Recommendation to Consider Options for the Alameda Police Department's Emergency Response Vehicle. (Police)  [Not heard on March 2, 2021; continued from March 16 to March 30, 2021]
So we are continuing this. We're moving now to hear this regular agenda item that has been continued twice. And this is item six be. And Madam Clerk, would you please introduce that item? Recommendation to consider options for the Alameda Police Department's emergency response vehicle. Thank you. And who is presenting this staff report this evening? We are bringing in the interim police chief right now and his support staff. All right. So we are anticipating the imminent arrival of interim police chief Randy Phan. And Rafi, who else is joining us? There is chieftain. Good evening, Chief. Good evening, Madam Mayor. And I see we have Captain Jeff Emmett. And is there one more we've got? Lieutenant Claus should all be. Eric, class is here. Okay. So it's the three of you? Yes, ma'am. All right. Well, good evening. Hi. We are ready when you are. So please begin. Very good. Thank you again. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Randy Phan, your interim police chief. In 2012, the City Council approved the purchase of an emergency response vehicle that replaced a 1997 GMC Armored vehicle that the city owned from 1998 to 2011. In 2013, the city took delivery of a ballistic armored tactical transport vehicle. The acronym of that is a Ford F5 50 truck chassis that is covered with ballistic panels designed to withstand gunfire and fragmentation, including rifle rounds such as those fired by assault weapons. The vehicles used to transport police officers and tactical medics from the fire department to crime scenes where there is an objective risk to the safety of civilians or officers from a person who is armed or as reasonably believed to be armed with a firearm. Is also used to rescue civilians or employees from active shooter situation, acts of terrorism or mass casualty incidents involving acts of violence in places where civilians or officers may be in the line of fire of a suspect. The emergency response vehicle is not used for peaceful protests or demonstrations. Period. The emergency response vehicle is armored, not armed. It is a defensive tool, a de-escalation tool to protect life. It is not an offensive weapon. It does not have its own weapon system like a military tank. These types of vehicles have been used in civilian law enforcement in the US for decades. In our area alone, they are owned and utilized by the cities of Oakland. Berkeley. San Leandro. Hayward. Union City. Fremont. And Livermore. Pleasanton. Much of the criticism of these vehicles comes from seeing them used in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. Most police professionals in the Bay Area like me could not believe the images from those protests. Using armored vehicles with tactical teams on overwatch during protests is inappropriate. It is not a tactic used by the Alameda Police Department. The discussion about militarization and American policing is an important one and one I frequently engage in as a police chief. It is critical that police officers understand our role as guardians in our communities. We are never to be seen as an occupying force. We are part of the community. It is our duty and our honor to protect it. To ignore, however, the realities of our society and its many guns and the threat that some with those guns pose would be derelict, especially for government which is charged with protecting its citizens. To believe that those things can never happen here is unfortunately wishful thinking. Are we under constant threat? Thankfully, that is a resounding no. We are not immune. Crime and violence on our island. We expect that our police stand ready when the community calls. This vehicle has been safely and appropriately used for almost eight years, and armored vehicles have been used here in Alameda safely for almost 23 years. Reviewing the use of this vehicle and ensuring it's used with care and consistent with community standards is a worthy and important endeavor. There is no reason to believe it won't continue to be used in a responsible manner manner in the future and strictly as a tool for civilian and officer safety. I urge the Council to approve keeping the emergency response vehicle as a safety tool for your community and for your employees. Thank you. And obviously, I'm here for any questions you may have. Thank you, Chief. And when Captain Emmett in lieutenant class, did you want to add anything? Okay. So, Counsel and Madam Clerk, I would imagine we have some public figures. Do we? So far, just one. All right. Perhaps there will be more. Perhaps. Okay. So before we go to our public speaker or speakers, does anyone on the council have a clarifying question for the chief? Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Thank you. Thank you for your report. I have several questions. First of all, in regards to if we if the city were to borrow an armored vehicle from one of those other cities that you visited, what is your estimate of what's a reasonable estimate or probable estimate in your professional opinion of how how long it would take or if we're even confident that one would arrive? Yes. Thank you for the question. In our estimation, the soonest we could get a vehicle here under ideal circumstances would be probably 20 minutes from the city of Oakland. Now, obviously, it doesn't take 20 minutes to drive from Oakland to Alameda. However, we have to consider the amount of time it takes to make the request. There is no central system for making a mutual aid request like this. We have to individually call cities and ask if the vehicle is available, not only if the vehicle's available, but do they have operators who can get in and get it going and then come to Alameda for it to be used. So we believe that the under, again, ideal circumstances are about 20 minutes. And then, of course, you know, from these other cities and Bay Area traffic being what it is, the number only grows from there. Has the city of Alameda borrowed one of these armored vehicles from another city? I am going to defer to Captain Emmett or Lieutenant Claus that they have institutional knowledge on that. Yes. So. First of all, can everyone hear me okay? I've been having. Yeah, it's. It's good, Captain. So, yes, we have borrowed them in the past. Prior to happening to our own, those were. Preplanned events where. We had ample time to reach out to local agencies to ask for their assistance. So does that mean then that the city of Alameda has not borrowed one on an emergency basis? Correct? Well, at least during my time, we have not had to make an emergency request to ask an outside agency for assistance with an armored vehicle. They've all been preplanned events. All right. Thank you. Captain Emmitt, what is it? What is a pre-planned event mean? All right. So what were they? Sure. So a pre-planned event would be a police incident that we have, you know, maybe five, six or 14 days to plan and prepare for, which most of the time those would end up being what we would consider a high risk. Search warrant, high risk arrest warrant. Something where we have more control over. Dictating when we can actually serve the and handle the incident. Thank you. Councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you. Attached to their were as a council member, a correspondence, if you will. The mayor submitted a policy from Berkeley City in regards to their policy for their armored vehicle. And I'm wondering, in our staff's professional opinion, what they think of that policy compared to the city's policy. And also, in regards to the alternative one, it's offered in the agenda item. I have reviewed. I was going to say we would probably want to first establish that they've had an opportunity to review that she found. I think you have. Yes, go ahead. You can. I'm sorry. Them. Yes. I have reviewed the policy as have key staff here. And we do believe it's consistent with how we have used our vehicle. And we would have no problem with expanding our policy to cover the items that are within the Berkeley policy and have that in force here in Alameda. Thank you. Thank you. Any further clarifying questions, counsel? Okay. I'm not seeing any. So, Madam Clerk, let's take our public speakers, please. Okay. Currently we have four, so they do get 3 minutes. The first is Zack Bowling. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Bowling. I either cancel. I just sent you guys an email, so I'll keep it brief. In 20 or June 2020, we ask staff to start investigating the cell. And so I was a little surprised to see this item come up that nine months later we're still talking about it. When I originally read this agenda item, I was a little surprised. It it listed just 30 times that it was used with case numbers and it made kind of a good case for why we should keep it and why the investment was worth it. But it wasn't until later the agenda item is updated and it listed the at the actual uses of it. 27 of those times were for mutual aid. They weren't even in Alameda and it's only been used three times in eight years in Alameda. And it seems like two of those times were just as a loudspeaker. So really only once for. The tactical purpose of of the the. Tanker, the bad or whatever you want to call it. So it seems like the other cities are making far more use of it than we are. I didn't want to say that this item is brought forward, was intentionally trying to be deceptive, but it kind of read that way a little bit with the later update to it that it wasn't very open about the fact that it wasn't used here, and that kind of caught me off guard. It's also interesting to discover that this vehicle was also Berkeley had denied their city from buying one of the or their department from buying one of these in 2012. Instead, they because they didn't want to militarize their police at the time, but instead, in 2016, they bought them instead a bulletproof van, which offered all the defensive capabilities without the offensive platform that the bat has. And I kind of agree with that sentiment, and I will just leave it at that. Thank you, Counsel. Thank you, Mr. BOLLING. Our next speaker. Janice Anderson. Good evening, Ms.. Anderson. Hello. Good evening. It's clear why some of this information wasn't. Originally included in API's presentation. As Zack mentioned, it details 33 uses, but only three in Alameda. In our eight years of ownership. Those uses were all for protection or cover instances where it wasn't known if a suspect had a gun or ended without incident. None of these were an active shooter situation, and I'm sure HPD would categorize these as successful uses of the armored vehicle. And they even tonight called it a method of de-escalation. But I personally do not see how arriving with an armored vehicle can be considered de-escalation. Do we have witness accounts of what it's like to have this thing roll into your neighborhood to serve a warrant? I'd also like to note that the records. APD provided don't even match with one another. Two incidents from 2016 are missing from the more detailed report. It would be nice to know what those actions were and where they took place. Was it for a protest? Eviction? We don't now. What is clear is this vehicle has been overwhelmingly used in other cities. In their presentation, there was mention of tactical medics and APD documents and I. Wonder what training those medics undergo and what that costs the city to maintain their certification. And if we have medics training to respond. To actively dangerous situations, we should definitely have medics trained to and able to respond to mental health situations as a police reform recommendations outline. One of these situations is much more common than the other. The only way I can advocate keeping. This vehicle is if it was transitioned to be used in. That manner. Lastly, I know some in our community will use recent events. Such as the. Shooting in Boulder as an example of why we. Should have this vehicle on constant standby. It should be noted that their SWAT team didn't. Arrive with. An armored vehicle for 17 minutes, 10 minutes after an officer had already been killed. Colorado has some of the most militarized departments because of their frequent mass shootings and open carry laws. And even that didn't prevent what happened that day. You would think with all of this possible danger, more cops. Would be advocating for better gun control instead. We spend most of our budget on increasing their power. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Our next speaker Michael as. Good evening, Mr.. Of this one. Can you hear me? Yeah, just fine. Welcome. Thank you. 31 years ago in 31 years ago today and basically September, nearly every available officer was called in to work the shooting at Henry's Pub. I was a Berkeley police reserve officer then, and my assignment was to monitor communications in the mobile command center. The shooter had already killed one victim and was holed up in the bar with 33 other hostages. One of our sergeants was at the hospital with a head wound. I felt there was never a more dedicated and concerned group of uniformed men and women working hard to save those lives at the risk of their own. The seven hour effort to peacefully end the siege failed. The shooter was killed and the hostages freed. The following decades of law enforcement tactics had to adjust to the lessons learned from several mass shootings. Don't wait for overwhelming force before acting, immediately engage the shooter and prevent the wanton shooting of more innocent victims. Timing is everything. This means that if there was a report of an active shooter with an assault rifle in perhaps one of our stores schools with a theater, our patrol officers would have to go and engage. What happens if they fail? And now both the police and we are trapped with the shooter? You will immediately deploy the SWAT team and the bat so that it can be used to get in close to end the shooting and rescue the living. I have seen the activity report concerning the bat. Its limited use here seemed necessary and not frivolous, but it does see more action outside of Alameda than in. And as some suggest, why don't we just sell it and call another department that has one? If we absolutely need the support? Well, first, because our own response is the fastest, which is important if you the one trapped and bleeding out or you're hiding and waiting to be shot. And second, we don't give up losing local control of how this type of equipment and tactics with it are used. Finally, taking away the one piece of equipment that provides reliable protection in the most dangerous of encounters, sending the wrong message to those who have sworn to serve and protect us with their lives. Tighten up the use policy. Hire a new chief who will conform to our community interest and keep the bear out. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Wong. Our next speaker. Ryan Fraser. Good evening, Mr. Fraser. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. On June 14, 2020, the Alameda City Council unanimously voted to sell the ballistic armored vehicle as a measure of racial equity. It was an intentional act made with knowledge of all the relevant facts and after an outpouring of public comments. But now that measure of racial equity has been tested first by the city manager who failed to sell the vehicle, then by the LAPD, who defended the vehicle's continued use. And now the matter comes to you council. Let me be clear. There is no policy that will cleanse the long gun forts or snipers step from the vehicle. So will you have the integrity to do what is right? Will you stand up for racial justice, even in the face of opposition by the police and city manager? Or will you knowingly and intentionally perpetuate the systemic racism of militarized policing against Alameda communities of color? The facts are known. APD has used vehicles three times in eight years, eight and a half years, and two of those incidents were serving warrants. That is situations where the police had time and opportunity to take a less aggressive course of action. In the third incident, the APD used the vehicle to approach the scene of a crime. But there's no evidence to suggest that APD was actually under threat. There was the possibility of a threat, but there was, in fact, no threat because the suspect had fled the scene. So on the one hand, we have a violences symbol of militarized policing and racial injustice. On the other hand, we have three uses in Alameda where the police felt unsafe but in fact did not come under fire or require the use of an armored vehicle. Symbol of injustice versus unfounded fear. To me, the choice is clear which of these competing interests should prevail? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fraser. Do we have further speakers? Madam Clerk. One more Alexia approach. Good evening, Mr. Archer. Good evening, everyone. Last summer, the council voted to sell the armored vehicle and I'm confused. Why it's still here. And further surprise to see why alameda police are able to keep their push to keep it. Why is our. City harboring a vehicle that is entirely unnecessary, a waste of taxpayer. Dollars. And it isn't even used here as intended? The incident reports are clear, though they were questionable. Upon first released, as folks have expressed. Out of 33 times. It's been used only three. Times in Alameda, three, not 33, but three. We are essentially loaning out this vehicle to other cities. And for what? If they need an armored vehicle, they should buy ours. But Alameda doesn't need this. The arguments to keep it are irrelevant at this point. Since there was already discussion and debate and a vote. Beyond that. Where was this supposedly essential vehicle. When a white man was waving a gun at peaceful protesters recently? Clearly, it's very subjectively used and it's not necessary. Despite the scare. Tactics some supporters like to implore. Please keep your word and ensure that this will be sought. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rich. And I believe we have one more speaker. Now we have two. So these next two speakers, it's now reached the seven limit and they will get 2 minutes. So the first is Laura Katrina. Good evening, Ms.. Katrina. Good evening, counsel. Madam Mayor, I'm urging you to follow through on the recommendation, unanimous recommendation from June of last year to sell the armored vehicle. Know, I think, as other callers have mentioned, it's it's a symbol and it's a promise to follow through on acts of racial justice. So I think there's a symbolic piece, but there's also the piece that is just not being. Used. Often. And as Mr. Rosa had previously mentioned, you know, we had an incident that could have ended very tragically happening over the MLK weekend when there was a peaceful protest going on. But that vehicle was nowhere to be found. And so I would implore the city to have actions speak louder than words and to follow. Through on this promise when there was so much momentum last summer instead. Of kind of bringing it up all these months later. So thank you for your time. Thank you, Miss Katrina. Next speaker. Ernie Mathews. Good evening. Mr. MATTHEWS. Former Chief MATTHEWS. You just need to end user. Chief Mathias, can you unmute? Madam Kirk. Anything you can do on your end? There we go. Here we go. How many buttons? I apologize. Yeah. I got that. Good evening. Madame Mayor. Members of the City Council. I strongly urge you not to sell, but retain the police department's aircraft tactical vehicle, which I understand is being considered put up for sale. Simply stated, the lives of officers and citizens can be saved under extraordinary situations and conditions. For example, should an officer or a citizen be shot and bleeding out during an active shooter situation, this vehicle. Is the only and safest way to attempt rescuing injured victims. Is it often used? No. However, neither are fire home insurance, fire insurance for her homes or fire trucks, for that matter. But they sure are handy when tragedy occurs. This fully this vehicle is fully paid for. Thus, the maintenance costs are minimal. This vehicle is not military surplus equipment and is not indicative of militarization of the Alameda Police Department is simply a tool to be used in violent confrontations to help maximize officer safety as well as our citizens safety. As your former chief of police, with nearly 40 years of law enforcement deportment experience, I beg you to retain this infrequently used but terribly important piece of equipment. Our officers certainly do deserve it. Thank you. Thank you, Chief MATTHEWS. And we have one more speaker. Eileen Enrich. Good evening. This hour, enrich. That evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Just fine. Yes. I would like to encourage the council to keep the vehicle. I believe that when you were first discussing, selling this crime wasn't as out of control as it currently is. We have seen a number of shootings. We have seen members of our community being held at gunpoint. I believe there were four just in the last week. We've seen what's happened in Colorado and in Georgia. Our police department needs to understand that we back them 100%. We need them to understand that we want to keep them safe. Selling this vehicle sends a message. It sends a message that we do not care about our police department. We do not care about their safety. I encourage you to keep that vehicle and send another message to our police department and to the community around us that we do care. We are having a difficult time right now recruiting people for a police department because of the message that several members of this council has sent out with the whole defund idea. Well, let's now send a new message showing our police department that we do indeed care about them. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Ana. I believe we have one more speaker f Kenny. Good evening, Miss Kenny. Good. Good evening. I just wanted to say that one of the things I read in the city staff report is that there is training involved for the operators of this vehicle. And when we had our discussions about police reform, I was repeatedly told that it was too there was not money in the budget to do training when it came to people with disabilities or other types of services that keep our community safe. And so I think. Where we do have issues with people. Experiencing. Mental health crisis is much more frequently than we do require a tank to respond. It's a matter of putting our priorities and our funding where it's best. It will be best served to serve to keep. Our entire population. Safe. So I ask that you please. Sell the vehicle, put the training and funding for maintenance. In ways that can truly, truly serve. Our entire community. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kenney. Madam Clerk, do we have any further public comments? We do not. All right, then I am going to close public comment on this item at this time, and I am going to open council discussion. And normally the mayor as mayor, I go last, but this time I'm leading the discussion and I will call on the rest of the council after this. So we've heard public speakers, we've gotten lots of correspondence from residents on this item, and we have an important decision to make this evening. As the city council, we always want to make sure that we are making well-reasoned, well-thought out, rational decisions. We don't do things for simply for symbolism. We base our decisions on facts and data. And I do want to speak to something that several speakers raised, that the staff report was modified from the first version to the next with additional information about uses. I had inquired of the city manager wanting additional information, and that additional information was incorporated into subsequent staff reports because this item was continued from the first time it was agenda ized. And so the decision before us tonight is whether the city council should direct the city manager to sell the emergency response vehicle. I want the public to know that there have been no allegations of misuse of the city of Alameda Police Department's emergency use vehicle in all the years that it has been used. We recently heard recommendations and read a very lengthy report from our Police Reform and Racial Justice subcommittees. None of them recommended selling or getting rid of the emergency response vehicle. Every other Bay Area city's police department has an emergency response vehicle, and I won't read the list of them because Chief Phan did so when he gave his staff report as as mayor of this city, I take very seriously the health and safety of our residents, of our people who work in Alameda, who come to visit. And I also pay special heed to the head of the Department of Homeland Security, who has outlined, especially since the January six insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the heightened risk of domestic terror to our cities. Do we know when and where the next incident will happen? We do not. But we can look around to incidents that have happened in other cities. Several. Several emails that we got from residents. Use the analogy of an insurance policy that you hope you never need to use it. But you're sure glad you have it when you do need to use it. And I think that's a that's an apt analogy. And one of the things that I enjoy about my job as mayor is I have a good working relationship and friendships with certainly all 14 other the other 13 mayors in Alameda County. So I reached out to my friend and fellow Mayor Jessie Aragon, who's the mayor of the city of Berkeley, a very progressive city not far from here. And I said, Jesse Gee, does Berkeley have an emergency response vehicle policy? And he said, We sure do. And I helped write it. And I said, Oh, would you share it with me? And he did. And I was very impressed with it. And I asked to have it attached to the staff report. Its attached, as Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted as a council communication. I strongly urge the Council to move forward with retaining this vehicle, but to require the implementation of a use policy just like the city of Berkeley has implemented. Because it it starts out and I won't read the whole thing to you. It's attached. I hope you've read it. But the purpose of the policy is to provide direction for the usage, the training and storage of the Berkeley Police Department Emergency Response Vehicle. And the goal is to safely resolve incidents where there exists an objective risk to the safety of civilians and our officers from person or person or persons who may be considered armed and dangerous. But the use of this vehicle will only be authorized by the Special Response Team or commander or the team leader unless exigent circumstances exist . And there's protocol for that, and it will only anyway. This policy outlines when it should be used, under what circumstances and when it shall not be used. And the. And also it. Requires a vehicle, uses usage log, which may be provided to the Council City Council on an annual basis or any time the City Council requests. There's provisions for operator training and consideration for deployment. And one of the things that I think is very important when selecting a rescue team, the supervisors should consider the special response team members, hostage negotiators, a medic or a tactical emergency medical support personnel. And there's a protocol for when it is to be used by an outside agency. Always must have an operator and someone from Berkeley Police Department to go with the vehicle and then there's storage and maintenance criteria. So I look forward to a robust conversation with the council, but I don't what I want the council to consider is what makes us different from every other Bay Area city that we should not have this tool, not for militaristic use and certainly not for the use of peaceful protest, but in the instance where lives could be saved if we had it. So with that, I will open the floor. I see. Councilmember Harry Spencer has had her hand up. Please. Thank you and I appreciate your comments, Mayor. I have additional clarifying questions after listening to the public speakers. First of all, the issue of and I was not on council when this is voted on or direction was given. Is there someone from staff that can speak to that issue in regards to there was a direction and now it's like a do over or something like that. Someone can explain that to the public. What's happening here. At City Manager? Eric I, I can begin and then captain may be able to add on because he's the one that brought it forward to me after the council, the city council was approving the budget. There was different considerations at the time, including maybe reductions in police department budget, because that was right after many protests that occurred right after Memorial Day or in early June, I guess early to mid June. And so this became a component of the motion in passing the budget. The motion was to pass budget. This was one of the direct or one of the items that was included in that budget motion. The police department. Believing that this is my interpretation. I can be corrected by the police department, believing that not all information had been talked about or considered during this because really the budget was the main focus at that time. I wanted to come back and have the council review this item by itself. The timing of the delay partially was mine and partially was others, but it had to do with timing of agenda items. But I can tell you, Captain, you can add if you would like or Mayor, as the Ashcraft, if I don't know if Captain Nemeth has anything to add to the discussion. Captain Emmett. Anything you'd like to add? If it's okay with Chief and I have a little bit that. I could add to that. Okay with you, Chief. Thumbs up. Yes, go ahead, please. So when it was initially brought to my attention in mid August when I was the acting chief, I felt that I owed it to the employees of APD to do what I could to present the other side. And that was the decision. To. To draft the council report was to explain how important we believe this piece of equipment is not only to our department, but more importantly to the citizens of Alameda, so that we are fully prepared to handle any incident as quickly as we can and as safely. As we can for everyone involved. Thank you. Councilmember Harry Spencer thank you. There was also a comment in regards to public comment in regards to 33 instances of use, 30 being mutual aid and three apparently here in the city of Alameda. Does any can someone give a professional opinion in regards to then does that have any impact on the recommendation to retain? So I'm asking about if the number of times it was used out of town is okay. Who wants to take that? Okay. Captain. Chief? Yeah. So it's like a lot of our equipment. It's very similar to the fire department. We need one another. We need the other cities. And to be able to supply them with, whether it be a K-9 that happens to be working or a motorcycle officer with training in an accident investigation or a piece of equipment such as the ERP. That exchange of equipment and personnel between the cities not only has goodwill between the communities, but as it's how we are, it's a force multiplier. It's how we're able to do some of the things we need to do, especially in an emergency situation when we may not have the adequate number of people or the right equipment . So being able to loan this vehicle out, for instance, building that goodwill and knowing that we can call on them if need be, I think is a very important part of how the mutual aid system works, not just here, but in all in all of California. And I'm thankful we don't have to use it very often within the city of Alameda, quite frankly. She fan I think my colleague may also want to know if the fact that it hasn't been used the majority of times that the vehicle was used was outside of the city. Does that in any way impact your recommendation about retaining it? It doesn't correct, councilmember. It does. It doesn't because, again, in terms of the emergency nature of being here, if we have to deploy it and it's an emergency situation, and again, being in Ireland where it's difficult to get here as it is, literally seconds will count. So our ability to deploy in a hurry, as I've mentioned before, using the metaphor of an insurance policy, especially since it's already paid for, I think is very apt. Kelly. Thank you. Okay. And then there were multiple comments in regards to racial equity being subjectively used, racial justice that it is militaristic with could anyone with a law enforcement background speak to that response? Even. Yes, I. I would absolutely not. This does not get used based on race or anything of that nature. And I know the MLK incident, MLK Day incident was brought up, and I'll be quite frank that when I was called at home because it was a holiday, I was not working. The first question I had was, did we deploy the emergency response vehicle? Sounds like the right circumstance to deploy it. And, you know, the incident had have evolved so rapidly that it was not deployed, but it absolutely was a consideration. So we do not use this vehicle based on just like any of our tactics should not be based at all on race or any other protected class, but on the need to provide public safety. Thank you. All for offer you counsel over her, Spencer. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Next step. Well. Are we ready for a motion? No one wants to say anything. Councilmember Desai I saw a councilmember. Not quite, actually. I'm going to say it. As he that I'm. Happy to wait for Councilmember Desai. I just thought, I just want to make a couple comments. Okay. Councilmember Knox. Wait. Sorry. There were if. I heard the comment that that the the police inequity committee made no comment on this vehicle. And I think the fact that the council had already unanimously given direction to sell it, it would be an odd place for them to give a recommendation to sell it. So I want to be careful that we don't put too much stock in that specific issue. And I respect the positions that that folks on our council will take tonight. I think if we're going to move forward with maintaining this, I think the compelling argument that we continue to hear is that in the case of an active shooter, that this vehicle may be the the point between life and death. And I think that we should make sure that our policy really limits this to times when there are active shooters and if there are times in which there's the possibility that active shooting could be used. I see that Berkeley has for various time tests staging offsite for quick deployment. I think that that's you know, that could be something that we're talking about. But I think that there's a reason also that this vehicle does not have the city is not painted in the city colors. And we can talk about whether or not it is an actual military vehicle or whether it's just dressed up to look like something that drives through the streets of Fallujah. At the end of the day, it is a very intimidating vehicle that does not look like any other vehicle that the city has. The city of Emeryville has has a Ford Transit vehicle that is armored. It looks like something that a parent would take to the hardware store to get some tools to help work on the deck so that over the weekend, this vehicle is designed to intimidate and scare people. And so I think we need to understand there is an impact of this vehicle as it drives through, through and into and into our communities and into other communities as well. The moms for housing were evicted from the house, their house in West Oakland. The sheriff's department brought one of these vehicles and parked it out in front to evict four moms who were just being evicted. We can't there are impacts. And so I would like to see if we're going to move forward with keeping this vehicle. I would like to see us limit it so that we are actually addressing the specific issues that people say are the concern that we have and not continuing to just loan it out for backup on pre-planned events in other cities that don't necessarily meet the the goals that I think we're hearing are our community outlines. I also just wanted to take one instance. So in at least one of the reported uses, we actually did deploy this vehicle to direct traffic for a parade and a demonstration. And so I want to be I think we need to be clear. We have used this in places where there wasn't the threat of shooting breaking out at any given moment. And I know that our former chief did talk about sending it out for protecting and for engaging in a number of the Oakland protests. And I don't see it on this list, but I do know that that was where that talking point came from, because a former chief, Larry, mentioned multiple times and that was really the only time we ever used the vehicle was when Oakland was having protests and and whatnot. Maybe we didn't. Maybe he was confused. But I did want to just reflect that. So those are my comments. I hope we can narrow the scope and meet with what I hear our community, the former police chief, etc., saying we need for this vehicle. Thank you. I thank you. Councilmember Knox White Councilmember de. Well, thank you very much. I'll be brief. I think the staff report really says it all in the executive summary. I think this sentence really says it all. And I think it's fair. It bears worth repeating. The emergency response vehicle is a critical tool to assist the police department in keeping the citizens of Alameda safe and end sentence. I think that sentence says it all. Let us hope that we never here in Alameda have a tragic situation that requires the use of such and such a tool. But but if there is a tragic situation unfolding, let us make sure to use the tool in order to safeguard our residents and our police force and anyone involved in that kind of situation. You just never know. It can happen here in Alameda, too. So so I do think we have to reconsider the June vote. I do think we have to keep. I do think we have to keep this vehicle. And I will say, though, in terms of policy, you know, in the fog of of a crisis, you just never know what's going to happen. And and the ability to act swiftly is is absolutely imperative in a fog of a crisis situation. And what I worry is having these policies that amount to basically checklists that might require our police force to wait some moments, minutes, tens of minutes, I don't know, to satisfy their review of the checklists. And I just don't think that that is how it is. You know, I like the way that the current policy reads, and I'll read the portion of the current policy that I find satisfactory. The current policy reads in the paragraph that's labeled one dot Special Response Rescue Vehicle Bat. The second sentence to that paragraph reads It's on page six of 11 reads. The vehicle is. Oh, it's a second paragraph. Permission to utilize a vehicle will come from the commander during SWAT operations or a supervisor in high risk incidents falling outside of the scope of the search operations. So we're really depending on the professional judgment of the staff to interpret what's going on in the fog of a tragic situation. And I think we need to give them that discretion to act quickly. You know what? If we send out the vehicle and we end up not having to use the vehicle? To that, I say. So what? You know, we made into an assessment that it might have been needed and hey, thank God it wasn't needed, but at least we had the vehicles to send out. So I really worry about having this checklist of, well, we got to do this. We've got to make sure is it an active shooter? I mean, you know, if you know that something is going on at Incidental High School or at Alameda High School, if, you know, it's a football game and suddenly all these people are running, scurrying about, you know, maybe someone first had a knife and next thing you know , the night fell 5 minutes later. Turns out to be a gun. You don't want to wait. So I really worry about having this kind of checklist approach. I think the way that the policy currently reads in terms of leaving it to the professional judgment of our police force and particular individuals in it, I think that's the way that we should go. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Councilmember Dysart, I'm just going to respond that I hope you'll have a chance to read the Berkeley policy. It's just three pages long, but it it's not so much a checklist, but it's it is definitely, you know, the kinds of situations criteria it's based on where there is an objective risk and that's discussed how to assess the situation. I, I think it definitely leaves the use to professionals vetted, but I do think that there needs to be a, a policy a little more spelled out policy. And we heard the acting chief say that he thought that this could easily be implemented in Alameda. Councilmember Vela, vice mayor, L.A., sorry, we haven't heard from you. Yeah, I think I mean, I share Councilmember Knox White's concerns. I think, you know. Yes, I think we voted on this. So I. I understand where there's some confusion by the public about when issues come back to council, when there were unanimous votes, and what would trigger that. But I don't think we should be so cavalier with where we deployed it, but we didn't have to use it, because I think that there are it sends a message to have this vehicle deployed in any neighborhood. I think it sends a message to to see this vehicle driving around town. We got that. I'm sure other council members got emails as well when Oakland's tactical vehicle was parked on Park Street getting coffee for a coffee run. Right. So I think we do have to be careful because there is symbolism. This is not a normal vehicle. This is not the ram van that other cities have that's armored, but that is inconspicuous. This is a very different type of vehicle. And I want to be thoughtful about that. I also think that discretion is a tricky thing. It's it's nice to have discretion. It gives people a number of different options. But it also means that there are going to be times where there could be a disagreement about whether or not the vehicle should have been deployed. And I think if this council wants to reverse course of where of what the direction was that, one of the biggest issues in our existing with is with our existing policy. It is with the fact that there is a lot of discretion there. And I think when you're deploying something that is this different, we need to curtail that the amount of discretion available. This council, it's a this council should be very clear about when it should be deployed. And we need to limit it, because I think that there's a lot I'm getting concerned because it seems like there's a bit of fearmongering going on, like there could be any incident when you go out and you're in a crowd, there could be somebody there and all of a sudden now we want to be able to deploy this vehicle. I don't think that that's the intent from the majority of the council. I'm not hearing that. I think that we want to be very critical about when it's deployed and we want to make sure that it's not being deployed for crowd control measures or intimidation of free speech. And that is something, frankly, I think we should all be concerned about because it's part of our code of conduct. We don't want to curtail free speech as a council, and I would hope that we don't want any vehicle. Or being deployed to do. To do the same. So, you know, I just I hope that that were thoughtful and that my colleagues are thoughtful, which I think will be about putting some checks on the use of this . Thank you. Thank you. Vice mayor of L.A. And I will just read to to your point, which I agree with you completely about when the vehicle should not be deployed in the Berkeley Emergency Response Vehicle policy, it says the RV shall not be deployed during nonviolent demonstrations, including for crowd control and crowd management. Absent the specific, articulable objective facts demonstrating a risk of injury or death to police officers and or the public. And so I do think that we need to limit the discretion. But I think that it was well spelled out in the Berkeley policy. I think we could agree that Berkeley City Council is certainly one of the more progressive ones around. And they, you know, they adopted this and and the mayor helped draft it. And anyway, I, I so what, what I would like to add. Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Yes. Well, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Okay, so let me finish my sentence and then we'll go to you. What I would like to propose is that well and I want to ask another question of Council member Knox White. And actually, of all of you, you mentioned that this isn't you know, it doesn't look like some of the other vehicles. It's true, Berkeley actually bought a mercedes. Their van is a pretty slick looking, high profile Mercedes. And, you know, maybe when this one comes to the end of its shelf, life will buy a mercedes, too. But you did mention councilmember in Knox White consideration that it looks rather, you know, with the camo or whatever the the paint is, it's could be intimidating. Do you want to paint it? I don't really personally want to spend a lot of time in that question. To me, I don't want to spend a lot of money on this vehicle. Further, if we're going to keep it, I would rather just keep it not not out inactive and then that the impact is reduced. Personally, if it needs to be repainted, that's great. But I don't want to spend $50,000 painting it blue. Okay, fair point. Okay. So I would like to suggest suggest a motion. Councilmember Herrera Spencer, did you want to suggest a motion? And I will. And honestly, I wasn't on council back then, so I'm happy to hear from you or someone else first. Okay. I would like to move that we retain the vehicle, but that we adopt an emergency response vehicle policy similar to or identical to the Berkeley City Council policy. Councilmember de or anyone. I would second that, but I would strip any reference to similar to Berkeley City Council, a man at the time and which we adopted. It might be it might be similar to Berkeley City Council, but. I'm sorry, I meant to say that the Berkeley Police Department policy that's attached to this. This report. Is. The same thing. I mean, I would second it, but I leave out the part about, you know, making it similar to Berkeley's. I'm not saying that Berkeley's per say upsets me. I'm just saying that, you know, I don't see any at the point in time if if city staff comes back in and it happens to be similar to Berkeley's fine great but but for as part of the motion you know I think reverse a reversing the decision is important to having some kind of policy is fine but but you know you know some people might think that the policy that we have right now is fine. Some people might think that that there should be greater detail to it. I don't know. But I'm not saying I'm not going to buy off on city Berkeley's right now. Okay. I am going to need to ask for a motion to extend my speaking time. I would ask for 2 minutes. 3 minutes at most. I guess that would go for everybody. Yeah, I would. Okay. I'll move it for everybody. Okay. 3 minutes for everyone. Two or 3 minutes. 2 minutes. 2 minutes. Okay. We have a motion. A second. It's not. Our second. We have a roll call vote, please. No invitation for Spencer. No. Not quite so, Bella. No mayor as Ashcroft. I have 2 to 3. I'll make a motion to give the mayor 2 minutes. I think that's what he just. I just. Did. I thought it was for everybody. Oh, you're saying just the mayor because I ran out of time. Okay, second. Time. Thank you. Roll call. Vote, please. It's never daytime. That's fine. Yeah. First answer. No. All right. But the. High. Mayor is the Ashcroft. High. That carries for tomorrow. Okay. Thank you. Okay, I. I want a policy the same or similar to the current Berkeley Police Department policy, but I'm not hearing a second for that. So would someone else like to make a motion? Councilor Brady I'd. Like to move that. We reverse our decision of June two, 2020 regarding selling of the armored vehicle. Okay. So a second. On Second Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconds. Any further declines I'd like to speak to if I just want to say that second so I can continue talking and I have plenty of time. So yeah. So discussion. Go ahead. Thank you. I do want to come back to the paint issue and intimidation issue of the vehicle. I agree with the public and members of the council that have expressed concerns in regards to that. And I did request pictures and I don't know if it's possible to ask staff to put up some of the pictures of the vehicle next to the other city vehicles. I can't put them up. It'll just take me a minute. I've just got to get them ready to go. So while I'm waiting for that real quickly, I just want to say so I do think that's an issue. The vehicle, when I tried to figure out the dimensions compared to other vehicles that the city owns, it's actually, I think, smaller than some of the fire department vehicles. I think the paint the green has and I'm happy to actually, I should ask. I'm sorry. Let me ask one of our law enforcement people here. Why is it that color? Why hasn't it been painted? Are you all agreeable to painting it? What suggestion do you have in regards to addressing that issue? The issue of it actually doesn't appear to match any of our vehicles. If you had your hand up. Thank you. I am happy to direct the painting of this vehicle. I don't think it needs to be green. I don't think the color from our standpoint is is important. And I understand the concerns of the community. Thank you. And I appreciate the clerk showing the pictures. Councilor Fraser. Thank you. Just quickly after this motion off, come up with a follow up motion about coming back with policies. Okay. But it's separate. Okay. So right now, your motion is simply to reverse the decision to sell with no conditions. Mm hmm. Okay. Maybe n no further discussion. CNN. May we have a roll call vote, please? Seven days ago. I. Have a. I knocked right over. Well, I know, Mayor, as the Ashcraft know, that motion fails. 2 to 3. Okay. Excuse me while I pick up a dropped cell phone. Councilmember decided you have another motion? No. It was based upon the first motion passing. Okay. Anyone else want to try a motion? Councilmember Harry Spencer. So I would like to propose and this would be my motion then that we do. Retain the vehicle but that in regards to and keep the current policy. Temporarily until a staff comes back with its recommendations in regards to looking at both Berkeley policy, our policy, and then a proposal that we can focus on that issue alone separate from whether or not we're going to retain. I'll cancel every day, so I'll second that. Okay. Hi, madam. Claire. Could you read the motion back? I'm not sure I understand it completely. It's to retain the vehicle and keep the current policy. And so staff comes back looking at Alameda and Berkeley's policy to decide at that time if the vehicle will be retained. Councilmember. I think you're shaking your head. And I appreciate you having to read it back, because what I meant to say, and I think I said, was that at that time, we can all focus in on the policy, because at this point, honestly, I haven't had the opportunity to, with a fine tooth comb to go remember Mayor Ashcroft's proposal and then De Sox and then finally to hear from our chief announced, you think our public at this point hasn't really zoned in as much as I'd like on the policy? So that time then I and honestly, just as we're doing now, I think at any time council can decide to reverse the decision and not to retain it. But I would like to dispense with this and then come back separately and look at the policies. And that can be other cities too. And other council members can come up with proposals, and so can community members of different policies that other places have. And then we can have that discussion focusing on the policy. Second. Oh, Councilman, outside. Did you have your hand up? Yeah, just quickly. So I can't support this because we have enough council, unanimous council direction for policies to come back that have been sitting out for up to 18 months. And to me, this is a recipe for basically never seeing the policy again. So I think, you know, we've had nine months. I'm not quite sure why we didn't actually, if there was the idea that we were going to have a policy, you know, propose some policies for doing this, why they're not before us tonight. But quite honestly, I think we've had nine months to think about this. And tonight, if we're going to approve, if we're going to reverse the council's last June direction, then I think we should give clarity as to what our intentions are, even if it is to give guidance for what the policy should come back with and a date for when that policy should return. So Councilmember Herrera Spence, are you. Okay in that respect? And an attorney may need to weigh in. There have been a motion that I have voted against and I supported from the mayor. And what I'm hearing now is that we can staff can come back if I'm if I'm hearing from member knocks correctly. I don't think. The staff can come back with that proposal and then at that time we can pencil out or whatever and as a community. But then but you want at least something currently. And so if I'm understanding then yes. And I would make a motion that we. Amend your motion. Sorry. Thank you for the amendment of my motion of amendment. That's what I think is proposing. And then what Mayor Ashcraft has already suggested of starting the next starting point, and that would be workplace policy, but that we retain the vehicle, come back and then we're nice. You feel free to help me on this whenever you want. That I think is I think you're asking that we use the Berkeley policy. You want something in place currently and then it will come back. But so we would not be keeping the city's current policy in place. But when it comes back, then we can have a discussion if we wanted to make any changes. And I think perhaps a date certain for it to come back, which would be. I would say council member Herb Spencer actually came up with something even cleaner, which is just Dr. Berkeley's policy tonight. And if there are changes that going to be made, it can come back. I. How does that sound? Councilmember Her answer is that. My preference would be to have it come back in a couple of meetings or something. So honestly, at that point, the public and all of us can focus more clearly on what's in workdays. So I would prefer. So yeah. So I think what maybe is the best of both worlds for the two of you is to move forward with training the vehicle, adopting the Berkeley policy. But having this the policy come back in, I don't know, a month or whatever for further review and any. Modifications or refinements. Yes. So that could be my emotion. Is it? Yes. All right. And Councilmember decide, do you still second that? I don't agree with the phrase adopting the Berkeley policy. I. It's what it is. Okay. It's policy. 706 Berkeley Police Department. I'm hearing all my council members. There are not three votes to keep the current policy in place from based on that motion failing. So I'm saying, you know, I'm trying to accommodate all the comments I'm hearing. Right. Okay. So if conservative side doesn't want to second, let's see, what's anybody wanting to do? I have one of the accounts, but redux. I'll get changes made. But if one of the city attorneys want to chime in, councilmember talks let you go ahead. And so I would be willing to second the motion if we could add direction to come back with some form of active shooter. But I don't think we have three votes. It doesn't sound like we have three votes for the Berkeley four for Berkeley tonight. But some sort of focusing in on the active shooter aspect of this. I think to me, we've heard from our community. That is what everybody is concerned about. Well, I'd like to have that more and more. I don't see that Berkeley's I don't think Berkeley's policy really changes how we've been using this vehicle very much. A little bit. We won't be doing warrior sprints with Newmark, but they have to win again for that to happen anyway. Okay. So but the reference to the Berkeley policy still remains correct. And you want to make sure that they're back. I would like them to come back with some proposed language for for for narrowing down to active shooter. With with specific reference adding specific reference to active shooter incident. We can adopt or not adopt that at that time, but I would like it at least available for discussion. Okay. Councilmember Herrera Spencer. So Councilwoman, actually, first we have to make sure that the maker of the motion agrees to that further modification. And I just want clarification that that would be in addition to the proposed language of Berkeley police policy. 706. Yeah, I mean, it might, it might modify it when it comes back, but that would be for discussion at that time, not tonight. Okay. So I'm I am agreeable to accepting that friendly amendment. Okay. And then Councilman outside, will you second? I will. I will also point out I saw chief friends. Oh, I'm so sorry. Thank you. You're. He's my utilized to defend. I would just like to submit from a staff perspective. I have looked at it again with my staff, the Berkeley policy, and we are very comfortable with this being the policy of the Alameda Police Department. There's a couple of references to things that are specific to where they store the vehicle that obviously doesn't fly to us, but everything else. We want stored historically. So other than that, where we are, we are fine with it as it is written. Okay. And then, of course, with the additional information from Councilman Knox White and I saw Councilmember de SACS hands out and I saw Councilmember Harry Spencer's hand go up. So council would decide first. Well, I think it's important that if the police chief the acting police chief feels that he, in his professional judgment, is satisfied with the Berkeley police policy, you know, I'm not going to second guess the professionals. I mean, he's going to put the life of his men and women on the line. My only my biggest concern, frankly, it boils down to this. I think in a time of of grave crisis, you know, I don't want the police force bogged down in some kind of process questions when they need to get out the vehicle. But if if the if the police force is satisfied that the that the Berkeley policy, if adopted here in Alameda, isn't going to do that, then I'm not going to second guess that the men and women who are going to put their life on the line for us. Thank you. Councilmember Garza, Councilmember Harry Spencer. And I just want to clarify that I accepted the friendly amendments. But part of it, why would you want it to come back is to give the public an opportunity to look at other policies and say and there could be other language out there that the public wants to suggest. I want to make sure they have that opportunity. Thank you. Okay. See no further handset. Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call vote, please. From member station. I. Have Spencer Knox. Right, fella? No. And who seconded? Mayor as the Ashcraft High that carries 3 to 2. All right. Thank you, everyone. And thank you. Members of the police department, city staff, city attorney's office who were here for this item council. We're going to take a ten minute break and then we're going to come back and start in on our council referrals. So I'll see you at 655, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. These people. No. To. Well. What? Let's. It. It's. Oh. Okay, everybody, I see that it is. Excuse me. 655 Oh, we've got to do those captions again. Okay. So let's see who we've got. We've got Vice Mayor Vella Knox. Right. There's a we got a full house. City manager, city attorney. Laura, are you ready to go as your crew? Larry, your muted. We are ready. Okay, if you're ready, we're ready. Everybody. Yes. All right, let's do it. Okay. Welcome back, everyone. We have just finished our regular agenda item and now we are moving to item seven, which is City Manager Communications, Mr. Leavitt.