
Okay, thank you.
And if you haven't, please send that to the clerk.
So, we have for the record.
Yes, I will do that.
Okay.
So, we'll now vote on the substitute motion by customer Han seconded by counselor Bartlett.
This is a substitute motion to the main motion.
The clerk and please call the roll.
Council member.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'll just call the roll.
Council member Kester wanting.
No.
No.
Yes, I.
Yes, one graph.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay, that motion fails.
Okay, on the main motion, which is to provide 37 with the revisions that counselor just read into the record.
And the family minute from customer Han, which also includes a first reading of the men's 1448.
And then the adoption of the resolution, please call.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay, that motion carries.
Thank you.
I make a motion to suspend the rules and adjourn.
Is there a second second.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay, thank you.
We're adjourned.
Recording stopped.
Okay.