March 24, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
CONTRACT: SCI CONSULTING GROUP FOR ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WHEREAS, Public Works requires on-call professional services for the implementation of its capital improvement programs; and
WHEREAS, initial funding is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Measure BB – Local Streets and Roads Fund (134), Measure BB - Bike and Pedestrian Fund (135), State Capital Grants Fund (306), Sanitary Sewer Operations Fund (611) and Clean Stormwater Fund (616), and additional funding for FY 2026 and funding for FY 2027 and FY 2028 of this contract will be identified and requested for appropriation as projects arise; and
WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City issued a Request For Qualifications for Multi- Disciplinary On-Call Professional Services (Spec 26-11761-C) soliciting proposals from qualified firms; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2025, forty-nine Statements of Qualifications were received from firms specializing in a variety of professional services necessary to implement municipal civil engineering projects, including transportation planning; transportation engineering; traffic engineering; land surveying; pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drain, sidewalk, creek restoration, and green infrastructure engineering design; assessment engineering; geographic information systems (GIS) consultation; and geotechnical engineering and materials testing; and
WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and determined SCI Consulting Group is highly qualified to provide assessment district services.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with SCI Consulting Group for on-call professional services for a total contract period of three years in an amount not to exceed $500,000. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
March 24, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
CONTRACT: SWINERTON MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING FOR ON-CALL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, Public Works requires on-call professional services for the implementation of its capital improvement programs; and
WHEREAS, initial funding is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Measure BB – Local Streets and Roads Fund (134), Measure BB - Bike and Pedestrian Fund (135), State Capital Grants Fund (306), Sanitary Sewer Operations Fund (611) and Clean Stormwater Fund (616), and additional funding for FY 2026 and funding for FY 2027 and FY 2028 of this contract will be identified and requested for appropriation as projects arise; and
WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City issued a Request For Qualifications for Multi- Disciplinary On-Call Professional Services (Spec 26-11761-C) soliciting proposals from qualified firms; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2025, forty-nine Statements of Qualifications were received from firms specializing in a variety of professional services necessary to implement municipal civil engineering projects, including transportation planning; transportation engineering; traffic engineering; land surveying; pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drain, sidewalk, creek restoration, and green infrastructure engineering design; assessment engineering; geographic information systems consultation; and geotechnical engineering and materials testing; and
WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and determined Swinerton Management & Consulting is highly qualified to provide construction management services.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Swinerton Management & Consulting for on-call professional services for a total contract period of three years in an amount not to exceed $2,250,000. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
March 24, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
CONTRACT: TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS FOR ON-CALL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, Public Works requires on-call professional services for the implementation of its capital improvement programs; and
WHEREAS, initial funding is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Measure BB – Local Streets and Roads Fund (134), Measure BB - Bike and Pedestrian Fund (135), State Capital Grants Fund (306), Sanitary Sewer Operations Fund (611) and Clean Stormwater Fund (616), and additional funding for FY 2026 and funding for FY 2027 and FY 2028 of this contract will be identified and requested for appropriation as projects arise; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City issued a Request For Qualifications for Multi- Disciplinary On-Call Professional Services (Spec 26-11761-C) soliciting proposals from qualified firms; and
WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2025, forty-nine Statements of Qualifications were received from firms specializing in a variety of professional services necessary to implement municipal civil engineering projects, including transportation planning; transportation engineering; traffic engineering; land surveying; pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drain, sidewalk, creek restoration, and green infrastructure engineering design; assessment engineering; geographic information systems consultation; and geotechnical engineering and materials testing; and
WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and determined TJKM Transportation Consultants is highly qualified to provide traffic engineering services.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with TJKM Transportation Consultants for on-call professional services for a total contract period of three years in an amount not to exceed $750,000. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
March 24, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
CONTRACT: TOOLE DESIGN ENGINEERING FOR ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
WHEREAS, Public Works requires on-call professional services for the implementation of its capital improvement programs; and
WHEREAS, initial funding is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Measure BB – Local Streets and Roads Fund (134), Measure BB - Bike and Pedestrian Fund (135), State Capital Grants Fund (306), Sanitary Sewer Operations Fund (611) and Clean Stormwater Fund (616), and additional funding for FY 2026 and funding for FY 2027 and FY 2028 of this contract will be identified and requested for appropriation as projects arise; and
WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City issued a Request For Qualifications for Multi- Disciplinary On-Call Professional Services (Spec 26-11761-C) soliciting proposals from qualified firms; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2025, forty-nine Statements of Qualifications were received from firms specializing in a variety of professional services necessary to implement municipal civil engineering projects, including transportation planning; transportation engineering; traffic engineering; land surveying; pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drain, sidewalk, creek restoration, and green infrastructure engineering design; assessment engineering; geographic information systems consultation; and geotechnical engineering and materials testing; and
WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and determined Toole Design Engineering is highly qualified to provide transportation planning services.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Toole Design Engineering for on-call professional services for a total contract period of three years in an amount not to exceed $500,000. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
March 24, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
CONTRACT: WOOD RODGERS, INC. FOR ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WHEREAS, Public Works requires on-call professional services for the implementation of its capital improvement programs; and
WHEREAS, initial funding is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Measure BB – Local Streets and Roads Fund (134), Measure BB - Bike and Pedestrian Fund (135), State Capital Grants Fund (306), Sanitary Sewer Operations Fund (611) and Clean Stormwater Fund (616), and additional funding for FY 2026 and funding for FY 2027 and FY 2028 of this contract will be identified and requested for appropriation as projects arise; and
WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City issued a Request For Qualifications for Multi- Disciplinary On-Call Professional Services (Spec 26-11761-C) soliciting proposals from qualified firms; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2025, forty-nine Statements of Qualifications were received from firms specializing in a variety of professional services necessary to implement municipal civil engineering projects, including transportation planning; transportation engineering; traffic engineering; land surveying; pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drain, sidewalk, creek restoration, and green infrastructure engineering design; assessment engineering; geographic information systems consultation; and geotechnical engineering and materials testing; and
WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and determined Wood Rodgers, Inc., is highly qualified to provide storm drainage engineering services.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Wood Rodgers, Inc. for on-call professional services for a total contract period of three years in an amount not to exceed $500,000. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
March 24, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
CONTRACT: WEST YOST FOR ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, Public Works requires on-call professional services for the implementation of its capital improvement programs; and
WHEREAS, initial funding is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Measure BB – Local Streets and Roads Fund (134), Measure BB - Bike and Pedestrian Fund (135), State Capital Grants Fund (306), Sanitary Sewer Operations Fund (611) and Clean Stormwater Fund (616), and additional funding for FY 2026 and funding for FY 2027 and FY 2028 of this contract will be identified and requested for appropriation as projects arise; and
WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City issued a Request For Qualifications for Multi- Disciplinary On-Call Professional Services (Spec 26-11761-C) soliciting proposals from qualified firms; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2025, forty-nine Statements of Qualifications were received from firms specializing in a variety of professional services necessary to implement municipal civil engineering projects, including transportation planning; transportation engineering; traffic engineering; land surveying; pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drain, sidewalk, creek restoration, and green infrastructure engineering design; assessment engineering; geographic information systems consultation; and geotechnical engineering and materials testing; and
WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and determined West Yost is highly qualified to provide sanitary sewer engineering services.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with West Yost for on-call professional services for a total contract period of three years in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
Mental Health Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/
CONSENT CALENDAR
March 24, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Mental Health Commission
Submitted by: Ajay Krishnan, Chairperson, Mental Health Commission Subject: Reappointment of Edward Opton to the Mental Health Commission
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the re-appointment of Edward Opton as a representative of the general public interest category, for his second term ending January 21, 2026, and to start his third term beginning March 25, 2026, to March 24, 2029.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Mental Health Commission is authorized to be composed of thirteen members.
However, there are presently five vacancies on the Commission. These vacancies impair the Commission’s ability to adequately review and evaluate the community’s mental health needs, resources, and programs.
Approval of the recommended action will keep one position filled and allow the Commission to move one step closer to having a full complement of commissioners to review and evaluate the community’s mental health needs, resources, and programs.
BACKGROUND
California state law requires that appointments to the Mental Health Commission meet specific categories, who may serve up to nine years consecutively. The general public interest category may include anyone who has an interest in and some knowledge of mental health services. The special public interest category includes direct consumers of public mental health services and family members of consumers, which together must constitute at least fifty percent, or seven seats, of all the commission seats. Direct consumers and family members shall each constitute at least 20% of the commission membership.
The Mental Health Commission recommends Edward Opton for the General Public Interest seat. Mr. Opton is a retired attorney and has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology and has volunteered at the National Center for Youth Law to improve mental health
Reappointment of Edward Opton to the Mental Health Commission CONSENT CALENDAR March 24, 2026
treatment for children in foster care. Mr. Opton has also been active in the community working on numerous issues that affect the community.
Mr. Opton has served on the Mental Health Commission for 6 years. One of his focuses has been people living with mental illness and substance use issues and disorders and the intersection with law enforcement, the criminal legal system, and incarceration systems in Berkeley and Alameda County, as well as non-police crisis response to serving people in crisis in the community. In addition, he has focused on diversion of people with mental illness and substance use issues and disorders away from policing and further avoiding involuntary commitment and transfer to the county psychiatric hospital or criminal legal involvement and incarceration at the county jail.
On January 22, 2026, the Mental Health Commission passed the following motion:
Discussion and Vote to re-appoint Commissioner Edward Opton for his 3rd term.
M/S/C (Sol, Teague) Move that we vote Commissioner Edward Opton to the be re- appointed for a 3rd term
PASSED
Ayes: Fontana-Narell, Hunt, Krishnan, Sol, Teague, Tregub, Turner Noes: None; Abstentions: None; Absent: Gu
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the recommended action will allow the Mental Health Commission to move one step closer to having a full and complement of commissioners to review and evaluate the community’s mental health needs, resources, and programs.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.
CITY MANAGER
The City Manager concurs with the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report.
CONTACT PERSON
Jamie Works-Wright, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-7721 Attachments:
1: Resolution
Internal
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
RE-APPOINTMENT OF EDWARD OPTON TO THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION WHEREAS, membership of the Mental Health Commission is composed of thirteen appointments by the City Council as a whole, including one appointment by the mayor (or designee), six special public interest appointments, and four general public interest appointments; and
WHEREAS, with the incoming implementation of the Behavioral Health Services Act, the City of Berkeley will need to have a full complement of diverse appointees to the Commission to review and evaluate the community’s mental health needs, resources, and programs and to fulfill its mandate; and
WHEREAS, the Mental Health Commission, at its January 22, 2026, meeting recommended the re-appointment of Edward Opton to the Mental Health Commission.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council re-appoint Edward Opton as a representative of the general public interest category, for his 2 nd term ending January 21, 2026, and his third term beginning March 25, 2026, ending March 24, 2029.
Peace and Justice Commission
CONSENT CALENDAR
March 24, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Peace and Justice Commission
Submitted by: Reverend Dwayne Phillips, Chairperson, Peace and Justice Commission Subject: Develop an educational event for the Berkeley Community to increase awareness of impacts of the Alien Enemies Act
RECOMMENDATION
Consistent with the City of Berkeley's stance as a sanctuary city for immigrants safeguarding their due process rights, the Peace and Justice Commission recommends that given that during the third invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (the Act has only been invoked three times prior to this year, during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II), Japanese residents of the Berkeley community, survivors and their ancestors, were harmed by the invocation of the act during World War II in which persons of Japanese, Italian and German ancestry, primarily in coastal areas but also in Berkeley, and were transported and interned in U.S. camps, including in California, that Council refer to the City Manager to refer to the appropriate department or division to develop an educational event, whether a panel of speakers, a film, a play or some combination of these, for the Berkeley community so that the broader community can be made aware of the impact of the Alien Enemies Act and its impact on Berkeley community members during World War II. Such event shall be free of charge and well- promoted.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The fiscal impacts are minimal but would require the cost of a venue, staff time and materials for promotion.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On March 15, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) without evidence that those migrants he directed be sent to a Salvadoran prison were in fact, members of TdA. In addition, the analysis conducted by the American Immigration Council and the Freedom of Press Foundation shows that the National Intelligence Council indicated that most of the 18 agencies within the intelligence community did not show the necessary nexus between Tren de Agua and the Venezuelan government sufficient to support that the AEA was applicable.
Increase awareness of impacts of the Alien Enemies Act CONSENT CALENDAR March 24, 2026
This proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act is the first time that the AEA has been invoked since 1941 during World War II when the United States, and other nations, were at war with Hitler. The previous times the AEA was invoked were in the War of 1812 and World War I.
On May 5, 2025, the Peace and Justice Commission heard from a panel of primarily, Berkeley residents who were survivors and descendants of persons detained and incarcerated at Japanese internment camps who detailed the impact of the internment camps on their and their families lives.
Federal legislation to repeal the AEA, titled the Neighbors Not Enemies Act, is pending in Congress where it has been sitting in the Judiciary Committee for over 2 years.
BACKGROUND
On June 9, 2025, the Peace and Justice Commission passed the motion:
M/S/C Pitskar Elias/Marasovic with the amendment from Commissioner Pitskar Elias that Alternate Recommendation on Alien Enemies Act and Impact on Berkeley JapaneseAmerican Community During World War II remove references to community- wide education: “The Peace and Justice Commission further recommends that given that during the third invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (the Act has only been invoked three times prior to this year, during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II), Japanese residents of the Berkeley community, survivors and their ancestors, were harmed by the invocation of the act during World War II in which persons of Japanese, Italian and German ancestry, primarily in coastal areas but also in Berkeley, were transported and interned in U.S. camps, including in California, that Council refer to the City Manager to refer to the appropriate department or division to develop an educational event, whether a panel of speakers, a film, a play or some combination of these, for the Berkeley community so that the community can be made aware of the impact of the Alien Enemies Act and its impact on Berkeley community members during World War II. Such event shall be free of charge and well-promoted.” “That is achieved through community education.”
Ayes: Cassidy, Yasavul, Weisberg, Marasovic, Fink, Pitskar Elias, Lee, Morizawa, Gaith, Mascarenhas-Swan
Noes: Phillips
Abstention: McNeill
Leave of absence: Mencher, Park, Taylor
Absent: None
Increase awareness of impacts of the Alien Enemies Act CONSENT CALENDAR March 24, 2026
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None identified.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City of Berkeley Council has reaffirmed its status as a sanctuary city for undocumented immigrants and refugees repeatedly, most recently in January 2025 and previously in 1985, 2017, 2019 and 2020.
Recently, the Trump Administration compiled a list of sanctuary cities and counties, including Berkeley, who are about to be issued a letter demanding that they come into full compliance with federal immigration laws or lose all federal funding.
Due process rights, notice and an opportunity to be heard, are at the core of our nation's fundamental rights. The Trump administration invocation of the AEA is mired in an uninformed, capricious rationale based on ancestry, race, physical appearance, and prejudices rather than facts or even a legally accurate nexus to the country of origin.
As a sanctuary city, Berkeley should protect all its residents, workers and users of services in coordination with State, County and other local jurisdictions. To do so, we must remain fully informed and prepared to defend on behalf of our City and its residents, workers and users of services.
History that does not continue to be taught is forgotten. The harmful deportations and detentions of the past that seriously disrupted and damaged Japanese-American's person's lives including those in our own community should never be forgotten. That is achieved through community education.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Another Commission recommendation was considered which would have requested that Council denounce the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798; endorse the proposed Neighbors not Enemies Act which repeals the Alien Enemies Act (invoked 3 times previously during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II); and send a copy of a resolution denouncing their actions to President Trump, Vice-President J.D.
Vance and Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense. That recommendation did not pass.
CITY MANAGER
Due to vacancies and financial constraints, the City Manager’s Office does not have the resources to implement the event requested by the Peace and Justice Commission. For this reason, the City Manager recommends that the City Council refer this item to the budget process. The resources needed for the event will vary depending on the format and staff estimate that approximately $5,000 to $10,000 would be needed to host such an event, in addition to staff time. This could cover costs such as securing a venue, refreshments, and speaker fees.
Increase awareness of impacts of the Alien Enemies Act CONSENT CALENDAR March 24, 2026
CONTACT PERSON
Tasha Tervalon, Assistant to the City Manager, Commission Secretary, City Manager’s Office, 510-981-5347
Peace and Justice Commission
CONSENT CALENDAR
March 24, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Peace and Justice Commission
Submitted by: Reverend Dwayne Phillips, Chairperson, Peace and Justice Commission Subject: Re-affirm City of Berkeley Commitment to Free Speech
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt this recommendation re-affirming the City of Berkeley’s commitment to Free Speech and Assembly and its opposition to the detainment and deportation of immigrants without due process, violating their constitutionally protected speech.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Minimal.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Since the beginning of his second administration, President Trump has begun a systematic dismantling of due process rights that threaten the safety of both American citizens and those legally in the United States.
BACKGROUND
On March 8th, Federal Immigration officers dressed in plain clothes illegally detained Mahmoud Khalil, a legal green card holder married to an American citizen, and former Columbia University student, sending him to an ICE detention facility in Louisiana without charge. He faces deportation for his political activism.
The following week, Badar Khan Suri, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University married to an American citizen, was detained and his visa revoked by ICE in retaliation for his wife’s political activism. He similarly has not been charged with a crime and is slated for deportation.
In late March, Rumeya Ozturk, a Tufts Ph.D. student, was also detained by plain clothes ICE agents over an op-ed article she wrote for her school newspaper objecting to the University’s response to the war in Gaza in early 2024. She has not been charged with a crime and slated for deportation.
State Department Secretary Marco Rubio recently said he had revoked “300 visas” on similar grounds, having used AI and other surveillance technologies to identify students who took part in protests.
Re-affirm Commitment to Free Speech CONSENT CALENDAR
March 24, 2026
In 2024, UC Berkeley was the site of numerous peaceful demonstrations that included both domestic and international students. The Trump administration’s current posture of detaining and deporting without charge students who are in the country legally on the basis of their constitutionally protected right to free speech and assembly threatens the fabric of the Berkeley community. It has created a culture of extreme fear reminiscent of the McCarthy era when countless individuals were targeted without evidence over speculation around their political beliefs.
While the Trump administration has said that these detentions are a part of a wider effort to combat antisemitism on college campuses, 100 Jewish faculty from UC Berkeley signed a letter in March and called on all members of the community to denounce the practice1.
Student activists are far from the only population being targeted. The Trump administration is also targeting people for a wide range of non-criminal behavior including union organizing. There have even been instances of green card holders being detained at their routine immigration check-ins. As a part of their crack-down, there have already been a number of erroneous detentions and deportations, including of Kilmar Abrego Garcia who was deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison due to “an administrative error” despite having been granted protection from deportation. Jeanette Vizguera, an immigrant rights activist, was detained by ICE at work, again without charge. Julio Noriego, an American Citizen, was also detained in an ICE sweep.
At least six UC Berkeley students have had their visas revoked as a part of the Trump administration’s sweeps.
On March 25th, 2025, Alfredo Juarez, a community activist and Farm Worker, was driving his wife to work when he was randomly stopped by ICE Agents. When he attempted to get his ID, after being asked for it, ICE Agents smashed his window and detained him. He currently faces no charges, but is detained in the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma.
Lewelyn Dixon, a Green Card holder who has lived in the US for 50 years was returning from an international trip and was detained while going through customs to come home.
She was detained because of an embezzlement charge that was resolved 20 years ago. She has travelled internationally many times, but this time when she tried to come home she was detained, and is being held at the Northwest ICE Processing Center.
The Trump Administration has promised that this is just the beginning of their detention and deportation plan.
1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w6bTVUMmUvW_HQZ-1T7vZc82spx25k0b/view
Re-affirm Commitment to Free Speech CONSENT CALENDAR
March 24, 2026
The First Amendment's position at the top of the Bill of Rights enshrines it as one of the most important protections anyone residing in the United States –citizen or non-citizen – is entitled to. Erosion of this protection for any reason is a threat to one of American democracy’s central pillars. This erosion moves us dangerously close to an autocratic state that threatens everyone regardless of political creed or citizenship status.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Berkeley’s history as the epicenter of the 1960s Free Speech movement is a core part of our City’s identity. It is morally right for us to stand up and oppose practices that threaten all of us.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The commission considered not commenting on the rise of disappearances and visa/green card revocations.
The commission considered taking no stance against the egregious violations of our constitutional protections, including in Berkeley.
CITY MANAGER
The City Manager takes no position on the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report.
CONTACT PERSON
Tasha Tervalon, Assistant to the City Manager, Commission Secretary, City Manager’s Office, 510-981-5347
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-6750 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits
CONSENT CALENDAR
March 24, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Subject: Whistleblower Investigation Report on Ambulance Purchase
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that City Council receive this report and request the City Manager to implement corrective actions in response to the recommendations. The report recommends clarifying procurement roles, formalizing escalation and notification expectations when required steps are bypassed, providing targeted training, reinforcing compliance expectations, and establishing clearer communication to City Council when purchasing requirements are not followed.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with receiving this report. The recommendations focus on strengthening procurement controls, clarifying roles and responsibilities, improving escalation practices, and increasing transparency when required purchasing steps are bypassed.
Implementation may involve staff time for policy updates, training, and process improvements.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City Auditor’s Office conducted a whistleblower investigation into a $286,000 ambulance purchase after receiving a complaint alleging that the purchase proceeded without required prior City Council approval. The investigation substantiated the allegation and found that a former City employee committed the City to the purchase before required purchasing steps and approvals, including a Purchase Order and Council authorization, were completed.
Because established procurement controls were bypassed, the Finance Department was not awa
re of the purchase until the vendor was nearing completion of the custom-built ambulance, which limited oversight and delayed payment processing. The vendor withheld the vehicle title until payment was made. While the City ultimately received the ambulance and City Council later approved the purchase retroactively, the sequence of events increased financial and operational risk and reduced transparency in the procurement process.
BACKGROUND
The investigation was opened after the City Auditor’s Office received a complaint through the Whistleblower Program alleging that an ambulance purchase moved forward without required approval. The Auditor’s Office conducted the investigation under applicable government auditing and investigative standards.
Internal
CONSENT CALENDAR March 24, 2026
Pg. 2 of 2
The investigation included review of procurement records, approval documentation, policies and procedures, and staff interviews. This is the first public investigation report issued since the launch of the City Auditor’s Whistleblower Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with this report.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The recommendations in the report support improved procurement controls, transparency, and accountability. The recommended changes are intended to reduce the risk of unauthorized commitments, strengthen oversight, and ensure required approval and purchasing steps are consistently followed. Implementing these process improvements supports sound stewardship of public funds and clear communication to City Council when procurement requirements are not met.
CONTACT PERSON
Jenny Wong, City Auditor, City Auditor’s Office, 510-981-6750 Attachments:
1: Berk
eley City Auditor Investigation Report Ambulance Purchase March 2026
Investigation Report
Substantiated Whistleblower
Allegation: $286,000
Ambulance Purchased without
Prior Council Approval
March 2026
Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Erin Mullin, Whistleblower Program Manager
The investigation substantiated the whistleblower allegation. A former City employee committed the City to a $286,000 ambulance purchase without authority, bypassing required controls. This created financial and reputational risk and reduced transparency and accountability in the purchasing process.
Substantiated Whistleblower Allegation: $286,000 Ambulance Purchased without Prior Council Approval
2 Contents
Allegation and Investigative History .................................................................................... 2 Investigation Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 2 Background ............................................................................................................................ 3 Scope of the Investigation ..................................................................................................... 4 Investigative Findings ........................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Purchase Events ............................................................................................ 4 The unauthorized commitment of City funds violated internal procedures, the Berkeley Municipal Code, and the City Charter. .............................................................. 6 Unclear roles in fleet purchasing contributed to the bypass of controls. ........................ 6 Delayed escalation of concerns reduced oversight and increased risk. ........................... 6 Retroactive Council approval limited transparency and accountability. ......................... 7 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 7 Management Response ......................................................................................................... 8 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 9 Investigative Standards ....................................................................................................... 10
Allegation and Investigative History
The Berkeley City Auditor’s Whistleblower Program received a report alleging that an ambulance had been purchased without prior City Council approval. The Auditor’s Office initiated an investigation to determine the validity of the allegation.
Investigation Conclusions
The investigation substantiated the whistleblower allegation. We found that the former City employee committed the City to a $286,000 ambulance purchase without the authority to do so. While the City has internal controls in place to guide and review purchases, those controls were bypassed. This failure created financial and reputational risk for the City and reduced transparency and accountability in the purchasing process.
Substantiated Whistleblower Allegation: $286,000 Ambulance Purchased without Prior Council Approval
3 Background
City departments regularly purchase vehicles and equipment to support their operations.
Under City policy, these purchases must follow a standardized process designed to ensure oversight, compliance, and protection of public funds. The process involves shared responsibilities among the requesting department, Public Works Equipment Maintenance Division (Fleet), and the Finance Department’s General Services Division.
For example, departments like Fire, Police, Parks, and Health, Housing, and Community Services rely on this process to procure vehicles and equipment.
Fleet manages the maintenance, purchase planning, and replacement of the City’s vehicles and equipment. Fleet staff support departments in identifying needs, advising on specifications, and providing operational oversight to help ensure proposed purchases are appropriate and aligned with City requirements. While Fleet plays a key role in shaping and overseeing vehicle and equipment acquisitions, the Finance Department’s General Services Division is the only unit authorized to issue Purchase Orders and formally commit the City to an expenditure.
The process generally involves the following steps:
• A department identifies the need for a vehicle or piece of equipment. • Fleet staff coordinate with the department to develop specifications, confirm operational requirements, and validate anticipated costs. • For purchases exceeding $100,000, City Council approval is required before the City proceeds with any purchasing steps that would commit the City to an expenditure.
• Fleet staff prepare and submit a Purchase Requisition through the City’s internal approval workflow.
• General Services reviews the Requisition and issues a Purchase Order, which serves as the City’s official authorization for the vendor to proceed.
These steps are intended to ensure appropriate oversight, compliance with City requirements, and protection of public funds before the City is committed to an expenditure.
Substantiated Whistleblower Allegation: $286,000 Ambulance Purchased without Prior Council Approval
4 Scope of the Investigation
The investigation focused on whether the vehicle purchase complied with City procurement policies, Administrative Regulations, and applicable provisions of the Berkeley Charter and Municipal Code. We examined whether the actions taken by staff constituted abuse, including misuse of position, bypassing required controls, and committing the City to an expenditure without proper authority.
Investigative Findings
The investigation substantiated the allegation. We found that a former City employee committed the City to an ambulance purchase of $286,000 without the authority to do so. The purchase proceeded without City Council approval and without completion of required purchasing steps, including a Purchase Requisition and Purchase Order. These actions were inconsistent with City purchasing requirements and involved bypass of established internal controls.
This action violated the City’s internal purchasing procedures, the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) requirement for City Council approval of purchases over $100,000, and the City Charter’s limits on contracting authority. These actions created financial and operational risk and reduced transparency in the City’s purchasing process.
We also found that unclear roles in fleet and equipment purchasing contributed to the bypass of controls, that staff did not elevate concerns when they realized required steps had not been completed, and that the purchase was later approved retroactively without clear disclosure to City Council.
Summary of Purchase Events
In late 2022, a former City employee initiated a $286,000 ambulance purchase without City Council approval or the completion of required purchasing steps. Fleet moved forward with the purchase before submitting a Purchase Requisition or obtaining a Purchase Order, and Finance was not involved until nearly ten months later, when the ambulance, which had to be built to order, was close to completion. Although required procedures had not been followed, the vendor proceeded with production without an approved purchase order in place, committing the City to an unauthorized and unbudgeted expenditure, creating a budget risk and limiting the City’s ability to evaluate funding availability and priorities before funds were obligated.
Substantiated Whistleblower Allegation: $286,000 Ambulance Purchased without Prior Council Approval
5 City Council retroactively approved the purchase in December 2023, more than a year after the purchase was initiated and after the ambulance had already been delivered to the City. Final payment was not made until January 2024, and until payment was completed, the vendor withheld the vehicle title, delaying the City’s ability to take full possession of the ambulance.
Figure 1. Vehicle Purchase Timeline
Source: Berkeley City Auditor
Step Timing Details
Need Identified Late 2022 The Fire Department identified the need for an ambulance.
Specifications and Cost
Estimates Finalized
Late 2022
Fleet personnel coordinated with Fire to finalize
vehicle specifications and confirm anticipated
costs.
Unauthorized Purchase
Agreement Executed
Late 2022
A former City employee executed a purchase
agreement without City Council approval, a
Purchase Requisition, or a Purchase Order.
Finance Becomes
Aware
About 10
months later
Finance first learned of the purchase when the
vendor was near completion of the custom-built
ambulance.
Ambulance Delivered
Following
Finance’s
involvement
The ambulance was delivered before required
purchasing steps had been completed. The
vendor withheld the title pending payment.
Retroactive Council
Approval
More than a
year after
initiation
City Council retroactively approved the purchase
over 12 months after the unauthorized
agreement was signed.
Purchase Order Issued
Shortly after
Council
approval
Finance issued a purchase order, more than a
year after the process began.
Vendor Paid
Several weeks
after delivery
Final payment was made, vendor released
vehicle title.
Substantiated Whistleblower Allegation: $286,000 Ambulance Purchased without Prior Council Approval
6 The unauthorized commitment of City funds violated internal procedures, the Berkeley Municipal Code, and the City Charter.
The purchase was made without a Purchase Requisition, without a Purchase Order, without review by Finance, and without prior City Council authority. City policy requires all purchases to be entered into the City’s financial system through a Purchase Requisition to enable centralized review for compliance with procurement rules, appropriate vendor selection, and competitive pricing. This step was skipped entirely.
Because the total cost exceeded $100,000, City Council approval was required under the Berkeley Municipal Code before an authorized official could commit the City to the purchase. By moving forward with the purchase without following these requirements, the former City employee acted outside their delegated authority and acted in abuse of their authority. These actions violated the City’s internal purchasing procedures, the BMC, and the City Charter, and undermined the controls intended to ensure proper oversight of public funds.
Unclear roles in fleet purchasing contributed to the bypass of controls.
Interviews indicated that roles and responsibilities in the fleet and equipment purchasing process were not well understood across departments. This lack of clarity contributed to conditions in which an employee was able to bypass required steps and commit the City to a large purchase without proper authority. Clearer guidance would help define roles and ensure that responsibilities and authority are properly aligned, preventing future unauthorized commitments.
Delayed escalation of concerns reduced oversight and increased risk.
During the purchasing process, staff recognized that key purchasing steps, including the issuance of a Purchase Order, had not been completed. However, there was no clearly defined escalation requirement or notification pathway specifying when process deviations must be elevated and to whom. As a result, Finance did not become aware of the purchase until ambulance delivery was imminent, which limited their ability to intervene earlier in the process.
Substantiated Whistleblower Allegation: $286,000 Ambulance Purchased without Prior Council Approval
7 When the ambulance arrived, the City could not immediately issue payment because no Purchase Order existed, and the vendor withheld the vehicle title until they received payment. This situation created both operational and financial risk for the City, disrupted normal vendor relations, and weakened oversight. This condition highlights the need for defined escalation expectations, documented notification pathways, and training so that when required purchasing steps are incomplete or bypassed, the issue is elevated promptly to the appropriate authority.
Retroactive Council approval limited transparency and
accountability.
City Council ultimately approved the purchase after the ambulance had been delivered and the title was being held by the vendor. The Council report did not clearly indicate that the approval was retroactive, reducing transparency for decision-makers and the public.
Although the purchase was eventually approved and payment completed, the sequence of events highlighted gaps in communication and oversight and demonstrated the need for a clearer process for notifying City Council when required purchasing steps have not been followed.
Recommendations
1. To ensure clarity in all procurement processes, we recommend that Finance update the Purchasing Manual to explicitly state that, regardless of type, no purchase may be made without a purchase requisition, a purchase order, and, if over the council threshold, Council approval prior to any commitment.
2. To ensure accountability and improve early detection of purchasing irregularities, we recommend that Finance, in coordination with Human Resources, update Administrative Regulation 3.4 to include:
(1) Defined escalation and notification expectations when staff become aware that required purchasing steps have not been followed; and (2) A general compliance statement clarifying that adherence to procurement requirements is mandatory and that violations may result in corrective or disciplinary action consistent with applicable personnel rules.
Substantiated Whistleblower Allegation: $286,000 Ambulance Purchased without Prior Council Approval
8 3. To ensure that all relevant departments understand roles and procedures, we recommend that the Human Resources Department and General Services provide targeted training and communication to departments on the fleet and equipment procurement process.
4. To ensure transparency and accountability when required purchasing steps are bypassed, we recommend that the City Manager’s Office establish a process requiring timely communication to City Council whenever a purchase moves forward outside of the established procurement requirements. The process should define when notification is required, who is responsible for providing it, and how deviations from standard purchasing procedures should be clearly communicated to the City Council, especially when retroactive approval is requested.
Management Response
Management agrees with the overarching principles expressed in the recommendations and acknowledges that City Council authorization was required prior to execution of this purchase. However, it should be noted that existing policy language exists; this breach arose from an individual employe bypassing established policy, which was a violation.
Although the vendor proceeded with vehicle fabrication, the existing internal controls were effective in catching the policy and procedure violation. No payments were made until Council authorization was received. A personnel investigation into the policy violation was subsequently conducted and completed in 2024.
Recommendation 1: Management agrees that the purchase at issue proceeded without City Council approval and without completion of required purchasing steps.
These actions were inconsistent with City purchasing requirements, per the Purchasing Manual, and involved the bypass of established internal controls. To bolster the existing purchasing requirements in the Purchasing Manual, Finance will include in one area language specifying the requirement of following these processes.
Recommendation 2: Management agrees that timely escalation is critical to ensure that corrective measures can be implemented. This should be emphasized in employee trainings, as referenced in #3 below. Management will assess the potential ramifications of adding language regarding disciplinary action to existing policies.
Substantiated Whistleblower Allegation: $286,000 Ambulance Purchased without Prior Council Approval
9 Recommendation 3: Management agrees that employees should receive regular training on procurement policies to ensure clarity. Management currently provides periodic training on procurement and will evaluate updates to emphasize the importance of internal controls. However, it should be noted, in this instance, an individual employee acted outside the scope of delegated authority and misrepresented the City’s authorization status to the vendor. In bypassing Administrative Rule 3.4, the employee committed a significant violation of established procurement policy and internal controls.
Recommendation 4:
Existing City Charter and Administrative Rules clearly outline purchasing limits. It is important to note in this instance, that due to the extended fabrication timeline associated with the vehicle, management was not immediately aware of the unauthorized commitment. In October 2023, the employee disclosed the matter to management. Upon notification, management initiated corrective actions, including preparation and submission of a report to the City Council recommending authorization of the purchase.
Finally, management continues a review of departmental policies, procedures, and internal control systems through the Equipment Maintenance/Fleet Study conducted by Mercury Associates. The Mercury Associates study was procured through a formal Request for Proposals (Specification No. 22-11496) issued on May 3, 2022, and was intended to evaluate fleet governance, oversight mechanisms, and process controls.
Policies and practices improvements related to fleet procurement, billing, and maintenance have been implemented as a result of this assessment.
Methodology
The Office performed a preliminary review of the whistleblower report to confirm our understanding of the reported allegations, and to determine if all the following four investigation criteria were met:
1. The alleged incident involved City of Berkeley property, infrastructure, employees, officials, or otherwise falls within the City’s jurisdiction.
2. If true, the concern meets the definition of “fraud,” “waste,” or “abuse”.
3. The alleged incident occurred within 12 months of being reported.
4. The alleged incident is not known to be the subject of current litigation.
Substantiated Whistleblower Allegation: $286,000 Ambulance Purchased without Prior Council Approval
10 After confirming that the allegation met these criteria, the Office conducted additional preliminary steps to assess whether sufficient predication existed to initiate an investigation. Predication refers to the presence of specific, articulable facts or information that, if true, would reasonably indicate fraud, waste, or abuse within the City’s jurisdiction.
Based on the results of this preliminary review and the existence of sufficient predication, the Office initiated an investigation to arrive at the findings and conclusions in this report.
Specifically, we examined whether proper approvals were obtained, whether steps such as initiating a Purchase Requisition and routing the purchase through the General Services Division were followed, and whether City Council approval was secured before funds were committed. Evidence reviewed included vendor proposals, purchase documentation, Council resolutions, internal emails, and invoices. Interviews were conducted with city staff to confirm the sequence of events and identify any control weaknesses.
Investigative Standards
Investigations conducted by the Berkeley City Auditor’s Office are considered non-audit projects under the Government Auditing Standards and are conducted in accordance with the ethics and general standards (chapters 1-3), procedures recommended by the Associated of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), and the Certified Fraud Examiner’s Manual. Investigations conducted also adhere to the quality standards for investigations established by the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), and to the Berkeley Municipal Code.
CONSENT CALENDAR
March 24th, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Terry Taplin (co-author), Councilmember Igor Tregub (co- author), Mayor Ishii (co-sponsor), Councilmember Brent Blackaby (co-sponsor) Subject: 2026 Holocaust Remembrance Day Program: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds from General Funds and Grant of Such Funds
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including $500 from Councilmember Taplin, Councilmember Tregub, Councilmember Blackaby, and Mayor Ishii, to support the City’s Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day program with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund. The relinquishment of funds from the discretionary Council
Office Budget of all Councilmembers who would like to contribute, allows the City of Berkeley to invite the community to its 23rd Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day program, created by the community with City Council support. This year’s program will be held on April 12th, 2026, at the Magnes Collection of Jewish Life and History in Berkeley’s downtown. Registration via Eventbrite is required to attend.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No General Fund impact: up to $500 is available from contributing Councilmember’s Council Office Budget discretionary accounts.
BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley’s Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day program has been supported by the City Council since its inception in 2002. The program has occurred annually, except in the year 2020 when the pandemic hit without enough time to pivot to a virtual program. Berkeley’s Holocaust Remembrance Day has become a treasured event for Holocaust survivors, family members and the Bay Area community as the only secular, city-sponsored program in the region. The community program invites attendees to honor those who perished in the Holocaust and those who survived. With fewer living survivors available to share their stories, firsthand, and rising antisemitic hate crimes in our region and nation-wide, it is essential that we support the testimony of survivors and their children about the Holocaust and re-affirm our City’s resolve to never forget.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
No impact
CONTACT PERSON
Terry Taplin, Councilmember, District 2, (510) 981-7120 Attachments:
1: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE
EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT
TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE WHEREAS, Councilmember Taplin has surplus funds in his office expenditure accounts and will contribute $500, and invite the Mayor and other Councilmembers to join him in contributing; and
WHEREAS, a California nonprofit tax-exempt corporation, The Jewish Community Center of the East Bay, serves as the fiscal sponsor of the Holocaust Remembrance Day program and will receive funds in an amount up to $500 per contributing Councilmember’s discretionary account; and
WHEREAS, the provision of such services would fulfill the municipal public purpose of providing an educational community program supporting Holocaust survivors, community recognition and factual information about the Holocaust. The grants will provide funds to produce the event.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budget, up to $500 per office, shall be granted to the Jewish Community Center of the East Bay to fund the City of Berkeley’s virtual 23rd Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day program on April 12, 2026.
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 24, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Igor Tregub (Author), Councilmember Terry Taplin (Co- Author), Councilmember Mark Humbert (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Referral to the City Manager: Banning the Sale and Use of Glue Traps
RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager to ban glue traps within City of Berkeley limits, including the use by any individual or organization and sale of glue traps and require posted notice of municipal code changes in all stores selling rodent traps.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Glue traps indiscriminately catch and subject animals, birds, and insects to a painful, terrifying, unnecessary, prolonged suffering and ultimate death. On these grounds, wildlife rehabilitators and hospitals, animal protection groups, environmental advocacy organizations, and public health agencies around the country oppose the use of glue traps.
Glue traps are also a public health concern, as they increase the risk of zoonotic disease transmission. Animals on glue traps often remain alive for multiple days. During that time, they continue to urinate, defecate, and even bleed, potentially spreading harmful pathogens. In the process of removing these traps, while trapped animals are still alive, users run the risk of being bitten by the trapped animals, further increasing potential exposure of human users to pathogens. Several federal and state agencies warn the public not to use glue traps.
Despite all of these concerns, hardware stores across Berkeley currently sell glue traps.
Glue traps are frequently made of plastic and present environmental challenges.
Banning glue traps will protect animals from cruelty and remove a uniquely dangerous product from the market, while preserving the ability of Berkeley residents to access and purchase other more humane and more effective wildlife control products. A glue trap
CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 24, 2026
ban is also prudent in consideration of the recent Leptospirosis outbreaks in West Berkeley.1
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Staff time will be needed to develop and enforce the policy. Although implementation will require staff resources and minor adjustments for retailers, the long-term benefits to animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and public health support adoption of the recommended action. Banning the use and sale of glue traps in Berkeley would require posted notice of the municipal code change. While the goal of this policy is compliance, penalties for noncompliance could offset the costs of policy development and enforcement.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In recent years, wildlife rehabilitators, animal hospitals, animal protection organizations and environmental advocacy groups in the United States have become increasingly vocal in calling for a ban on the use and sale of glue traps (also known as “sticky traps” or “glue boards”), due to the suffering that these traps inflict on animals and the unique threat that they pose to wildlife.2 Different levels of glue traps bans currently exist in England,3 Germany,4 Iceland,5 Ireland,6 New Zealand,7 Scotland,8 and Wales,9 as well in the Belgian regions of Flanders 10 and Wallonia,11 and in the following Australian states and territories: Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Tasmania, and 1 CITY OF BERKELEY PUBLIC HEALTH ALERT Addressing Leptospirosis at Harrison Street Encampments, January 12, 2026, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026- 01/January%2012%2C%202026%20Lepto%20Health%20Alert%20Final.pdf 2 Attachment 1: List of organizations that have endorsed bans on the use and sale of glue traps, 2026 3 UK Public General Acts, Glue Traps Act 2022, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/26 4 (Translated) German Bundestag Academic Services, Brief information: On the ban of glue traps and leg- hold traps in trapping, 2024, https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/1014260/WD-8-041-24-pdf.pdf 5 (Translated) Mast Food Institute, “Mouse control - which methods of pest control are legal?” 2021, https://www.mast.is/is/um-mast/frettir/frettir/musagangur-hvada-adferdir-vid-aflifun-meindyra-samrymast- logum
6 Irish Statute Book, Wildlife Act, Section 34 1976,
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1976/act/39/enacted/en/print#sec34 7 New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office, Animal Welfare (Glueboard Traps) Order 2009, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2009/0316/latest/whole.html#DLM2439753 8 Acts of the Scottish Parliament, Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2024/4/part/1/crossheading/glue-traps/enacted 9 Llywodraeth Cymru Welsh Government, “Historic Total Ban on Snares and Glue Traps use comes into force,” 2023 https://www.gov.wales/historic-total-ban-snares-and-glue-traps-use-comes-force 10 Flemish Codex, Flemish Code of Animal Welfare, Article 38, 2025, https://codex.vlaanderen.be/PrintDocument.ashx?id=1039852 11 Walloon Parliament, Walloon Code on Animal Welfare, Chapter 4, Article 39, 2018 https://www.wallonie.be/sites/default/files/2019-04/code_wallon_bea.pdf
CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 24, 2026
Victoria.12 In 2024, Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) and then-Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced a bill entitled the Glue Trap Prohibition Act (H.R. 7018)13 which sought to ban the use and sale of glue traps nationwide. As of 2026, three cities in the United States, all in California – Culver City,14 Ojai,15 and West Hollywood,16 – have passed legislation banning the use and sale of glue traps.
Animal Suffering & Impact on Wildlife
Glue traps are widely considered to be one of the most inhumane wildlife control products available, as the traps immobilize animals but do not immediately kill them.
Trapped animals are left to suffer a slow and painful death. After limbs and appendages become stuck to the trap, many animals suffer for days, dying slowly from dehydration, starvation, or blood loss. In some cases, trapped animals’ noses and mouths become glued shut, so they suffocate to death. A 2014 study evaluating the humaneness of glue traps found that there is “overwhelming evidence” that glue traps are cruel and inhumane, noting that previous studies have found that 85% of animals caught on glue traps are still alive and suffering after 24 hours.17 Glue trap users frequently report that animals caught in traps are often still alive when found, leaving users with the choice of throwing the trap in the garbage while the animal is still alive or to kill the animal, often by bludgeoning or drowning.
A 2025 study commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources18 describes glue traps as “cruel and inhumane because trapped rodents can suffer agonizing, prolonged deaths while struggling to escape. Additionally, non-target species can get stuck in these traps (e.g., birds, reptiles, pets).” A 2023 study comparing the welfare impact of various rodent control devices19 found that glue traps 12 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, “Are glue boards legal in Australia?” 2025, https://kb.rspca.org.au/categories/wild-animals/introduced-species/control-methods/are-glue-boards- legal-in-australia
13 Press Release: REP LIEU INTRODUCES BILL TO BAN USE OF GLUE TRAPS, 2024 https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-lieu-introduces-bill-ban-use-glue-traps 14 Culver City Municipal Code 9.01.800-815, 2025
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/culvercity/latest/culvercity_ca/0-0-0-22627 15 City of Ojai, Ordinance 951, 2024 https://ojai.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2323/Ordinance-951---Use- and-Sale-of-Glue-Traps-PDF
16 West Hollywood Municipal Code 9.53 Use and Sale of Glue Traps, 2023, https://ecode360.com/43908312
17 Canadian Association of Humane Trapping, “Evaluation of the Humaneness of Rodent Capture Using Glue Traps”, Author: Nicole Fenwick, M.Sc., 2013, https://caht.ca/evaluation-of-the-humaneness-of- rodent-capture-using-glue-traps/
18 Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources, “Anticoagulant Rodenticide Scientific Review Draft Phase 2 Report”, 2025, https://www.mass.gov/doc/anticoagulant-rodenticides-scientific-review-draft- phase-2-report/download
19 Ruyver et al, “Assessing animal welfare impact of fourteen control and dispatch methods for house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) and black rat (Rattus rattus),“ Cambridge University Press, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2022.2
CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 24, 2026
inflict significantly more suffering on animals than snap traps, electrocution traps, and captive-bolt traps, as animals caught in glue traps experience “anxiety, fear, pain, hunger and thirst, panic, [and] distress” before dying or being killed.
Glue traps pose a threat to all species of wildlife that encounter the traps. Over the last 10 years, data from wildlife rehabilitators and animal hospitals collected and verified by the WILD-ONe database20 reveal that glue traps have caught members of more than 179 species, including bats, lizards, mice, snakes, squirrels, salamanders, and turtles, as well as dozens of species of federally protected birds. In 2024 and 2025, WildCare, a wildlife hospital in San Rafael, CA admitted dozens of songbirds, as well as squirrels, opossums, lizards, and snakes, all of which were brought to the hospital after being caught on glue traps. During that same period, the San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control responded to 46 calls about animals being caught in glue traps.21 The trapped animals included cats, pigeons, mice, rats, crows, snakes, a California scrub jay, a sparrow, a finch, a bat, and a racoon.
Public Health
In addition to subjecting animals to excruciating and prolonged suffering, glue traps also endanger human health because they increase the risk of zoonotic disease transmission. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warns the public to not use glue traps22 because unlike other lethal traps like snap traps, electrocution traps, and captive-bolt traps which are designed to kill animals instantly, animals caught on glue traps often remain alive, panicking and struggling to free themselves, for multiple days. During that time, they continue to urinate and defecate, spreading harmful pathogens, including but not limited to hantavirus and leptospirosis,23 which humans often come into direct contact with when disposing of the traps with a live animal attached to them. As a result, the following federal and state health authorities all warn residents not to use glue traps:
California Department of Public Health: “Place snap traps to catch any mice (do not use glue traps or live traps).”24
20 Attachment 2: Glue Trap Patient Intake Dataset from WILD-ONe 21 Attachment 3: Log of Glue Trap Responses from the San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control, 2020-2025
22 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, How to Trap Up to Remove Rodents, 2024, https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-pets/rodent-control/trap-up.html 23 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, About Leptospirosis, 2026, https://www.cdc.gov/leptospirosis/about/index.html
24 California Department of Public Health, Hantavirus Infection, 2025, https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/pages/hantaviruspulmonarysyndrome.aspx
CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 24, 2026
CDC Hantavirus Prevention Guide, 2025: “DO NOT USE glue traps and live traps. These traps can scare the rodents causing them to urinate, which can increase your chance of getting sick.”25
New Mexico Department of Health: “Glue traps are not recommended. Rodents caught in glue traps are not killed instantly and may have increased urine output as part of their fear response. In addition to being less effective than other trapping methods such as snap traps, glue traps are considered by many to be inhumane and have a high risk of capturing harmless or beneficial species.”26 New York State Department of Health: “Glue traps or live traps are not recommended because the rodent may defecate or urinate which might spread [Hantavirus].”27
Washington State Department of Health: “Glue or live traps aren't preferred over snap or electronic traps because they keep the rodent alive, which allows them to continue to urinate and defecate. The urine and feces may contain germs which could increase your risk of being exposed to diseases.”28 Environmental Stewardship
Berkeley’s Strategic Plan includes the goal of “be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.” As glue traps kill, injure, and permanently disable countless animals each year, indiscriminately catch non-target wildlife, pose a threat to human health, and are single- use devices, most frequently made of plastic, prohibiting the use and sale of glue traps aligns with Berkeley’s Strategic Plan Goal to “be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.”29 Extinction of species, including birds and insects, is one of the major problems on the planet. State of the Birds report 202530, that came after the 2019 study31 that documented the loss of 3 billion birds32 in North America over 50 years, showed further drastic decline of avian population across all ecosystems. While glue traps might not be 25 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ” You Can Prevent Hantavirus,” 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/media/pdfs/2025/01/HantavirusBrochure-508.pdf 26 New Mexico Department of Health, Center for Health Protection, Infectious Disease Epidemiology Bureau, Manual for Investigation and Control of Selected Communicable Diseases: Hantavirus, 2024, https://www.nmhealth.org/publication/view/general/5072/ 27 New York State Department of Health, Hantavirus Disease, 2018, https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/hantavirus/fact_sheet.htm 28 Washington State Department of Health, Rodents, https://doh.wa.gov/community-and- environment/pests/rodents
29 City of Berkeley, Strategic Plan, https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/strategic-plan 30 U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), State of the Birds Report 2025, https://www.stateofthebirds.org/2025/
31 Rosenberg et al., “Decline of the North American avifauna,” Science, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw1313
32 3 billion birds gone, https://www.3billionbirds.org/
CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 24, 2026
the main contributor, banning them undeniably will help to prevent further unnecessary loss.
Banning the sale and use of glue traps directly aligns with environmental protections, both from the public health perspective and protection of non-target species.
Furthermore, glue traps are often made of plastic and are the only common trap type that is not reusable. Prohibiting these single-use plastic traps aligns with Berkeley’s Strategic Plan and Climate Action Plan goals to protect biodiversity, reduce plastic waste, and safeguard community health, while preserving access to more humane and effective rodent control alternatives.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Protecting animals who play a vital role in the City’s ecosystem – including but not limited to songbirds, small mammals and small reptiles – from being indiscriminately caught and killed in glue traps, aligns with the City’s Climate Action Plan goals by preserving biodiversity, which includes the City’s wildlife. Additionally, prohibiting the sale of single-use plastic glue traps aligns with the Climate Action Plan goal of reducing plastic waste.33
CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Igor Tregub, Council District 4
510-981-7140 | [email protected]
Amy Johnson, Legislative Aide, Council District 4
[email protected]
Olga Bolotina, Chief of Staff, Council District 4, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine [email protected]
ATTACHMENTS:
1. List of Organizations Supporting a Ban on the Use and Sale of Glue Traps
2. Glue Trap Patient Intake Dataset from WILD-ONe
3. Log of Glue Trap Responses from the San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control, 2020-2025
33 City of Berkeley, Climate Action Plan, Goals 2 and 5, 2009, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Berkeley-Climate-Action-Plan.pdf
CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 24, 2026
ATTACHMENT #1
Organizations Supporting a Ban on the Use and Sale of Glue Traps:
1. Abbe-Freeland Animal Sanctuary
2. All Things Wild Rehabilitation
3. Animal & Earth Advocates
4. Animal Defenders International
5. Animal Help Now
6. Animal Protection League of New Jersey
7. Animal Rehabilitators of the Carolinas
8. Animal Rights Collective Portland
9. Animal Rights Hawai’i
10. Animals’ Angels Inc.
11. Animals In Distress Association
12. The Animals Voice
13. Arizona Bat Rescue
14. Austin Bat Refuge
15. The AWARE Wildlife Center
16. Badger Run Wildlife Rehab
17. Ballydídean Farm Sanctuary
18. Bat Conservation & Rescue of Virginia
19. Bats Northwest
20. Bat World Sanctuary
21. Big Country Wildlife Rehabilitation Center
22. Blue Ridge Wildlife Center
23. California Wildlife Center
24. Carolina Waterfowl Rescue
25. Carolina Wildlife Center
26. Carolina Wildlife Rehabilitation Center
27. Carolina Wildlife Sanctuary
28. Catamount Wildlife Center
29. Center for Avian and Exotic Medicine
30. Center Valley Animal Rescue
31. Chesapeake Audubon Society
32. Chintimini Wildlife Center
33. Christian Animal Rights Association
34. Coast and Canyon Wildlife Rehabilitation
35. Colorado Voters for Animals
36. The Compassion Consortium
37. Cottontail Cottage Wildlife Rehab
38. The Coyote Center for Carnivore Ecology and Coexistence
39. Democrats for the Protection of Animals
40. Direct Action Everywhere
CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 24, 2026
41. Dutchess County SPCA
42. Earthfire Institute
43. Evelyn Alexander Wildlife Rescue Center
44. Evelyn’s Wildlife Refuge
45. Finger Lakes SPCA of Central New York
46. Florida Wildlife Hospital
47. Four Paws USA
48. Fox Wood Wildlife Rescue
49. Friends of Cape Wildlife
50. Friends of Woodland Park Zoo Elephants
51. Georgia Wildlife Network
52. Gold Country Wildlife Rescue
53. Good Bat Neighbor
54. Gordon Wildlife
55. Greenwood Wildlife Rehabilitation Center
56. Grit & Grace Wildlife Rehabilitation
57. Happy Valley Bats
58. Houston Humane Society Wildlife Center
59. The Hudson-Mohawk Bird Club
60. Humane Action Pittsburgh
61. Humane Indiana Wildlife Rehabilitation Center
62. The Humane League
63. Humane Long Island
64. Humane Voters of Washington
65. Humane Society of Ventura County
66. Humane World for Animals
67. Humane World Action Fund
68. Humboldt Wildlife Care Center/Bird Ally X
69. In Defense of Animals
70. Institute for Animal Happiness
71. The International Vegan Film Festival
72. Lady Freethinker
73. Lancaster Farm Sanctuary
74. Lehigh Valley Audubon Society
75. Liberty Wildlife Inc.
76. Lisa’s Little Rescue
77. Luvin Arms Animal Sanctuary
78. Maine Animal Coalition
79. Main Street Vegan Academy
80. Marin Humane
81. Maryland Wildlife Rehabilitators Association
82. The MSPCA-Angell
83. Napa Wildlife Rescue
84. New York State Wildlife Rehabilitation Council
CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 24, 2026
85. NorCal Bats
86. Northern Colorado Wildlife Center
87. Northwest Animal Rights Network
88. Oaken Acres Wildlife Center
89. Ojai Raptor Center
90. Out to Pasture Sanctuary
91. Owl Moon Raptor Center
92. Palm Springs Wildlife Advocates
93. Park City Wildlife Rehab
94. Pasado’s Safe Haven
95. Paterson Animal Control
96. Pennsylvania Bat Rescue
97. PETA
98. Phoenix Wildlife Center
99. Protect Our Wildlife Vermont
100. Raptors Are the Solution
101. Raven Ridge Wildlife Center
102. Ravensbeard Wildlife Center
103. Rebellyous Foods
104. The Rochester Birding Association
105. Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary
106. Rockford Regional Wildlife Coalition
107. Rogers Wildlife Rehabilitation Center
108. Salem Wildlife Rescue
109. The San Francisco Commission of Animal Control and Welfare 110. Save The Animals Rescue Foundation
111. Second Chance Wildlife Rescue
112. The Sierra Club
113. Social Compassion in Legislation
114. Songbird Care and Education Center
115. SPCA Monterey County
116. SPCA Serving Erie County
117. SPCA Westchester
118. Species Unite
119. Squirrelmender Wildlife Rehabilitation
120. Sunshine Haven Wildlife Rehabilitation
121. Sweetbriar Nature Center and the Steven Goldman Wildlife Rehabilitation Clinic 122. Teton Wildlife Rehabilitation Center
123. Their Turn
124. Turtle Crossing Wildlife Rehabilitation Farm
125. Turtle Rescue of the Hamptons
126. Ulster County SPCA
127. Urban Wildlife Rescue
128. Veganography
CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 24, 2026
129. Voters For Animal Rights
130. Wild Bird Fund
131. Wild By Nurture
132. WildCare
133. Wild Care of Cape Cod
134. WildCare of Western New York
135. Wilderness Miracles Wildlife Rehab
136. Wildlife Care of Southern California
137. Wildlife Center of Virginia
138. Wildlife in Crisis
139. Wildlife Of Wisconsin
140. Wildlife Rescue & Rehabilitation Inc.
141. The Wildlife Wishing Well of Ithaca
142. Winchester Wildlife Rehabilitation Center
143. Wings Rescue Center
144. Wings Wildlife Rehabilitation Center
145. World Animal Protection U.S.
146. Yggdrasil Urban Wildlife Rescue
CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 24, 2026
ATTACHMENT #2
Glue Trap Patient Intake Dataset from WILD-ONe 2003-2024 Carolina Wren 309
House Sparrow 171
big brown bat 112
Northern Cardinal 57
Barn Swallow 40
white-footed mouse 39
House Wren 34
Eastern Ratsnake 33
house mouse 30
Northern Mockingbird 30
Common Garter Snake 30
Song Sparrow 28
Common Grackle 25
American Robin 24
European Starling 24
House Finch 24
Black-capped Chickadee 23
eastern chipmunk 21
southern flying squirrel 19
Ring-necked Snake 19
Dark-eyed Junco 19
Virginia Opossum 18
deer mouse 16
Eastern Cottontail 16
Mourning Dove 14
Eastern Milk Snake 14
Ruby-throated Hummingbird 13
Undetermined Bird 13
Downy Woodpecker 13
Eastern Screech-Owl 12
White-breasted Nuthatch 12
Gray Catbird 12
Bewick's Wren 11
Blue Jay 11
Tufted Titmouse 11
Eastern Phoebe 10
little brown bat 10
eastern gray squirrel 8
CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 24, 2026
Norway rat 8
Chipping Sparrow 7
long-eared myotis 7
American Goldfinch 7
Eastern Bluebird 6
northern flying squirrel 6
little brown myotis 6
Ringneck Snake 5
Northern Ringneck Snake 5
Other species which count for 1-4 individual animals include: Common House Gecko, Common Yellowthroat, Southern Black Racer, Gray Ratsnake, White-crowned Sparrow, black rat, oldfield mouse, thirteen-lined ground squirrel, Rock Pigeon, Milk Snake, Northern Black Racer, California Kingsnake, Chestnut-backed Chickadee, Californis myotis, Yellow-rumped Warbler, evening bat, American Crow, Brown Creeper, White- winged Dove, Spotted Towhee, Rat Snake, Common Pigeon, Red-bellied Woodpecker, Loggerhead Shrike, Red-shouldered Hawk, Red-winged Blackbird, Northwestern Garter Snake, meadow vole, Five-lined Skink, common raccoon, Brown Thrasher, Golden- crowned Kinglet, Palm Warbler, eastern woodrat, gray myotis, Western Bluebird, Eastern Foxsnake, woodchuck, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Mallard, Green Anole, Texas Ratsnake, Brown-headed Cowbird, Eurasian Collared Dove, Ring-billed Gull, Common Starling, Brazilian free-tailed bat, Anna's Hummingbird, Rock Dove, American Tree Sparrow, Broad-headed Skink, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Eastern Box Turtle, Sora, American Kestrel, Marsh Wren, Spotted Sandpiper, Rufous Hummingbird, Muscovy Duck, Townsend's chipmunk, Nashville Warbler, Winter Wren, Fox Sparrow, Brown Snake, Cornsnake, Texas mouse, Northern Copperhead, Undetermined Mammal, Northern Flicker, Cooper's Hawk, Baird's Rat Snake, Mountain Chickadee, Northern Long-eared Bat, short-tailed shrew, Corn Snake, Common Nighthawk, Golden-fronted Woodpecker, Striped Skunk, Northern Water Snake, Texas Spiny Lizard, eastern pipistrelle, Long-tailed Weasel, Northwestern Salamander, Violet-green Swallow, DeKay's Brownsnake, meadow jumping mouse, Eastern Ribbon Snake, White-throated Sparrow, Ovenbird, Yellow Warbler, Pacific Wren, least chipmunk, Painted Bunting, San Diego Alligator Lizard, Great Black-backed Gull, Common Myna, Pine Siskin, Yuma myotis, Plains Garter Snake, Speckled Kingsnake, pocketed free-tailed bat, Allen's 13- lined ground squirrel, Queen Snake, Swamp Sparrow, Queensnake, Blue-tailed Mole Skink, Raccoon, Australian Magpie, Great Horned Owl, Townsend's Warbler, red squirrel, Louisiana Waterthrush, Brown Shrike, Vaux's Swift, Brown Water Snake, Fish Crow, Red-headed Woodpecker, Western Scrub Jay, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, American Toad, Cactus Wren, White-tailed Jackrabbit, Black-billed Magpie, Mediterranean Gekko, Indigo Bunting, Mediterranean House Gecko, Common Ground Dove, Florida mouse, Italian Wall Lizard, Cassin's Sparrow, Lark Sparrow, Little Brown Skink.
Total individual animals captured: 1606
activity_no activity_seq act_street_no act_street_name animal_id Call Date activity_type activity_subtype activity_priority animal_type jurisdiction Activity Date dispatch_date working_date complete_date activity_comment memo_id memo_text A20-297229 1 2,786 MISSION A438566 1/15/2020 3:04:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 PIGEON INNER MISSION 1/15/2020 3:04:00 PM 1/15/2020 3:15:43 PM 1/15/2020 3:32:28 PM 1/15/2020 3:34:25 PM WAS ON GLUE TRAP BUT COVERED IN GLUE. SPANISH SPEAKER HAS BIRD.
A20-297493 1 3,160 20TH A439042 1/26/2020 5:10:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 BIRD LAKESHORE 1/26/2020 5:10:00 PM 1/26/2020 5:11:30 PM 1/26/2020 5:47:55 PM 1/26/2020 5:56:13 PM PFE BIRD ON GLUE TRAP A20-299369 1 247 32ND 4/28/2020 10:48:00 AM WILD INJURED 1 BIRD SEA CLIFF 4/28/2020 10:48:00 AM 4/28/2020 12:42:00 PM 4/28/2020 12:55:00 PM 4/28/2020 12:58:00 PM MD SZ BIRD STUCK TO POSSIBLY A GLUE TRAP RIGHT NEXT TO
THE RECYCLE BIN RP
A20-299801 1 2,343 FILLMORE A443202 5/19/2020 5:57:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 BIRD PACIFIC HEIGHTS 5/19/2020 5:57:00 PM 5/19/2020 5:58:54 PM 5/19/2020 5:58:56 PM 5/19/2020 6:20:46 PM MEET RP OUT FRONT. BIRD STUCK IN GLUE TRAPPED. REMOVED FROM TRAP. STILL STICKY.
A20-301151 1 816 NORTH POINT A444397 6/29/2020 9:10:00 AM WILD INJURED 2 OTHER RUSSIAN HILL 6/29/2020 9:10:00 AM 6/29/2020 9:13:00 AM 6/29/2020 9:30:00 AM 6/29/2020 9:37:00 AM RAT IN GLUE TRAP A20-301792 1 758 22ND A445096 7/18/2020 8:48:00 AM WILD INJURED 2 OTHER CENTRL RICHMOND 7/18/2020 8:48:00 AM 7/18/2020 8:51:00 AM 7/18/2020 9:07:00 AM 7/18/2020 9:11:00 AM RAT IN GLUE TRAP, RP UNSURE IF STILL ALIVE OR NOT A20-302096 1 150 MARGARET A445428 7/27/2020 8:32:00 PM WILD TRAPPED 2 BIRD OCEANVIEW 7/27/2020 8:32:00 PM 7/27/2020 8:32:00 PM 7/27/2020 8:39:00 PM 7/27/2020 8:41:00 PM BIRD ONA GLUE TRAP A20-303534 1 618 SHRADER A447095 9/9/2020 3:17:00 PM RESCUE BUILDING 2 BIRD HAIGHT ASHBURY 9/9/2020 3:17:00 PM 9/9/2020 3:19:14 PM 9/9/2020 3:31:42 PM 9/9/2020 3:36:49 PM BIRD ON GLUE TRAP NEXT TO RECYCLING BIN A20-304513 1 900 POST A448362 10/12/2020 8:58:00 AM WILD INJURED 1 OTHER TENDERLOIN 10/12/2020 8:58:00 AM 10/12/2020 9:00:32 AM 10/12/2020 9:25:58 AM 10/12/2020 9:34:28 AM CLOSEST TO THIS 20 BUT ON HYDE. MOUSE ON GLUE TRAP AT
BASE OF TREE
A20-304719 1 221 BALBOA 10/18/2020 3:43:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 OTHER INNER RICHMOND 10/18/2020 3:43:00 PM 10/18/2020 3:45:44 PM 10/18/2020 3:57:24 PM 10/18/2020 4:07:14 PM SOME TYPE OF ANIMAL ON GLUE TRAP A20-304732 1 0 OTSEGO A448606 10/19/2020 8:15:00 AM WILD INJURED 2 OTHER MISSION TERRACE 10/19/2020 8:15:00 AM 10/19/2020 8:15:00 AM 10/19/2020 8:34:00 AM 10/19/2020 8:43:00 AM RAT ON GLUE TRAP A20-304809 1 1,781 9TH A448717 10/21/2020 4:28:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 BIRD INNER SUNSET 10/21/2020 4:28:00 PM 10/21/2020 4:30:36 PM 10/21/2020 4:59:22 PM 10/21/2020 5:02:13 PM BIRD WAS ON GLUE TRAP, THEY GOT IT OFF NOW IN A BOX. THEY
FREED ANOTHER BUT IS NOW UTL IN GARAGE
A20-304832 1 460 SOUTH VAN NESS A448731 10/22/2020 1:50:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 OTHER INNER MISSION 10/22/2020 1:50:00 PM 10/22/2020 1:52:00 PM 10/22/2020 2:06:17 PM 10/22/2020 2:15:58 PM CALL WHEN 97 SOME TYPE OF RODENT ON STICKY TRAP STILL
ALIVE, NOT SET BY R/P
A20-305407 1 2,622 OCEAN A449259 11/11/2020 9:03:00 AM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD LAKESIDE 11/11/2020 9:03:00 AM 11/11/2020 9:10:12 AM 11/11/2020 9:27:11 AM 11/11/2020 9:34:04 AM BIRD ON GLUE TRAP A20-306010 1 608 GEARY A449919 12/5/2020 3:55:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 BIRD TENDERLOIN 12/5/2020 3:55:00 PM 12/5/2020 3:56:41 PM 12/5/2020 4:15:32 PM 12/5/2020 4:18:10 PM PIGEON IN GLUE TRAP A21-309598 1 101 CERVANTES 4/18/2021 5:55:00 PM RESCUE BUILDING 1 OTHER MARINA 4/18/2021 5:55:00 PM 4/18/2021 5:56:00 PM 4/18/2021 6:02:00 PM 4/18/2021 6:09:00 PM MOUSE ON A GLUE TRAP A21-309598 04/18/21 18:48 RP DID NOT GIVE A UNIT NUMBER/ APARTMENT NUMBER SO WE WERE UNABLE TO MAKE CONTACT. -DTB28 A21-309598 2 101 CERVANTES A454729 4/18/2021 5:55:00 PM RESCUE BUILDING 1 OTHER MARINA 4/18/2021 6:50:00 PM 4/18/2021 6:50:00 PM 4/18/2021 7:36:00 PM 4/18/2021 7:42:00 PM MOUSE ON A GLUE TRAP A21-309598 04/18/21 18:48 RP DID NOT GIVE A UNIT NUMBER/ APARTMENT NUMBER SO WE WERE UNABLE TO MAKE CONTACT. -DTB28 A21-309756 1 633 BATTERY A454884 4/24/2021 3:06:00 PM RESCUE 2 OTHER FINANC DIST NOR 4/24/2021 3:06:00 PM 4/24/2021 3:36:00 PM 4/24/2021 4:01:00 PM 4/24/2021 4:17:00 PM X2 MICE GLUE TRAPS / 21 97 A21-309756 04/24/21 15:12 EXTENDED ETA DUE TO LOW-STAFFING / DISPATCHED FROM MISSION DISTRICT -SJ6
04/24/21 15:18 ETA FURTHER EXTENDED / RF22 10-7 ON AGGRESSIVE DOG CALL (A21-309754). VN31 DISPATCHED TO HIGHER PRIORITY A21-309757 (E-RACCOON). -SJ6
04/24/21 15:30 RE-DISPATCHED TO RF22/ SR22T -SJ6
A21-315679 1 2,468 BUSH A462328 10/24/2021 4:42:00 PM RESCUE BUILDING 2 OTHER LWR PACIFIC HEI 10/24/2021 4:42:00 PM 10/24/2021 4:45:00 PM 10/24/2021 4:51:00 PM 10/24/2021 4:58:00 PM RAT ON GLUE TRAP IN GARAGE. RP CAN GIVE ACCESS A21-315679 10/24/21 17:13 A21-315679 RAT WAS STUCK IN GLUE TRAP INSIDE GARAGE BY TRASH BINS. RP SAID IT WAS NOT HER WHO SET GLUE TRAP. GARAGE IS IN A 6 UNIT BULIDING. DISCUSSED WITH RP HOW INHUMANE AND CRUEL GLUE TRAPS ARE. GAVE OTHER OPTIONS FOR GETTING RID OF RATS. RP SAID SHE WOULD SEND A MENO OUT TO THE BUILDING AS WELL AS LANDLORD. SR20T A21-317137 1 368 SWEENEY A463861 12/14/2021 1:55:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD PORTOLA 12/14/2021 1:55:00 PM 12/14/2021 1:57:00 PM 12/14/2021 1:57:00 PM 12/14/2021 2:00:00 PM BIRD O GLUE TRAP A21-317299 1 619 21ST A464008 12/20/2021 8:00:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD CENTRL RICHMOND 12/20/2021 8:00:00 PM 12/20/2021 8:20:00 PM 12/20/2021 8:31:00 PM 12/20/2021 8:35:00 PM BIRD STUCK IN GLUE TRAP A21-317511 1 78 MANZANITA A464266 12/29/2021 4:06:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD LAUREL HEIGHTS 12/29/2021 4:06:00 PM 12/29/2021 4:07:00 PM 12/29/2021 4:20:00 PM 12/29/2021 4:27:00 PM BIRD ON GLUE TRAP A22-319314 1 691 LISBON 3/8/2022 9:13:00 AM RESCUE BUILDING 2 BIRD EXCELSIOR 3/8/2022 9:13:00 AM 3/8/2022 9:14:26 AM 3/8/2022 9:37:04 AM 3/8/2022 9:41:40 AM BIRD ON A GLUE TRAP A22-322002 1 0 20TH A469718 6/4/2022 7:12:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD INNER MISSION 6/4/2022 7:12:00 PM 6/4/2022 7:16:00 PM 6/4/2022 7:27:00 PM 6/4/2022 7:37:00 PM BIRD STUCK ON A GLUE TRAP A22-322903 1 601 STEINER A470947 7/2/2022 4:16:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 BIRD ALAMO SQUARE 7/2/2022 4:16:00 PM 7/2/2022 5:02:00 PM 7/2/2022 6:36:00 PM 7/2/2022 6:46:00 PM BIRD WAS IN GLUE TRAP - RP REMOVED BIRD AND CLEANED HIM
OFF BUT THINKS LEG OR WING MAY BE BROKEN
A22-323669 1 155 HAIGHT A472251 7/27/2022 8:12:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD HAYES VALLEY 7/27/2022 8:12:00 PM 7/27/2022 8:12:00 PM 7/27/2022 8:53:00 PM 7/27/2022 8:57:00 PM WILL BRING DOWN. ON GLUE TRAP A22-323669 07/27/22 20:41 EXTENDED ETA DUE TO STAFFING. ONLY AVAIL ACO KENNELING INJURED PIGEON FROM A22-323664 -SJ6 A22-323751 1 68 SANTA FE A472370 7/30/2022 1:37:00 PM WILD TRAPPED 2 BIRD SILVER TERRACE 7/30/2022 1:37:00 PM 7/30/2022 1:40:00 PM 7/30/2022 1:55:11 PM 7/30/2022 2:01:05 PM SPARROW STUCK IN GLUE TRAP ON SIDE AND BACK - LOCATED IFO GARAGE AT 20
A22-324340 1 0 COSO A473483 8/19/2022 2:55:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 OTHER BERNAL HTS NORT 8/19/2022 2:55:00 PM 8/19/2022 2:57:27 PM 8/19/2022 3:13:12 PM 8/19/2022 3:20:16 PM ONE TREE AT PARK NEAR INTERSECTION, RODENT ON STICKY
SUBSTANCE, LIKELY TRAP, JUST UPHILL OF TREE
A22-324456 1 1,167 HAYES A473677 8/22/2022 7:34:00 PM WILD TRAPPED 1 OTHER ALAMO SQUARE 8/22/2022 7:34:00 PM 8/22/2022 7:34:00 PM 8/22/2022 7:54:00 PM 8/22/2022 7:59:00 PM MOUSE ON GLUE TRAP STILL ALIVE A22-324866 1 41 KITTREDGE A474286 9/5/2022 10:37:00 AM WILD TRAPPED 2 OTHER LONE MOUNTAIN 9/5/2022 10:37:00 AM 9/5/2022 11:02:08 AM 9/5/2022 11:30:57 AM 9/5/2022 11:40:36 AM RAT ON GLUE TRAP MOVING IN STREET RP WILL TRY TO CONFINE A22-325194 1 1,378 PACIFIC 9/14/2022 3:48:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 SNAKE NOB HILL 9/14/2022 3:48:00 PM 9/14/2022 3:50:54 PM 9/14/2022 4:01:01 PM 9/14/2022 4:08:45 PM SNAKE ON GLUE TRAP A22-325194 09/14/22 17:10 I RESPONDED TO THIS CALL OF AN INJURED SNAKE. UPON ARRIVAL I MET WITH THE RP AND THE OWNER OF THE SNAKE. IT WAS A CORN SNAKE THAT HAD GOTTEN LOOSE WHILE THE OWNER HAD IT OUT TO STRETCH. WHILE OUT IT GOT INTO THE SHOP NEXT DOOR AND GOT STUCK IN A GLUE TRAP ON THE WINDOW SILL. THE OWNER WAS ALREADY WORKING ON GENTLY REMOVING THE SNAKE FROM THE TRAP WHEN I OFFERED TO HELP. HE HAD REMOVED THE ENTIRETY OF ITS BODY EXCEPT THE HEAD WHICH WAS STUCK TO A PAPER GLUE TRAP. I ASKED IF HE NEEDED ANY BABY OIL OR ASSISSTANCE TO REMOVE THE SNAKE COMPLETELY AND HE SAID HE HAD EVERYTHING HE NEEDED AT HOME AND LEFT TO GO CLEAN OFF THE SNAKE. HE WENT INTO THE HOME NEXT DOOR. -MT5T
A22-325775 1 340 PACIFIC A475588 10/4/2022 4:34:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 BIRD FINANC DIST NOR 10/4/2022 4:34:00 PM 10/4/2022 4:36:00 PM 10/4/2022 5:18:00 PM 10/4/2022 5:23:00 PM BIRD WAS ON GLUE TRAP. NOW IN BOX W RP A22-325824 1 1,158 BURROWS A475735 10/6/2022 5:25:00 PM WILD TRAPPED 1 SNAKE PORTOLA 10/6/2022 5:38:00 PM 10/6/2022 6:15:00 PM 10/6/2022 7:36:00 PM 10/6/2022 7:41:00 PM SNAKE ON STICKY RAT TRAP A22-326063 1 4,342 CALIFORNIA A476143 10/16/2022 1:28:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 OTHER LAKE 10/16/2022 1:28:00 PM 10/16/2022 1:30:00 PM 10/16/2022 1:56:00 PM 10/16/2022 2:05:00 PM MOUSE ON GLUE TRAP IN MIDDLE OF SIDEWALK A22-326063 10/16/22 17:07: EMAIL SENT THROUGH 311 ABOUT A RODENT STUCK TO A GLUE TRAP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SIDEWALK. I ARRIVED ON SCENE AND DID NOT SEE ANY ANIMAL. THERE WAS A TRASH CAN IN FRONT OF 4342 CALIFORNIA, SO I PEERED INSIDE AND SAW AN UPSIDEOWN GLUE TRAP, WHEN I TOUCHED TRAP, MOUSE STARTED SCREAMING AND WAS VERY MUCH ALIVE. I COVERED MOUSE AND TRAP WITH A TOWEL AND PLACED IN A TRANSPORT CARRIER. GOT BACK TO SHELTER AND BROUGHT TO VET STAFF FOR EVALUATION. -LM36
10/21/22 12:38 RESTAURANT CLOSED. LEFT A NOTE POSTED FOR MANAGMENT TO CALL DISPATCH. I DID NOT SEE ANY GLUR TRAPS IN USE AT THE TIME OF MY VISIT. MC35
A22-326063 3 4,342 CALIFORNIA A476143 10/16/2022 1:28:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 OTHER LAKE 10/16/2022 5:04:00 PM 10/21/2022 9:19:03 AM 10/21/2022 11:02:21 AM 10/21/2022 11:21:27 AM FOLLOW UP WITH RESTRAUNT ABOUT USING GLUE TRAPS IN
OUTDOOR SEATING AREA - SEE PICTURES/MEMO, RESTRAUNT
CLOSED SUN/MON
A22-326063 10/16/22 17:07: EMAIL SENT THROUGH 311 ABOUT A RODENT STUCK TO A GLUE TRAP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SIDEWALK. I ARRIVED ON SCENE AND DID NOT SEE ANY ANIMAL. THERE WAS A TRASH CAN IN FRONT OF 4342 CALIFORNIA, SO I PEERED INSIDE AND SAW AN UPSIDEOWN GLUE TRAP, WHEN I TOUCHED TRAP, MOUSE STARTED SCREAMING AND WAS VERY MUCH ALIVE. I COVERED MOUSE AND TRAP WITH A TOWEL AND PLACED IN A TRANSPORT CARRIER. GOT BACK TO SHELTER AND BROUGHT TO VET STAFF FOR EVALUATION. -LM36
10/21/22 12:38 RESTAURANT CLOSED. LEFT A NOTE POSTED FOR MANAGMENT TO CALL DISPATCH. I DID NOT SEE ANY GLUR TRAPS IN USE AT THE TIME OF MY VISIT. MC35
A22-326119 1 1,914 GOLDEN GATE 10/18/2022 4:06:00 PM WILD TRAPPED 1 OTHER NORTH PANHANDLE 10/18/2022 4:06:00 PM 10/18/2022 4:20:51 PM 10/18/2022 4:48:10 PM 10/18/2022 5:03:47 PM RAT STUCK IN TRAP, RP CAN NOT REACH TO RELEASE. A22-326119 10/18/22 18:47 OFC JOLLEY #6 ARRIVED AT LOCATION AND MADE CONTACT WITH THE HUSBAND OF THE RP, RP WAS NO LONGER AT
20. HUSBAND SHOWED US WHERE THE RAT STUCK IN THE TRAP WAS LAST SEEN, UNDERNEATH A SPACE UNDER AND EXTERIOR STORAGE CLOSET. WE WERE UNABLE TO LOCATE THE RAT OR TRAP. WE SAW ANOTHER "GLUE TRAP" IN THE STORAGE SPACE AND TOOK CUSTODY OF THAT. I EXPLAINED TO THE HUSBAND THAT USING GLUE TRAPS IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE A RODENT PROBLEM AND HE NEEDS TO FIGURE OUT A BTTER WAY TO DO SO. I SUGGESTED HE PUT AMMONIA TO HELP DETER RODENTS FROM COMING TO HIS HOUSE. -SJ6/PQ6T-
A22-327604 1 2,448 FILLMORE A478586 12/15/2022 1:05:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD PACIFIC HEIGHTS 12/15/2022 1:05:00 PM 12/15/2022 1:07:52 PM 12/15/2022 1:30:22 PM 12/15/2022 1:51:57 PM bird struggling on glue trap A22-327771 1 2,706 SAN BRUNO A478820 12/22/2022 8:05:00 PM WILD TRAPPED 2 OTHER PORTOLA 12/22/2022 8:05:00 PM 12/22/2022 8:07:00 PM 12/22/2022 8:25:00 PM 12/22/2022 8:28:00 PM RATS ON GLUE TRAP A22-327771 12/22/22 21:50 WE RECEIVED A CALL THAT RAT HAD BEEN CAUGHT IN A GLUE TRAP. WE ASKED TO BRING THE TRAP DOWN FOR OFFICERS TO PICK UP OUTSIDE OF THE RESIDENT, DUE TO PREVIOUS HOSTILITY TOWARDS OFFICERS. SHE WOULDN'T/ COULDN'T COMPLY WITH OUR INSTRUCTIONS. THE KITCHEN REMAINS CLUTTERED. WE ASKED IF THIS WAS THE ONLY TRAP SET, SHE SAID YES. WE STERNLY EDUCATED HER ON THE USE OF GLUE TRAPS AND EXPRESSLY TOLD HER NOT TO SET ANY MORE. WE ADVISED THAT IT WAS LIKELY THERE WERE MORE RATS IN THE UNIT AND TO MANAGE ACCORDINGLY. ANIMALS IMPOUNDED AND HUMANELY EUTHANIZED. MC35
A23-327987 1 422 2ND 1/3/2023 12:02:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD INNER RICHMOND 1/3/2023 12:02:00 PM 1/3/2023 12:04:00 PM 1/3/2023 12:16:00 PM 1/3/2023 12:38:00 PM CROW STUCK IN GLUE TRAP A23-327987 01/03/23 17:22 I RESPONDED OUT TO THIS CALL AND WAS ABLE TO LOCATE THE GLUE TRAP. THERE WERE FEATHERS STUCK TO THE GLUE TRAP BUT NO BIRD IN SIGHT. I LOOKED AROUND THE AREA BUT WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANY BIRDS. I TOOK THE GLUE TRAP FOR DISPOSAL. -MT37
A23-327996 1 1,765 VALLEJO A479128 1/3/2023 4:52:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 OTHER PACIFIC HEIGHTS 1/3/2023 4:52:00 PM 1/3/2023 4:59:00 PM 1/3/2023 5:30:44 PM 1/3/2023 5:42:14 PM RP SET GLUE TRAPS. TWO MICE STUCK A23-327996 01/03/23 17:02 EXTENDED ETA DUE TO STAFFING. SR33 A23-327998 1 2,706 SAN BRUNO 1/3/2023 7:18:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 OPOSSUM PORTOLA 1/3/2023 7:18:00 PM 1/3/2023 7:20:00 PM 1/3/2023 7:31:38 PM 1/3/2023 7:48:27 PM GLUE TRAP RAT A23-327998 01/03/23 21:53 THERE WAS NO RAT IN A TRAP WHEN WE ARRIVED. WE PULLED 4 GLUE TRAPS AND REMINDED HER NOT TO USE THEM. SHE SAID HER LANDLORD PUT THEM OUT , NOT HER. WE ADVISED HER TO PULL ANY GLUE TRAPS THAT ARE USED. THE KITCHEN REMAINS CLUTTERED AND FULL OF RODENT FECES. MC35 A23-328160 1 1,040 BUSH A479354 1/11/2023 11:01:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 OTHER TENDERLOIN 1/11/2023 11:01:00 PM 1/11/2023 11:03:00 PM 1/11/2023 11:15:00 PM 1/11/2023 11:16:00 PM baby rat in glue trap; call RP when 97 A23-328264 1 3,048 16TH A479547 1/16/2023 5:48:00 PM WILD TRAPPED 2 OTHER INNER MISSION 1/16/2023 5:48:00 PM 1/16/2023 5:50:00 PM 1/16/2023 6:06:00 PM 1/16/2023 6:14:00 PM mouse on glue trap set by rp.
A23-328763 1 2,706 SAN BRUNO 2/6/2023 7:02:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 OTHER PORTOLA 2/6/2023 7:02:00 PM 2/6/2023 7:02:00 PM 2/6/2023 7:26:00 PM 2/6/2023 7:47:00 PM RAT STUCK IN GLUE TRAP, AGAIN A23-328763 02/06/23 22:37: RP CALLED TO SAY THAT SHE RETURNED FROM A TRIP IN THE PHILIPPINES AND HER LANDLORD HAD PLACED GLUE TRAPS IN HER KITCHEN AGAIN AND THERE WAS A RAT STUCK TO THE TRAP. WE HAVE HAD PREVIOUS ISSUES AT SAME 20 WITH SAME RP. SHE HAS A VERY CLUTTERED HOUSE AND KITCHEN. THIS TIME WHEN WE ENTERED THE KITCHEN, IT LOOKED WAY WORSE THAN PREVIOUS TIMES WE HAVE GONE OUT. THERE WERE RAT FECES EVERYWHERE AND THE RATS WERE EATING EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THE CORNER OF THE KITCHEN TABLE. AS I WAS TAKING PICTURES OF THE RAT IN THE TRAP FOR RF22, THE RAT ESCAPED (AS THE RAT ONLY HAD ONE BACK FOOT IN GLUE TRAP). AFTER THE RAT ESCAPED THE RP BEGAN SCREAMING AND WAS FURIOUS THAT WE LET THE RAT GO. SHE WAS INSISTING THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY RAT IN HER PLACE AND WAS VERY ADAMIT ABOUT US GETTING THE RAT. HER KITCHEN IS VERY CLUTTERED AND THE RAT WAS NO WHERE TO BE FOUND.
TRIED EXPLAINING THAT THERE IS A MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM THEN THE ONE RAT WE SAW. RP HAD A HARD TIME
UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE NEEDED TO CONTACT A PEST CONTROL COMPANY AS THINGS ARE OUT OF HAND AND MORE THAN A "TRAP" CAN HANDLE. THERE IS A RESTRAUNT DOWNSTAIRS THAT COULD BE ATTRIBUTING TO THE AMMOUNT OF RATS, BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE ARE MANY LIVING IN THE RP'S KITCHEN. WE AGAIN COLLECTED ALL GLUE TRAPS THAT THE LANDLORD HAD PLACED IN THE KITCHEN, MANY TRAPS HAD CHUNKS OF HAIR INDICATING THAT RATS WERE GETTING PARTIALLY TRAPPED. RP SAYS THAT THE LANDLORD PLACES THE TRAPS AND TELLS THE RP TO JUST THROW AWAY THE TRAPS WHEN THEN CATCH A RAT.
RP IS TERRIFIED OF THE RATS AND CALLS US AS SOON AS THERE IS A RAT IN A TRAP. AFTER A LENGTHLY DISCUSSION WITH HER
AND THE NEXT DOOR TENANT, IT WAS CLEARLY STATED THAT SHE NEEDS TO CONTACT A PROFESSIONAL PEST CONTROL
COMPANY TO DEAL WITH HER APARTMENT AND THAT SHE CANNOT LET HER LANDLORD KEEP PLACING GLUE TRAPS IN HER KITCHEN. I AM SURE WE WILL HEAR FROM HER AGAIN. -LM36/MC35 A23-329162 1 498 JEFFERSON A480955 2/23/2023 9:23:00 AM WILD INJURED 2 OTHER NORTH WATERFRON 2/23/2023 9:23:00 AM 2/23/2023 9:33:00 AM 2/23/2023 9:44:00 AM 2/23/2023 9:52:00 AM Rat located in parking lot back paw stuck in a glue trap A23-330203 1 506 ROCKDALE A482341 4/9/2023 1:31:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD MIRALOMA PARK 4/9/2023 1:31:00 PM 4/9/2023 1:36:56 PM 4/9/2023 1:54:26 PM 4/9/2023 2:03:32 PM NEIGHBOR HAD 2 GLUE TRAPS OUT, CAUGHT 2 SPARROWS.
CALLER REMOVED BIRDS WITH BABY OIL BUT ONE IS
UNCONFINED. THE OTHER MANGLED.
A23-331098 1 1,295 SHAFTER A483898 5/12/2023 10:47:00 AM WILD INJURED 2 OTHER BAYVIEW DISTRIC 5/12/2023 10:47:00 AM 5/12/2023 10:50:54 AM 5/12/2023 11:01:56 AM 5/12/2023 11:06:42 AM RAT ON STICKY TRAP STILL ALIVE, ALONG SIDE OF FIRE STATION ON INGALLS. RP SAW SOMEONE TOSS IT OUT CAR WINDOW
A23-331268 1 1,215 29TH 5/18/2023 7:18:00 AM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 MOUSE/RAT CENTRL SUNSET 5/18/2023 7:18:00 AM 5/18/2023 7:30:00 AM 5/18/2023 8:02:00 AM 5/18/2023 8:20:00 AM RAT STUCK TO TRAP A23-331268 05/18/23 10:04 EXTENDED ETA. ONLY OFFICERS AVAILABLE WERE ON ANOTHER CALL AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CITY. SP13 A23-331806 1 173 HAROLD 6/5/2023 10:38:00 AM WILD SICK 1 BIRD INGLESIDE 6/5/2023 10:38:00 AM 6/5/2023 10:47:00 AM 6/5/2023 11:31:53 AM 6/5/2023 11:38:16 AM **SECOND RP STATES BIRDS FOOT WAS STUCK TO GLUE TRAP
BUT HAS BEEN REMOVED BY RP AND NOW APPEARS INJURED
LETHARGIC CROW IFO WHITE SEDAN. HASN'T MOVED IN SEVERAL HOURS
A23-331806 06/05/23 14:00 I ARRIVED ON SCENE AND TWO JUVENILES STATED THE BIRD WAS STUCK IN A GLUE TRAP BUT GOT LOOSE. BIRD THEN FLEW UP TO A CABLE POLE, I COULD SEE BIRD WAS APPEARING TO CLEAN ITSELF. I CLAPPED MY HANDS AND BIRD FLEW AWAY. APPEARS IT MAY HAVE SOME GLUE STUCK ON FEATHERS, BUT ABLE TO FLY AND MOVE WITH EASE. GLUE TRAP HAD A DEAD MOUSE ON IT, REMOVED FOR DISPOSAL. -PQ41-
activity_no activity_seq act_street_no act_street_name animal_id Call Date activity_type activity_subtype activity_priority animal_type jurisdiction Activity Date dispatch_date working_date complete_date activity_comment memo_id memo_text A23-332454 1 195 KISKA 6/26/2023 4:45:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 BIRD HUNTERS POINT 6/26/2023 4:45:00 PM 6/26/2023 4:46:24 PM 6/26/2023 5:24:37 PM 6/26/2023 5:26:01 PM BIRD IN GLUE TRAP A23-332454 06/26/23 17:26 OFC ORTEGA #40 AND I RESPONDED OUT TO THIS CALL. UPON ARRIVAL THE RP CAME UP TO US AND NOTIFIED US THAT THE BIRD WAS DECEASED. SHE DIDN'T KNOW THE SPECIES BUT IT WAS VERY TINY AND ITS WHOLE FACE WAS STUCK IN THE GLUE TRAP. THEY BURIED IT PRIOR TO OUR ARRIVAL. -MT37
A23-333976 1 2,215 LINCOLN A490957 8/17/2023 7:31:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 MOUSE/RAT INNER SUNSET 8/17/2023 7:31:00 PM 8/17/2023 7:31:00 PM 8/17/2023 7:44:00 PM 8/17/2023 7:50:00 PM MOUSE STUCK IN GLUE TRAP A23-334174 1 3,183 MISSION 8/24/2023 6:33:00 AM WILD TRAP 2 MOUSE/RAT BERNAL HTS NORT 8/24/2023 6:33:00 AM 8/24/2023 6:34:00 AM 8/24/2023 6:55:00 AM 8/24/2023 6:59:00 AM RAT IN GLUE TRAP IFO 20, MAKING NOISE IN DISTRESS A23-334878 1 270 18TH A492179 9/16/2023 4:03:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD CENTRL RICHMOND 9/16/2023 4:03:00 PM 9/16/2023 4:09:10 PM 9/16/2023 4:39:10 PM 9/16/2023 4:47:39 PM bird on glue trap A23-334878 09/16/23 16:14 extended traffic jk5 A23-335031 1 144 27TH 9/22/2023 6:45:00 AM STRAY TRAP 2 CAT LAKE STREET 9/22/2023 6:45:00 AM 9/22/2023 6:47:00 AM 9/22/2023 7:15:00 AM 9/22/2023 7:45:00 AM CAT STUCK IN GLUE TRAPS IN GARAGE A23-335031 09/22/23 06:47: extended ETA due to being dispatch from other side of city. -lm36
09/22/23 08:31 CAT HAD MADE HIS WAY UNDER THE STAIRS IN THE GARAGE IN A VERY SMALL SPACE AND WAS UN REACHABLE. JK5 APPROVED TRAP TO BE SET IN GARAGE. HOMEOWNERS WILL BE AROUND AND WILL CALL US AS SOON AS CAT IS IN TRAP. CAT STILL HAD AT LEAST ONE GLUE TRAP STILL ATTACHED TO UNDERSIDE/FEET. CHECK TRAP BY 0730 ON 9/23/23- LM36
09/24/23 13:21 I TOOK PHOTOS WITH MY ACO PHONE TO SEE IF I AM ABLE TO SEE THE CAT. I WASN'T ABLE TO SEE THE CAT BUT I DID SEE 2 GLUE TRAPS THAT WERE SITTING WHERE THE CAT MAY HAVE BEEN. I TOLD HOME OWNERS I WILL SPEAK WITH CAPTAIN
OR LIEUTENANT TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON BUT WARNED HER THAT IF THE CAT IS NOT IN THE TRAP BY TOMORROW 9/25/23 WHEN WE CHECK WE WILL PULL THE TRAP. CHECKED WITH RF 22 AND SHE OKED THE TRAP TO BE PULLED. - DTB28
09/25/23 14:18 MADE CONTACT WITH THE HOME OWNER WHO SAID SHE LOOKED BACK AT CAMERA FOOTAGE FROM 9/23/23 AND SAID SHE SAW THE CAT THAT SHE BELIEVES WAS IN HER GARAGE AREA WALKING IN THE FRONT OF HER HOME. SHE ALSO SAID IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT NO LONGER HAD GLUE TRAPS ATTACHED. I RE-CHECKED THE TRAP AND THERE WAS NO CAT IN THE TRAP AND NO CAT UNDER THE STAIRS. TOOK TRAP OFF TRAP BOARD. -DTB28 A23-335031 3 144 27TH 9/22/2023 6:45:00 AM STRAY TRAP 1 CAT LAKE STREET 9/22/2023 6:45:00 AM 9/23/2023 6:43:00 AM 9/23/2023 8:15:00 AM 9/23/2023 8:32:00 AM CHECK TRAP AT 0730
CAT STUCK IN GLUE TRAPS IN GARAGE
A23-335031
09/22/23 06:47: extended ETA due to being dispatch from other side of city. -lm36
09/22/23 08:31 CAT HAD MADE HIS WAY UNDER THE STAIRS IN THE GARAGE IN A VERY SMALL SPACE AND WAS UN REACHABLE. JK5 APPROVED TRAP TO BE SET IN GARAGE. HOMEOWNERS WILL BE AROUND AND WILL CALL US AS SOON AS CAT IS IN TRAP. CAT STILL HAD AT LEAST ONE GLUE TRAP STILL ATTACHED TO UNDERSIDE/FEET. CHECK TRAP BY 0730 ON 9/23/23- LM36
09/24/23 13:21 I TOOK PHOTOS WITH MY ACO PHONE TO SEE IF I AM ABLE TO SEE THE CAT. I WASN'T ABLE TO SEE THE CAT BUT I DID SEE 2 GLUE TRAPS THAT WERE SITTING WHERE THE CAT MAY HAVE BEEN. I TOLD HOME OWNERS I WILL SPEAK WITH CAPTAIN
OR LIEUTENANT TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON BUT WARNED HER THAT IF THE CAT IS NOT IN THE TRAP BY TOMORROW 9/25/23 WHEN WE CHECK WE WILL PULL THE TRAP. CHECKED WITH RF 22 AND SHE OKED THE TRAP TO BE PULLED. - DTB28
09/25/23 14:18 MADE CONTACT WITH THE HOME OWNER WHO SAID SHE LOOKED BACK AT CAMERA FOOTAGE FROM 9/23/23 AND SAID SHE SAW THE CAT THAT SHE BELIEVES WAS IN HER GARAGE AREA WALKING IN THE FRONT OF HER HOME. SHE ALSO SAID IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT NO LONGER HAD GLUE TRAPS ATTACHED. I RE-CHECKED THE TRAP AND THERE WAS NO CAT IN THE TRAP AND NO CAT UNDER THE STAIRS. TOOK TRAP OFF TRAP BOARD. -DTB28 A23-335031 4 144 27TH 9/22/2023 6:45:00 AM STRAY TRAP 1 CAT LAKE STREET 9/23/2023 2:28:00 PM 9/24/2023 6:21:00 AM 9/24/2023 8:32:00 AM 9/24/2023 8:44:00 AM CHECK TRAP AT 0832
CAT STUCK IN GLUE TRAPS IN GARAGE
A23-335031
09/22/23 06:47: extended ETA due to being dispatch from other side of city. -lm36
09/22/23 08:31 CAT HAD MADE HIS WAY UNDER THE STAIRS IN THE GARAGE IN A VERY SMALL SPACE AND WAS UN REACHABLE. JK5 APPROVED TRAP TO BE SET IN GARAGE. HOMEOWNERS WILL BE AROUND AND WILL CALL US AS SOON AS CAT IS IN TRAP. CAT STILL HAD AT LEAST ONE GLUE TRAP STILL ATTACHED TO UNDERSIDE/FEET. CHECK TRAP BY 0730 ON 9/23/23- LM36
09/24/23 13:21 I TOOK PHOTOS WITH MY ACO PHONE TO SEE IF I AM ABLE TO SEE THE CAT. I WASN'T ABLE TO SEE THE CAT BUT I DID SEE 2 GLUE TRAPS THAT WERE SITTING WHERE THE CAT MAY HAVE BEEN. I TOLD HOME OWNERS I WILL SPEAK WITH CAPTAIN
OR LIEUTENANT TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON BUT WARNED HER THAT IF THE CAT IS NOT IN THE TRAP BY TOMORROW 9/25/23 WHEN WE CHECK WE WILL PULL THE TRAP. CHECKED WITH RF 22 AND SHE OKED THE TRAP TO BE PULLED. - DTB28
09/25/23 14:18 MADE CONTACT WITH THE HOME OWNER WHO SAID SHE LOOKED BACK AT CAMERA FOOTAGE FROM 9/23/23 AND SAID SHE SAW THE CAT THAT SHE BELIEVES WAS IN HER GARAGE AREA WALKING IN THE FRONT OF HER HOME. SHE ALSO SAID IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT NO LONGER HAD GLUE TRAPS ATTACHED. I RE-CHECKED THE TRAP AND THERE WAS NO CAT IN THE TRAP AND NO CAT UNDER THE STAIRS. TOOK TRAP OFF TRAP BOARD. -DTB28 A23-335031 5 144 27TH 9/22/2023 6:45:00 AM STRAY TRAP 1 CAT LAKE STREET 9/23/2023 2:28:00 PM 9/25/2023 6:17:00 AM 9/25/2023 9:09:36 AM 9/25/2023 9:16:41 AM CHECK TRAP AT 0832 CAT STUCK IN GLUE TRAPS IN GARAGE OK TO PULL THE TRAP IF THE CAT IS NOT IN THE TRAP PER RF22.
A23-335031
09/22/23 06:47: extended ETA due to being dispatch from other side of city. -lm36
09/22/23 08:31 CAT HAD MADE HIS WAY UNDER THE STAIRS IN THE GARAGE IN A VERY SMALL SPACE AND WAS UN REACHABLE. JK5 APPROVED TRAP TO BE SET IN GARAGE. HOMEOWNERS WILL BE AROUND AND WILL CALL US AS SOON AS CAT IS IN TRAP. CAT STILL HAD AT LEAST ONE GLUE TRAP STILL ATTACHED TO UNDERSIDE/FEET. CHECK TRAP BY 0730 ON 9/23/23- LM36
09/24/23 13:21 I TOOK PHOTOS WITH MY ACO PHONE TO SEE IF I AM ABLE TO SEE THE CAT. I WASN'T ABLE TO SEE THE CAT BUT I DID SEE 2 GLUE TRAPS THAT WERE SITTING WHERE THE CAT MAY HAVE BEEN. I TOLD HOME OWNERS I WILL SPEAK WITH CAPTAIN
OR LIEUTENANT TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON BUT WARNED HER THAT IF THE CAT IS NOT IN THE TRAP BY TOMORROW 9/25/23 WHEN WE CHECK WE WILL PULL THE TRAP. CHECKED WITH RF 22 AND SHE OKED THE TRAP TO BE PULLED. - DTB28
09/25/23 14:18 MADE CONTACT WITH THE HOME OWNER WHO SAID SHE LOOKED BACK AT CAMERA FOOTAGE FROM 9/23/23 AND SAID SHE SAW THE CAT THAT SHE BELIEVES WAS IN HER GARAGE AREA WALKING IN THE FRONT OF HER HOME. SHE ALSO SAID IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT NO LONGER HAD GLUE TRAPS ATTACHED. I RE-CHECKED THE TRAP AND THERE WAS NO CAT IN THE TRAP AND NO CAT UNDER THE STAIRS. TOOK TRAP OFF TRAP BOARD. -DTB28 A23-335279 1 55 HAWTHORNE A497197 10/1/2023 9:05:00 AM WILD TRAP 2 PIGEON FINANC DIST SOU 10/1/2023 9:05:00 AM 10/1/2023 9:08:52 AM 10/1/2023 9:29:47 AM 10/1/2023 9:35:44 AM pigeon stuck in glue trap, 21 when 97 A23-336657 1 305 CHESTNUT A500803 11/15/2023 9:37:00 PM WILD CONFINED 2 BAT TELEGRAPH HILL 11/15/2023 9:37:00 PM 11/15/2023 9:37:00 PM 11/15/2023 10:00:00 PM 11/15/2023 10:18:00 PM BAT IN HALLWAY OF HOME A23-336657 11/16/23 21:08 RE: A23-336657; RP FROM 305 CHESTNUT CALLED STATING OFFICERS CAME LAST NIGHT FOR A BAT IT THERE HOUSE AND NOW THEY HAVE ANOTHER ONE. AND SAW ANOTHER ONE JUST OUTSIDE THERE WINDOW. WE ARRIVED ON SCENE AND RP STATED BAT WAS NOW INSIDE THEIR HALLWAY ON THE GROUND. WE WERE ABLE TO CONFINE BAT, APPEARED HEALTHY.
EXPLAINED TO RP THAT THEY LIKELY HAVE A BAT INVESTATION AND THEY NEED TO TALK TO THEIR LANDLORD TO HAVE A BAT SPECIALIST COME OUT. WE LEFT TO ATTEMPT TO RTW IF APPROVED. ABOUT 2 MINUTES LATER RP CALLED BACK AGAIN AND STATED THERE WAS ANOTHER BAT IN THERE GARAGE, WE RETURNED TO TRY TO SECURE SECOND BAT. WE WERE ABLE TO SECURE 2ND BAT WITH OUT ISSUE, ALSO APPEARED HEALTHY. I CHECKED THE GARAGE AREA FOS POSSIBLE MORE BATS AND WE NOTICED THERE WAS A DROP CEILING WITH MISSING PANNELS, LIKELY AREA FOR BATS TO NEST. I THEN LOCATED A BAT IN A GLUE TRAP ON THE GROUND, STILL ALIVE. WE SECURED THIS BAT AND DISPOSED OF REMAINING GLUE TRAP. WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED RP TO CONTACT LANDLORD TONIGHT FOR BAT SPECIALIST. VD1 WAS INFORMED OF THE SITUATION, PERMISSION
TO RTW BATS GRANTED DUE TO THE FACT THEY ALL SEEMED HEALTHY, AND THE BAT FROM PREVIOUS NIGHT WAS ALREADY SENT TO HTL. WE WERE ABLE TO SAFELY RELEASE THE FIRST TWO BATS, AND ABLE TO FREE THE THIRD BAT FROM THE GLUE TRAP. IF MORE CALLS FOR BATS AT THIS LOCATION, THEY MAY NEED TO WAIT FOR BAT SPECIALIST UNLESS BAT APPEARS SICK OR HAS CONFIRMED EXPOSURE TO RESIDENTS. -PQ41-
A23-336657 2 305 CHESTNUT A500803 11/15/2023 9:37:00 PM WILD CONFINED 2 BAT TELEGRAPH HILL 11/16/2023 6:24:00 PM 11/16/2023 6:49:00 PM 11/16/2023 6:58:00 PM 11/16/2023 7:41:00 PM BAT IN GARAGE A23-336657 11/16/23 21:08 RE: A23-336657; RP FROM 305 CHESTNUT CALLED STATING OFFICERS CAME LAST NIGHT FOR A BAT IT THERE HOUSE AND NOW THEY HAVE ANOTHER ONE. AND SAW ANOTHER ONE JUST OUTSIDE THERE WINDOW. WE ARRIVED ON SCENE AND RP STATED BAT WAS NOW INSIDE THEIR HALLWAY ON THE GROUND. WE WERE ABLE TO CONFINE BAT, APPEARED HEALTHY.
EXPLAINED TO RP THAT THEY LIKELY HAVE A BAT INVESTATION AND THEY NEED TO TALK TO THEIR LANDLORD TO HAVE A BAT SPECIALIST COME OUT. WE LEFT TO ATTEMPT TO RTW IF APPROVED. ABOUT 2 MINUTES LATER RP CALLED BACK AGAIN AND STATED THERE WAS ANOTHER BAT IN THERE GARAGE, WE RETURNED TO TRY TO SECURE SECOND BAT. WE WERE ABLE TO SECURE 2ND BAT WITH OUT ISSUE, ALSO APPEARED HEALTHY. I CHECKED THE GARAGE AREA FOS POSSIBLE MORE BATS AND WE NOTICED THERE WAS A DROP CEILING WITH MISSING PANNELS, LIKELY AREA FOR BATS TO NEST. I THEN LOCATED A BAT IN A GLUE TRAP ON THE GROUND, STILL ALIVE. WE SECURED THIS BAT AND DISPOSED OF REMAINING GLUE TRAP. WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED RP TO CONTACT LANDLORD TONIGHT FOR BAT SPECIALIST. VD1 WAS INFORMED OF THE SITUATION, PERMISSION
TO RTW BATS GRANTED DUE TO THE FACT THEY ALL SEEMED HEALTHY, AND THE BAT FROM PREVIOUS NIGHT WAS ALREADY SENT TO HTL. WE WERE ABLE TO SAFELY RELEASE THE FIRST TWO BATS, AND ABLE TO FREE THE THIRD BAT FROM THE GLUE TRAP. IF MORE CALLS FOR BATS AT THIS LOCATION, THEY MAY NEED TO WAIT FOR BAT SPECIALIST UNLESS BAT APPEARS SICK OR HAS CONFIRMED EXPOSURE TO RESIDENTS. -PQ41-
A23-337668 1 85 5TH A503816 12/26/2023 12:04:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 BIRD SOUTH OF MARKET 12/26/2023 12:04:00 PM 12/26/2023 12:08:48 PM 12/26/2023 12:13:25 PM 12/26/2023 12:22:51 PM PIGEON UNBALE TO FLY GLUE ON WINGS A24-338413 1 2,682 WAWONA 1/26/2024 11:53:00 AM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 BIRD OUTER PARKSIDE 1/26/2024 11:53:00 AM 1/26/2024 11:58:00 AM 1/26/2024 12:15:00 PM 1/26/2024 12:17:00 PM BIRD IN GLUE TRAP ON SIDEWALK IFO 20
GS WAS ABLE TO FREE BIRD PRIOR TO ACO ARRIVAL
A24-338635 1 2,762 40TH A506893 2/4/2024 2:57:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 BAT OUTER PARKSIDE 2/4/2024 2:57:00 PM 2/4/2024 3:02:08 PM 2/4/2024 3:38:12 PM 2/4/2024 3:46:16 PM BAT STUCK ON STICKY TAPE, NO CONTACT IN HOUSE A24-340757 1 60 SANTA RITA A512881 4/27/2024 3:39:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 BIRD FOREST HILL 4/27/2024 3:39:00 PM 4/27/2024 3:46:52 PM 4/27/2024 4:19:44 PM 4/27/2024 4:34:10 PM SMALL FINCH WAS STUCK IN GLUE TRAP, RP UNSTUCK AND POSSIBLY BROKE WING. RP IS AT 20 AND CAN SHOW YOU THE
BIRD. PLEASE CALL WHEN 49
A24-342796 1 298 11TH A518127 7/4/2024 8:15:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 1 PIGEON SOUTH OF MARKET 7/4/2024 8:15:00 PM 7/4/2024 8:20:00 PM 7/4/2024 8:24:00 PM 7/4/2024 8:32:00 PM PIGEON STUCK IN STICKY FLY TRAP ON BAR ROOF. CL42 A24-343306 1 2,168 BUSH A519754 7/21/2024 6:26:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD PACIFIC HEIGHTS 7/21/2024 6:26:00 PM 7/21/2024 6:26:00 PM 7/21/2024 6:48:00 PM 7/21/2024 6:51:00 PM RP FOUND AND REMOVED A BIRD FROM A GLUE TRAP. SAYS BIRD IS NOT WELL AND COVERED IN GLUE OIL AND SOAP.
A24-343306 07/21/24 18:39 EXTENDED ETA DUE TO OFFICERS BEING DISPATCHED FROM THE SHELTER. -MT37 A24-343665 1 741 30TH A520408 8/1/2024 2:00:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 BIRD OUTER RICHMOND 8/1/2024 2:00:00 PM 8/1/2024 2:01:21 PM 8/1/2024 2:31:37 PM 8/1/2024 2:36:37 PM BIRD IN GLUE TRAP A24-343665 08/01/24 14:08 EXTENDED ETA DUE TO PTS OF A INJURIED COYOTE. -DTB28 A24-345375 1 2,621 LAGUNA A524949 9/25/2024 3:09:00 PM WILD TRAP 2 BIRD PACIFIC HEIGHTS 9/25/2024 3:09:00 PM 9/25/2024 3:18:57 PM 9/25/2024 3:59:59 PM 9/25/2024 4:06:45 PM BIRD DYING IN GLUE TRAP. RP LEFT BUT WILL GIVE ACCESS AT 4 PM
A24-345375 09/25/24 15:17 PUT IN AS CODE 2 BUT EXTENDED ETA BECAUSE RP WONT BE HOME TO GIVE ACESS UNTIL THEN. SR33 A24-345834 1 658 19TH 10/7/2024 11:38:00 AM ASSIST PUBLIC 1 SNAKE OUTER RICHMOND 10/7/2024 11:38:00 AM 10/7/2024 2:15:48 PM 10/7/2024 3:36:15 PM 10/7/2024 3:52:55 PM SNAKE IN STORAGE ROOM, UNKNOWN TYPE OF SNAKE. DOOR
NEXT TO SNAKE LEFT OPEN, TOLD TO TRY AND CONFINE AREA SO SNAKE ONLY HAS THE EXIT BUT RP TOO SCARED. REFUSED TO
TAKE A PIC DUE TO FEAR.
A24-345834 10/07/24 17:52 I RESPONDED OUT TO THIS CALL AND MADE CONTACT WITH THE RP/ THEY SHOWED ME WHERE THEY SAW THE SNAKE. THEY HAD MULTIPLE GLUE TRAPS SET UP IN THE ROOM THE SNAKE WAS SEEN IN. I COULD SEE A TRAIL OF GLUE LEADING FROM ONE TRAP AROUND THE DOOR AND TO THE EXIT. I COULD NOT LOCATE A SNAKE. I EDUCATED THEM ON THE USE OF GLUE TRAPS AND ONLY USING HUMANE TRAPS THROUGH A PEST CONTROL COMPANY. -MT37 A24-345891 1 989 HAMPSHIRE 10/8/2024 9:37:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 1 RACCOON POTRERO HILL 10/8/2024 9:37:00 PM 10/8/2024 9:48:53 PM 10/8/2024 10:01:50 PM 10/8/2024 10:24:35 PM RACCON W/ GLUETRAP STUCK ON FOOT. RP ADVISED TO CALL
BACK IF THE RACCON LEAVES
A24-345891 10/08/24 23:09 AC37 AND I MC W/ RP WHO BROUGHT US TO BACK AREA WHERE RACCOON WAS SEEN. THE RACCON WAS NO LONGER WHERE THEY HAD SEEN IT. WE LOCATED TWO HEALTHY RACCONS ON THE DECK OF THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE, NO TRAP ON EITHER OF THEM. AC37 LOCATED THE RACCOON W/ A RAT TRAP ON IT HIDING UNDER SOME STAIRS. I USED A CATCH POLE TO SECURE THE RACCOON, WHILE AC37 RELEASED THE TRAP. NO OBVIOUS INJURIES, WE RELEASED IT AND IT CLIMED OVER THE FENCE TO HIS SIBLINGS. RPS SAID THEY WOULD TALK TO THEIR LANDLORD ABOUT SETTING SNAP TRAPS IN THE BACKYARD. -PQ41-
activity_no activity_seq act_street_no act_street_name animal_id Call Date activity_type activity_subtype activity_priority animal_type jurisdiction Activity Date dispatch_date working_date complete_date activity_comment memo_id memo_text A24-346104 1 1,299 STOREY A526468 10/17/2024 2:22:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 MOUSE/RAT PRESIDIO 10/17/2024 2:22:00 PM 10/17/2024 2:26:50 PM 10/17/2024 3:06:19 PM 10/17/2024 3:11:08 PM RAT STUCK ON A GLUE TRAP. LEG IS POSS BROKEN. A24-346104 10/17/24 14:27 ETENDED ETA DUE TO TRAFFIC. -DTB28 A24-346135 1 1,698 HUDSON 10/18/2024 12:23:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 OTHER BAYVIEW DISTRIC 10/18/2024 12:23:00 PM 10/18/2024 12:26:19 PM 10/18/2024 12:47:26 PM 10/18/2024 12:57:06 PM was on glue trap now stuck to cement . already ed r/p on it.
A24-346384 1 3,580 FOLSOM A527372 10/26/2024 1:38:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 MOUSE/RAT BERNAL HEIGHTS 10/26/2024 1:38:00 PM 10/26/2024 1:41:24 PM 10/26/2024 2:03:40 PM 10/26/2024 2:23:00 PM RAT STUCK ON GLUE TRAP. RP CAN NOT BRING IT DOWN. IT'S BEHIND HER WASHER.
A24-346384 10/26/24 13:40 EXTENDED ETA DUE TO STAFFING. DTB28 A24-346503 1 3,294 26TH A527643 10/30/2024 8:24:00 PM WILD TRAP 1 PIGEON MISSION 10/30/2024 8:24:00 PM 10/30/2024 8:28:43 PM 10/30/2024 8:39:32 PM 10/30/2024 8:48:38 PM PIGEON ON GLUE TRAP SINCE THIS AFTERNOON A24-346562 1 985 UNION A527742 11/1/2024 6:27:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 BIRD RUSSIAN HILL 11/1/2024 6:27:00 PM 11/1/2024 6:27:00 PM 11/1/2024 6:47:00 PM 11/1/2024 6:53:00 PM A24-346678 1 1,932 WEBSTER A528447 11/5/2024 3:05:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 BIRD PACIFIC HEIGHTS 11/5/2024 3:05:00 PM 11/5/2024 3:09:41 PM 11/5/2024 3:34:23 PM 11/5/2024 3:44:07 PM BIRD IN GLUE TRAP A24-346955 1 1,299 STOREY A529083 11/14/2024 12:28:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 OTHER PRESIDIO 11/14/2024 12:28:00 PM 11/14/2024 12:31:07 PM 11/14/2024 12:53:10 PM 11/14/2024 12:59:58 PM ON GLUE TRAP A24-346955 11/14/24 13:56 RESPONDED TO 1299 STOREY AND WAS SHOWN BY STAFF WHERE THE RAT WAS LOCATED. RAT WAS STUCK TO THE GLUE TRAP BUT APPEARED ALERT AND UNINJURED. MAINLY STUCK BY THE FEET AND TAIL. PLACED RAT IN VAN AND TRANSPORTED BACK TO SFACC. BREIFLY EXAMINED BY VET STAFF AND CONTACTED LILA FOR TRANSFER. BCB28T A24-347164 1 1,320 KEARNY A529636 11/22/2024 7:59:00 AM WILD INJURED 1 BIRD NORTH BEACH 11/22/2024 9:19:13 AM 11/22/2024 9:21:10 AM 11/22/2024 9:54:31 AM 11/22/2024 10:14:55 AM CROW WITH GLUE ON IT. UNABLE TO FLY AWAY.
A24-347511 1 67 BRENTWOOD A530155 12/4/2024 5:42:00 PM WILD CONFINED 1 BIRD TWIN PEAKS 12/4/2024 5:42:00 PM 12/4/2024 5:45:33 PM 12/4/2024 6:18:21 PM 12/4/2024 6:28:26 PM BIRD REMOVED FROM GLUE TRAP BY FINDER,
BIRD SHOWS NO OBVIOUS SIGNS OF INJURY AND IS STABLE
A24-348176 1 509 STEVENSON 12/30/2024 1:36:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 MOUSE/RAT SOUTH OF MARKET 12/30/2024 1:36:00 PM 12/30/2024 1:47:44 PM 12/30/2024 1:57:03 PM 12/30/2024 2:01:08 PM MOUSE IN GLUE TRAP IN GUTTER ACROSS ST FROM MONTEACRO RESTAURANT. 20 ON GOOGLE MAPS IS 509
A24-348176 12/30/24 16:13 MICE ON TRAP HAD LIKELY BEEN DEAD LONG BEFORE MY ARRIVAL. THREW OUT THE GLUE TRAP. MC35 A25-348599 1 19 MATEO A532889 1/14/2025 1:54:00 PM WILD TRAP 2 BIRD GLEN PARK 1/14/2025 1:54:00 PM 1/14/2025 2:03:46 PM 1/14/2025 2:03:47 PM 1/14/2025 2:11:03 PM BIRD ON GLUE TRAP A25-348857 1 1,265 WALLER A533387 1/22/2025 10:10:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 MOUSE/RAT HAIGHT ASHBURY 1/22/2025 10:10:00 PM 1/22/2025 10:12:00 PM 1/22/2025 10:23:00 PM 1/22/2025 10:30:00 PM MOUSE STUCK ON GLUE TRAP STILL ALIVE A25-349203 1 99 HARDING 2/2/2025 2:44:00 PM WILD INJURED 1 BIRD LAKESHORE 2/2/2025 2:44:00 PM 2/2/2025 2:46:58 PM 2/2/2025 3:20:19 PM 2/2/2025 3:28:20 PM BIRD FLEW INTO RESTAURANT ONTO STICKY TRAP. REMOVED FROM STICKY TRAP AND NOW IN BOX. BIRD AND RP IN REST PER VM.
A25-349203 02/02/25 15:27 I MC W/ HARDING RESTAURANT STAFF WHO LET ME KNOW THAT A GOOD SAM IS TRANSPORTING THE SPARROW TO LINDSEY WILDLIFE CENTER. -PQ41-
A25-349757 1 1,884 ILLINOIS 2/20/2025 10:17:00 AM WILD TRAP 2 MOUSE/RAT BAYVIEW DISTRIC 2/20/2025 10:17:00 AM 2/20/2025 10:23:22 AM 2/20/2025 10:35:41 AM 2/20/2025 10:46:34 AM RAT CAUGHT IN GLUE TRAP, RP PUT BUCKET OVER IT. RP:
A25-350033 1 19 MATEO A536096 3/1/2025 2:40:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 BIRD GLEN PARK 3/1/2025 2:40:00 PM 3/1/2025 2:42:46 PM 3/1/2025 2:59:57 PM 3/1/2025 3:07:20 PM
BIRD ON GLUE TRAP
A25-350259 1 600 DARTMOUTH A537080 3/8/2025 3:01:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD PORTOLA 3/8/2025 3:01:00 PM 3/8/2025 3:03:19 PM 3/8/2025 3:18:41 PM 3/8/2025 3:27:01 PM GLUE TRAP A25-350259 03/08/25 16:06 RESPONDED TO 600 DARTMOUTH AND MC W/ THE RESIDENTS IN THE LOWER UNIT. THEY POINTED OUT THE GLUE TRAP IN THEIR YARD WITH A SMALL SONGBIRD STUCK ON IT. THE BIRD WAS STUCK BY ITS STOMACH AND LEFT WING. PLACED BIRD IN VAN AND TRANSPORTED BACK TO SFACC. BROUGHT BIRD TO VET STAFF WHERE IT WAS FREED FROM THE GLUE TRAP.
OK'ED TO KENNEL IN 262 AND PLACED ON AIRTABLE FOR RECHECK. BCB28T A25-350348 1 761 GIRARD 3/11/2025 8:25:00 AM RESCUE VEHICLE 1 CAT PORTOLA 3/11/2025 8:25:00 AM 3/11/2025 8:27:38 AM 3/11/2025 9:02:03 AM 3/11/2025 9:06:36 AM R/VEHICLE CAT W GLUE TRAP. A25-350348 03/11/25 13:21 I ARRIVED AT LOCATION AND MC WITH RP. RP EXPLAINED THE CAT HAD NOT BEEN SEEN LEAVING THE CAR BUT THE GLUE TRAP HAD COME OFF. I PLAYED CAT SOUNDS BUT DID NOT GET ANY RETURN MEOWS. I USED MY FLASHLIGHT AND TRIED TO LOOK FOR THE CAT BUT WAS UTMC. AS I WAS GOING TO CLEAR, THE CAT CAME OUT FROM UNDER THE CAR AND RP SAW THE CAT RUN UNDER A CABINET IN THE GARAGE. THE CAT SEEMED VERY AFRAID BUT WAS NOT PHYSICALLY TRAPPED. I EDUC ON HOW TO GET THE CAT TO LEAVE AND CLEARED CALL. CO40
A25-351143 1 3,214 MISSION A540458 4/4/2025 5:24:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 SNAKE BERNAL HEIGHTS 4/4/2025 5:24:00 PM 4/4/2025 5:49:00 PM 4/4/2025 5:50:00 PM 4/4/2025 5:56:00 PM SNAKE COMPLETELY STUCK TO GLUE TRAP. RP IS SECOND HAND,
HOMEOWNER WILL CONFIRM WETHER DEAD OR ALIVE AND CALL
BACK
A25-351254 1 449 OFARRELL A541209 4/8/2025 12:20:00 PM WILD OPEN YARD 1 SNAKE TENDERLOIN 4/8/2025 12:20:00 PM 4/8/2025 12:48:03 PM 4/8/2025 1:28:49 PM 4/8/2025 1:38:49 PM SNAKE IN BASEMENT. RP CAN GIVE ACCESS A25-351254 04/08/25 14:35 KING SNAKE FOUND ON GLUE TRAP. TRANS TO ACC FOR UN- STICKING. NATIVE SPECIES , MOSTLY OK BUT DOES HAVE A CLOACAL PROLAPSE. TRANS TO LILA FOR CARE. MC35
A25-351464 1 127 ALBION A542781 4/15/2025 5:30:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD MISSION 4/15/2025 5:30:00 PM 4/15/2025 5:30:00 PM 4/15/2025 5:46:29 PM 4/15/2025 5:51:14 PM SPARROW ON GLUE TRAP FOR >1HR A25-351986 1 18 CADELL A548572 5/2/2025 7:25:00 PM WILD TRAP 1 BIRD NORTH BEACH 5/2/2025 7:25:00 PM 5/2/2025 7:27:00 PM 5/2/2025 7:51:00 PM 5/2/2025 7:55:00 PM BIRD IN GLUE FLY TRAP A25-352027 1 956 POST A549044 5/4/2025 11:06:00 AM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 MOUSE/RAT TENDERLOIN 5/4/2025 11:06:00 AM 5/4/2025 11:09:00 AM 5/4/2025 11:26:15 AM 5/4/2025 11:32:11 AM MOUSE IN GLUE TRAP. RP BELIEVES TRAP WAS SET BY , THEN THROWN OUT INTO HALLWAY IFO 20. CALL AT
CALLBOX FOR ENTRY.
A25-352027 05/07/25 10:31 MC W/ . CLAIMED HE DOES NOT AND WOULD NOT USE GLUE TRAPS AS HE HAS CATS SO "THAT WOULD BE STUPID". AGREED AND ADVISED TO LET ANYONE ELSE WHO MAY DO SO TO USE OTHER OPTIONS AS GLUE TRAPS WILL HARM ANY CREATURE AND ARE INHUMANE. RESIDENT WAS CONCERNED AS TO HOW HE WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE TRAP SETTER, ADVISED I DID NOT HAVE THAT INFO. -AK27
A25-352027 3 956 POST 5/4/2025 11:06:00 AM INV CRUELTY 1 MOUSE/RAT NOB HILL 5/4/2025 12:18:00 PM 5/7/2025 8:11:42 AM 5/7/2025 10:19:17 AM 5/7/2025 10:35:08 AM FOLLOW UP WITH ABOUT INHUMANE USE OF GLUE
TRAPS FOR PEST CONTROL
A25-352027 05/07/25 10:31 MC W/ . CLAIMED HE DOES NOT AND WOULD NOT USE GLUE TRAPS AS HE HAS CATS SO "THAT WOULD BE STUPID". AGREED AND ADVISED TO LET ANYONE ELSE WHO MAY DO SO TO USE OTHER OPTIONS AS GLUE TRAPS WILL HARM ANY CREATURE AND ARE INHUMANE. RESIDENT WAS CONCERNED AS TO HOW HE WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE TRAP SETTER, ADVISED I DID NOT HAVE THAT INFO. -AK27
A25-352069 1 3,061 16TH A549091 5/5/2025 11:56:00 AM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD MISSION 5/5/2025 11:56:00 AM 5/5/2025 11:58:38 AM 5/5/2025 12:07:10 PM 5/5/2025 12:15:53 PM PIGEON WAS ON A GLUE TRAP / RP FREED IT, BUT BELIEVES WING
HAS AN ISSUE
A25-352069 05/05/25 14:12 RP SHOWED ME OUT TO A SMALL YARD WHERE THE PIGEON HAD BEEN FREED FROM THE GLUE TRAP USING COOKING OIL. PIGEON WAS ALERT AND RESPONSIVE. APPEARED HEALTHY AND UNINJURED, EXCEPT FOR SOME MISSING PRIMARY FEATHERS ON HIS RIGHT WING. PLACED IN BOX AND TRANSPORTED BACK TO SFACC. PER VET STAFF OK TO KENNEL, POSSIBLE WILDCARE TRANSFER. KENNELED IN 256. BCB28T
A25-352174 1 901 SUTTER A549883 5/8/2025 10:08:00 AM STRAY INJURED 2 CAT NOB HILL 5/8/2025 10:08:00 AM 5/8/2025 10:11:03 AM 5/8/2025 10:35:12 AM 5/8/2025 10:44:11 AM CAT STUCK ON GLUE TRAP A25-352413 1 181 6TH A551747 5/15/2025 9:29:00 AM WILD INJURED 2 BIRD SOUTH OF MARKET 5/15/2025 9:29:00 AM 5/15/2025 9:31:00 AM 5/15/2025 9:44:00 AM 5/15/2025 10:01:00 AM was in snap trap, may be out A25-352413 05/15/25 10:11 BABY SONGBIRD STUCK TO GLUE TRAP. LOTS OF BLOOD AND TORN SKIN. SHALLOW BREATHING. CONSULTED WITH LW. PTS. EDUCATED/LECTURED RP. HE DID NOT PLACE TRAP BUT WAS APPROPRIATELY HORRIFIED AND SAID HE WOULD TALK TO MAINTENANCE ABOUT ENDING THE USE OF GLUE TRAPS ON THE PROPERTY. SP13 A25-352663 1 324 GONZALEZ A553866 5/23/2025 1:39:00 PM WILD TRAP 2 BIRD LAKESHORE 5/23/2025 1:39:00 PM 5/23/2025 1:43:00 PM 5/23/2025 1:56:18 PM 5/23/2025 2:04:52 PM CROW WITH A STICKY MOUSE TRAP ON IT. THE CROW CAN NOT FLY.
A25-352663 05/24/25 10:16 GLUE TRAP STUCK TO BACK TAIL FEATHERS OF BIRD. ABLE TO REMOVE WITH BABY OIL AND CROW QUICKLY FLEW OFF, UNINJURED. SP13
A25-352844 1 222 LEAVENWORTH A555045 5/29/2025 3:08:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 PIGEON TENDERLOIN 5/29/2025 3:08:00 PM 5/29/2025 3:13:57 PM 5/29/2025 3:39:30 PM 5/29/2025 3:45:09 PM PIGEON IN GLUE TRAP- CALL RP FOR ACCESS A25-353320 1 325 BUCKINGHAM A557225 6/13/2025 7:21:00 PM WILD TRAP 1 BIRD LAKESHORE 6/13/2025 7:21:00 PM 6/13/2025 7:25:22 PM 6/13/2025 10:07:14 PM 6/13/2025 10:12:39 PM RP REMOVED FROM GLUE TRAP W/ OIL A25-353523 1 755 FONT A559136 6/19/2025 6:39:00 PM WILD TRAP 1 BIRD LAKESHORE 6/19/2025 6:39:00 PM 6/19/2025 6:41:47 PM 6/19/2025 7:29:55 PM 6/19/2025 7:34:17 PM BIRD ON GLUE TRAP A25-353757 1 4,115 LINCOLN A561881 6/26/2025 11:05:00 PM WILD TRAP 2 RACCOON SUNSET/PARKSIDE 6/26/2025 11:05:00 PM 6/26/2025 11:08:00 PM 6/26/2025 11:08:00 PM 6/26/2025 11:18:00 PM RAT IN TRAP, STILL ALIVE A25-353757 06/26/25 23:19 RESPONDED FOR UNK ANIMAL IN TRAP. LANDLORD HAD SET MANY GLUE AND SEVERAL PLASTIC "T-REX" STYLE TRAPS IN SEMI-OPEN WALKWAY. ONE CLAW TRAP HAD CAUGHT A YOUNG RAT'S LEG BUT NOT KILLED IT, LEAVING THE RAT WAS CRYING AND SUFFERING. I PICKED THE RAT AND TRAP UP, FREED THE LEG, AND PLACED RAT IN CARRIER. TRANS RAT ACROSS THE STREET AND RTW'ED IN THE PARK. RAT APPEARED MOSTLY UNHARMED, WAS VERY ACTIVE, AND ABLE TO NEARLY JUMP OUT OF CAT SIZED CARRIER. MC35 AND I COLLECTED ALL LOOSE TRAPS, UNABLE TO REMOVE GLUE TRAPS SCREWED TO WALL. PER RP'S, LL HAD SET TRAPS AND THEY HAD BEEN TRYING TO GET THEM TO DO SOMETHING MORE HUMANE BUT HAD NOT HAD LUCK. I TOOK LL'S # AND CALLED TO LECTURE ON HUMANE TRAPPING. LL STATED THEY HAD HIRED TERMINEX AND WERE UPSET WE HAD REMOVED TRAPS. ADVISED LL THE PLACEMENT WAS INHUMANE AS MANY UNINTENDED ANIMALS COULD GET TO THEM. ALSO
STATED THE FACT THAT NONE OF THE TRAPS WERE LIKELY TO OFFER AN IMMEDIATE DEATH WAS EQUALLY HUMANE AND THAT IT IS OUR JOB TO PRERVENT AND INTERVENE IN ANIMAL SUFFERING. WILL F/U W/ RF22 VIA EMAIL. -AK27/MC35 A25-354341 1 158 CAYUGA A565601 7/14/2025 9:57:00 AM WILD INJURED 2 MOUSE/RAT OUTER MISSION 7/14/2025 9:57:00 AM 7/14/2025 10:01:00 AM 7/14/2025 10:10:48 AM 7/14/2025 10:30:06 AM rat in glue strap on side walk across form 20 A25-355448 1 73 AMBER A568906 8/14/2025 5:12:00 PM WILD TRAP 2 BIRD NOE VALLEY 8/14/2025 5:12:00 PM 8/14/2025 5:21:28 PM 8/14/2025 5:40:17 PM 8/14/2025 5:48:00 PM BIRD FLEW INTO GARAGE AND NOW STUCK IN GLUE TRAP A25-355448 08/14/25 20:01 BIRD WAS STUCK ON GLUE TRAP. WAS ABLE TO REMOVE WITH BABY OIL. MISSING FEATHERS AND OILY BUT OTHERWISE APPEARS UNINJURED. BOTH MC35 AND I SPOKE TO RP ABOUT UNHUMANE GLUE TRAPS ARE. SP13 A25-355819 1 87 CRAGS 8/25/2025 9:04:00 AM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 SQUIRREL GLEN PARK 8/25/2025 9:04:00 AM 8/25/2025 9:08:35 AM 8/25/2025 9:28:14 AM 8/25/2025 9:33:41 AM squirrel WITH HEAD CAUGHT IN TRAP UNDER BUSH TO LEFT OF
DRVEWAY
A25-355819 08/25/25 11:01 MC W/ RESIDENT AT 20 WHO DIRECTED ME TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE WHERE SQUIRREL WAS SEEN. LOCATED THE TRAP BUT THERE WAS NO SQUIRREL STUCK INSIDE. NO SQUIRRELS SEEN IN THE VECINITY. BCB50 A25-355936 1 2,760 24TH A569497 8/28/2025 12:02:00 PM WILD INJURED 2 PIGEON MISSION 8/28/2025 12:02:00 PM 8/28/2025 12:05:54 PM 8/28/2025 12:07:32 PM 8/28/2025 12:14:48 PM in box on glue trap, diamond donut A25-356786 1 362 PRENTISS A571919 9/22/2025 5:17:00 PM RESCUE GLUE TRAP 2 BIRD BERNAL HEIGHTS 9/22/2025 5:17:00 PM 9/22/2025 5:20:00 PM 9/22/2025 5:43:00 PM 9/22/2025 6:00:00 PM SCRUB JAY CAUGHT ON GLUE TRAP IN KITCHEN, EDUCATE ON
GLUE TRAPS AND TAKE ALL THAT YOU CAN
A25-356817 1 76 NEBRASKA A571938 9/23/2025 4:40:00 PM WILD TRAP 2 SQUIRREL BERNAL HEIGHTS 9/23/2025 4:40:00 PM 9/23/2025 4:44:11 PM 9/23/2025 4:56:12 PM 9/23/2025 5:01:50 PM on glue trap in back yard A25-356817 09/23/25 17:48 A25-356817: MC W/ RP WHO SHOWED ME THE SQUIRREL IN THE BACKYARD, LAYING BELLY DOWN ON THE TRAP.
ADVISED RP TO REMOVE ALL THEIR GLUE TRAPS AND USE SOMETHING MORE HUMANE. LOADED SQUIRREL INTO VAN AND TRANSPORTED BACK TO ACC. WITH HELP FROM VET STAFF, SQUIRREL WAS REMOVED FROM TRAP RELATIVELY EASY. LILA APPROVED TRANSFER. BCB50
Igor Tregub, Councilmember District 4
CONSENT CALENDAR
March 24, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Igor Tregub (Author), Mayor Adena Ishii (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Terry Taplin (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Letter of Gratitude to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for their Support of Full Implementation of a Strong Transit-Oriented Communities Policy
RECOMMENDATION
Submit a letter of gratitude to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) recognizing the full adoption and implementation of a strong and enforceable Transit- Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy.
BACKGROUND
In September 2022, the MTC adopted the TOC Policy as a central strategy of Plan Bay Area 2050+, the long-range plan developed jointly with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The policy guides new housing and jobs to areas served by high-quality transit, helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, expand access to opportunity, and address the Bay Area’s housing shortage.
The TOC Policy reflects extensive collaboration with local jurisdictions and includes key provisions such as flexibility through the “3Ps” framework (Production, Preservation, and Protection), averaging standards across station areas, and scaled requirements for smaller communities. Importantly, strong renter protections were incorporated to mitigate displacement risks and ensure that low-income residents and communities of color benefit from transit-oriented development.
Since the policy’s adoption, Berkeley and other Bay Area jurisdictions have invested substantial staff time and public resources to amend zoning codes, update planning documents, and align local policies with TOC requirements. These efforts demonstrate Berkeley’s good-faith reliance on the TOC Policy and its ongoing commitment to sustainable, equitable, and transit-focused development.
2 CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On February 25, 2026, the MTC Board of Directors voted 12–5, with one member absent, to reaffirm the adoption and full implementation of the Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. This action ensures that local jurisdictions, including the City of Berkeley, can continue aligning housing and job growth with high-quality transit investments. By maintaining strong land use and density standards, robust renter protections, and clear accountability mechanisms connected to One Bay Area Grant 4 (OBAG4) funding, the policy supports sustainable and equitable transit-oriented development across the Bay Area.
Concentrating housing and employment near transit remains essential for restoring transit ridership, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and achieving the climate, equity, and housing production objectives outlined in Plan Bay Area 2050+. The TOC Policy also protects prior investments made by Berkeley and other jurisdictions in zoning, planning, and community engagement, reinforcing the region’s long-term strategy for inclusive growth and transit recovery.
By affirming and implementing a strong, enforceable TOC Policy, MTC is helping to preserve the integrity of regional planning while advancing equitable, transit-oriented growth that benefits all Bay Area residents.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Limited staff time is required to communicate the City’s acknowledgment and continued support of the TOC Policy to the MTC and regional partners.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The TOC Policy directly advances regional and local climate objectives by concentrating new housing and employment near high-quality transit. This reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT), lowers greenhouse gas emissions, and promotes compact, sustainable land use patterns. The City Council’s support reinforces Berkeley’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and aligns with Plan Bay Area 2050+ strategies to meet regional emissions reduction targets.
CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Igor Tregub, Council District 4
510-981-7140
[email protected]
Olga Bolotina, Chief of Staff, Council District 4
[email protected]
3 Shamaila Ahmed, Legislative Aide, Council District 4
[email protected]
ATTACHMENTS
1. Thank you letter
4 ATTACHEMENT #1 – Thank you letter
Dear Chair Noack and all members of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) board,
We write to express the City of Berkeley’s sincere appreciation for the MTC Board of Directors vote on February 25, 2026, to reaffirm the adoption and full implementation of the Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy as a key strategy of Plan Bay Area 2050+. This policy aligns housing and job growth with high-quality transit investments, helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions, expand access to opportunity, and address the Bay Area’s ongoing housing shortage.
In particular we express our support for the policy that:
1. Retains strong TOC standards consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050+ growth targets, ensuring sufficient housing and job density near transit to achieve regional climate, equity, and planning goals.
2. Preserves robust renter protections, safeguarding low-income residents and communities of color from displacement while allowing them to benefit from transit-oriented development.
3. Maintains compliance as a condition of OBAG4 funding, ensuring accountability in linking regional funding to the implementation of TOC standards.
4. Upholds TOC density standards, rather than defaulting to weaker state standards, ensuring the region meets its climate, equity, and livability commitments.
We appreciate your vote of support of these four principles and look forward to partnering with you for in the future to implement these.
With appreciation,
CONSENT CALENDAR
March 24, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe (Author), Councilmember Terry Taplin (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Brent Blackaby (Co-Sponsor), Mayor Adena Ishii (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Berkeley High School National Society of Black Engineers Junior Chapter:
Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to the General Fund and Grant of Such Funds
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including $500 from Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe’s discretionary fund and funds from any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute, to the Berkeley High School National Society of Black Engineers Junior Chapter to support its ongoing work to engage and empower students through STEM education, mentorship, leadership development, and community building.
BACKGROUND
The National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) is one of the largest student-led organizations in the U.S., with over 700 chapters and a membership of more than 24,000 worldwide. For over 50 years, NSBE has played a vital role in fostering innovation, guiding engineers to graduation, and enhancing STEM education for many K–12 students globally.
The mission of NSBE is to increase the number of Black engineers who excel academically, succeed professionally, and positively impact their community. Each year, NSBE leaves a profound mark on its participants. From the thousands of 3rd–5th graders engaged in the national Summer Engineering Experience for Kids (SEEK) camps, to the 15,000 collegiate students honing their academic and technical skills, NSBE strives to increase the number of diverse students studying engineering at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
The NSBE Jr. Chapter at Berkeley High School has experienced remarkable growth, achievement, and has even received national recognition. In 2025, BHS students and co- advisors were honored with the Pre-College Program of the Year Award at the 51st Annual Leadership Convention in Chicago, IL – recognizing BHS students for their outstanding engagement, leadership, and impact throughout the year.
The NSBE Jr. Pre-College Initiative (PCI) program is designed to stimulate interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. The goal is to encourage students in grades 9-12 to attend college and pursue technical degrees. Berkeley High’s PCI program helps students discover firsthand how engineering and technology relate to the world around them and uncover the excitement of academic excellence, leadership, technical development and teamwork.
This item supports the Berkeley High NSBE Jr. Chapter’s work to promote student learning, advance professional development, and cultivate future leaders, innovators and global citizens prepared to make a lasting impact on their community and beyond.
FISCAL IMPACTS
No General Fund impact.
CONTACT
Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe, [email protected]
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
WHEREAS, the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) is one of the largest student-led organizations in the U.S.; and
WHEREAS, for over 50 years, NSBE has played a vital role in fostering innovation, guiding engineers to graduation, and enhancing STEM education for many K–12 students globally; and WHEREAS, the mission of NSBE is to increase the number of Black engineers who excel academically, succeed professionally, and positively impact their community; and WHEREAS, the NSBE Jr. Chapter at Berkeley High School has experienced remarkable growth, achievement, and has even received national recognition; and WHEREAS, the NSBE Jr. Chapter was honored with the Pre-College Program of the Year Award at the 2025 Golden Torch Awards of the 51st Annual Leadership Convention; and WHEREAS, by supporting the Berkeley High NSBE Jr. Chapter, the Berkeley City Council will be encouraging student learning and professional development, and helping cultivate future leaders, innovators, and global citizens poised to make a lasting impact on their community and beyond;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budgets – up to $500 per office – shall be granted to the Berkeley High School National Society of Black Engineers Junior Chapter.
CONSENT CALENDAR
March 24, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe (Author), Councilmember Igor Tregub (Co-Sponsor), Mayor Adena Ishii (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Terry Taplin (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Make Music Day: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to the General Fund and Grant of Such Funds
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember from the discretionary office budgets of any Councilmembers who would like to contribute – including $500 from Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe, $250 from Councilmember Igor Tregub, and $250 from Mayor Adena Ishii – to the Downtown Berkeley Association to support Berkeley’s first annual Make Music Day on June 21, 2026, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose.
BACKGROUND
Make Music Day or Fête de la Musique is a worldwide celebration of music. Launched in France in 1982 as a Ministry of Culture initiative, the celebration has spread to over 2,000 cities across dozens of countries, including the United States, Mexico, Germany, Japan, India, Australia, Peru, Brazil, Canada, Nigeria, the United Kingdom, and more.
The event is open to everyone who wants to participate, and routinely brings people together in parks, streets, plazas, porches, and balconies to share in the love of music. Held on the same day across the globe, the celebration encourages musicians of all levels to participate. Unlike traditional concerts or festivals, what makes Make Music Day unique is the fact that it’s completely free and open to the public.
In France, the event enjoys broad participation, with almost 11% of French people having played an instrument or sung in public for Make Music Day and 64% of the country coming out each year to listen. On June 21, 2025, 147 U.S. cities organized 5,471 free concerts in Chattanooga TN, Fullerton CA, Kansas City MO, Madison WI, Montclair NJ, New York NY, Salem OR, San Jose CA, and Berkeley’s neighboring city, Oakland CA – all on a single day.
Managed by the Downtown Berkeley Association (DBA) in partnership with Visit Berkeley, Make Music Day is a citywide celebration of live music held every year. Artists, music lovers, and local
spaces come together to turn parks, sidewalks, businesses, and public places across Berkeley into one big stage, showcasing performances and participatory music for all ages and genres.
The City of Berkeley has a long history of nurturing and supporting cultural and musical expression. This event provides an opportunity for community members to connect, meet their neighbors, and enjoy free, widespread outdoor musical performances across the city. As the City continues to rebound from the pandemic, this event provides a much needed opportunity to liven up its downtown and commercial districts. Funding from this item will cover the Make Music Day’s membership dues, and expenses related to promotion and organization of the event.
This year, the worldwide Make Music Day will be held on the summer solstice on June 21, 2026.
FISCAL IMPACTS
No General Fund impact.
CONTACT
Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe, [email protected]
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
WHEREAS, Make Music Day is a worldwide celebration of Music; and WHEREAS, the annual, free global event originated in France in 1982 and enjoys widespread participation; and
WHEREAS, almost 11% of French people have played an instrument or sung in public for Make Music Day and 64% of the country has come out each year to listen; and WHEREAS, dozens of countries including the United States, Mexico, Germany, Japan, India, Australia, Peru, Brazil, Canada, Nigeria, the United Kingdom, and more participate in the celebration; and
WHEREAS, the event has spread to the United States and in 2025, 147 U.S. cities organized 5,471 free concerts in Chattanooga TN, Fullerton CA, Kansas City MO, Madison WI, Montclair NJ, New York NY, Salem OR, San Jose CA, and Oakland CA – all on a single day; and WHEREAS, this year’s worldwide Make Music Day will be held on the summer solstice on June 21, 2026;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Councilmembers from their Council Office Budgets, up to $500 per office, shall be granted to the Downtown Berkeley Association to support Berkeley’s inaugural Make Music Day celebration.
Brent Blackaby
Councilmember District 6
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [email protected]
CONSENT CALENDAR
March 24, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Blackaby (Author), Mayor Ishii (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Berkeley Public Schools Fund Spring Luncheon 2026: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Fund
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember including $500 from Councilmember Blackaby and $500 from Mayor Ishii for the Berkeley Public Schools Fund with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Councilmember Blackaby, Mayor Ishii and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No General Fund impact. Councilmembers and the Mayor have funds in their discretionary accounts.
BACKGROUND
Since 1987, Berkeley Public Schools Fund Spring Luncheon has brought our community together to celebrate the people and partnerships that shape Berkeley’s public schools. More than an event, it reflects a shared belief that strong schools are built through collective care, collaboration, and investment. Each year, educators, families, volunteers, community partners and local businesses gather to recognize impact and look ahead to what comes next. This tradition continues as we come together once again, Building Berkeley Futures Together.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no environmental impacts associated with the recommendations in this report.
CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Brent Blackaby Council District 6 510-981-7160 Attachments:
1: Resolution for Council Expenditures
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF DISCRETIONARY FUNDS FROM THE
OFFICE EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A
GRANT TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE
WHEREAS, Councilmember Brent Blackaby and Mayor Adena Ishii have funds in their office discretionary accounts and invite other Councilmembers to join them in contributing; and
WHEREAS, a California non-profit tax-exempt corporation, Berkeley Public Schools Fund, seeks funds from the City of Berkeley not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including the amount of $500 from the office of Councilmember Brent Blackaby and $500 from the office of Mayor Adena Ishii to the Spring Luncheon; and
WHEREAS, this gathering brings together 400 supporters of public education from all sectors of the community to celebrate the best of our public schools, including our educators, volunteers, and community partners; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Public Schools Fund (formerly the Berkeley Public Education Foundation) is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization established in 1983, when Proposition 13 tax restructuring began impacting public schools. A group of Berkeley parents and community leaders, concerned about the diminishing resources for public schools, created the Berkeley Public Schools Fund; and
WHEREAS, starting with educator grants, followed by volunteer programs, and most recently STEM programming, the Berkeley Public Schools Fund directs resources to areas of greatest need (“equity gaps”) in the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) and is a reliable resource for educators, BUSD, and the broader public-school community.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budget, up to $500 per office, shall be granted to Berkeley Public Schools Fund to support the mission and program work which will be celebrated at the Spring Luncheon 2026.
ACTION CALENDAR
March 24, 2026
To: Members of the City Council
Submitted by: Mayor Adena Ishii
Subject: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Temporary Employment of Retired Annuitant Kathy Lee as Interim Director of Police Accountability
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the appointment of Kathy Lee as a retired annuitant to serve as Interim Director of Police Accountability pursuant to Government Code Sections 21221(h) and 7522.56 and the Mayor to execute the attached employment agreement establishing an hourly rate of $122.44, consistent with the publicly approved pay schedule for the Director of Police Accountability, with no additional benefits, per CalPERS rules for retired annuitants.
SUMMARY
There is a critical need to temporarily fill the City’s vacant Director of Police Accountability position—a role that requires specialized skills—while the City recruits a permanent Director. The City has identified Kathy Lee, a retired City employee who, among other roles, was previously the City’s Police Review Commission Officer, to serve as Interim Director of Police Accountability. Her appointment will allow the City to maintain continuity of operations, ensure timely complaint review, and support the Police Accountability Board’s annual objectives.
The appointment would be pursuant to state law permitting public entities to hire retired annuitants under certain circumstances, see Gov. Code §§ 21221(h) and 7522.56, for a limited term, not to exceed 960 hours of work in the fiscal year. The City Council would authorize the Mayor to execute the employment agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
In accordance with CalPERS Retired Annuitant requirements, a retired annuitant’s pay must be in the regular salary range for the position. The Director of Police Accountability classification has a salary range up to $122.44 per hour, which will be used as the rate of compensation for the agreement. The maximum expenditure for the retired annuitant this fiscal year would, thus, be approximately $117,542, assuming 960 hours is reached.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Director of Police Accountability independently investigates complaints against sworn Berkeley Police Department (BPD) officers, recommends corrective actions, and audits police practices to ensure transparency. The Director also acts as Secretary to the
Police Accountability Board (PAB). The City is conducting an active, publicly posted recruitment for the permanent Director of Police Accountability, which became vacant after the City Council voted to remove the former director from the post. The recommended interim appointment enables the City to maintain continuity during recruitment and onboarding of a new permanent Director.
Ms. Lee is a highly experienced and well-respected leader in the police accountability space. She previously served the City for 32 years, including as the Officer of the former Police Review Commission and the inaugural interim Director of Police Accountability, before retiring in July 2022. In these roles, Ms. Lee oversaw the City’s intake and investigation of citizen complaints, as well as structured review of policies and operational guidelines to ensure consistency with City police oversight goals, legal requirements, and best practices.
Under Government Code Section 21221(h), a governing body may appoint a CalPERS retired annuitant to a vacant position that requires specialized skills during recruitment for a permanent replacement. The employment is subject to a 960-hour annual limit on that person’s work across all CalPERS agencies. Compensation must be paid on an hourly basis, without benefits, and the hourly rate may not exceed the maximum nor be less than the minimum salary paid to employees performing comparable duties on the City’s approved pay schedule. The interim appointment would be a one-time, limited duration, at-will position, and would end upon the effective date of the permanent Director’s employment or earlier agreement termination, consistent with CalPERS retired annuitant rules.
Attached to the Resolution is an employment agreement between the City and Kathy Lee, retired annuitant, outlining the terms of her temporary employment. Prior to the start date of Ms. Lee’s temporary employment with the City as a retired annuitant, the City would submit to CalPERS a copy of: 1) the approved and executed resolution; 2) the employment agreement; 3) the salary schedule listing the vacant position, and 4) the recruitment status for the vacant position, including a copy of or web link to the activated recruitment.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
No environmental impacts from this specific resolution.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Office of Police Accountability requires executive leadership to: (1) oversee complaint intake, investigations, and findings; (2) manage reporting to the Police Accountability Board; (3) coordinate with the Berkeley Police Department on policy review and training recommendations; and (4) ensure timely public communications and case tracking. Kathy Lee brings specialized management and police oversight skills aligned with this role based on her decade of experience in police accountability roles with the City. The appointment will preserve operational continuity while the permanent recruitment proceeds.
The attached Resolution and Employment Agreement are drafted to comply with Government Code Sections 21221(h) and 7522.56, including the 960-hour cap, hourly only compensation, no benefits, one-time interim appointment, and active recruitment requirements. The Agreement also requires retired annuitant representations (e.g., no unemployment insurance received in the prior 12 months; notice of concurrent employment by another CalPERS agency) and timekeeping/reporting obligations to ensure compliance.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Alternatives to appointing Kathy Lee to the interim position include: (1) Not approving the interim appointment and taking additional time to identify other candidates. However, this approach could risk gaps in oversight and delayed complaint processing; (2) Continue assigning acting duties to existing staff members, including Jose Murillo, Associate Management Analyst. However, this approach could place undue strain on existing employees, in an office where there are currently other vacancies.
Although the City examined these alternatives, it ultimately determined that Ms. Lee is specially trained, experienced, competent, and possesses the requisite skill and familiarity with City operations to ensure maximum continuity during the search for a permanent Director.
CONTACT PERSON
Adena Ishii, Mayor (510) 981-7100
Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Employment Agreement – Limited Term Retired Annuitant
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BERKELEY APPOINTING
RETIRED ANNUITANT KATHY LEE AS INTERIM DIRECTOR OF POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley (“City”) has a critical need to temporarily fill a vacancy in the position of Director of Police Accountability, a high-level classification responsible for leading citywide independent police accountability and oversight efforts; WHEREAS, Government Code Section 21221(h) permits a governing body to make an interim appointment of a retiree to a vacant position during an active recruitment for a permanent appointment where the position requires specialized skills; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the entire employment agreement between Kathy Lee and the City, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, and finds the appointment necessary to ensure continuity of leadership and timely execution of critical police accountability initiatives while the City conducts and completes an active, publicly posted recruitment for the permanent Director of Police Accountability; and WHEREAS, consistent with CalPERS retired annuitant requirements: (1) the appointment shall be limited to no more than 960 hours in any fiscal year; (2) the retiree shall receive no benefits, incentives, or compensation in lieu of benefits beyond the set hourly rate; and (3) the hourly rate shall be set within the established salary schedule for the Director of Police Accountability classification; and
WHEREAS, the City affirms that the recruitment for the permanent Director of Police Accountability is actively underway and publicly posted on the City’s website (and other recruitment platforms), and that this interim appointment is for a limited duration solely to maintain continuity of operations until a permanent appointment is made.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby appoints retired annuitant Kathy Lee to serve as Interim Director of Police Accountability under Government Code section 21221(h), effective March 24, 2026, subject to the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference and the limitations set forth in Government Code Section 7522.56.
SECTION 2. The employment shall be limited to 960 hours per fiscal year. The hourly base rate shall be $122.44 per hour, which is within the current salary range for the
Director of Police Accountability classification as adopted by the City, and no additional benefits, incentives, or compensation in lieu of benefits shall be provided.
SECTION 3. The Council finds and certifies, in accordance with Government Code Sections 21221(h) and 7522.56 that (a) the position of the Director of Police Accountability requires specialized skills in senior management and leadership in police accountability work; (b) the appointment is being made in a public meeting and not on the consent calendar; (c) the appointment shall not exceed the limits in those statutes; and (d) the City has initiated and will maintain an active, publicly posted recruitment for the permanent Director of Police Accountability for the duration of this appointment.
SECTION 4. This Section 21221(h) interim appointment shall be made once and shall end no later than upon permanent appointment or termination of the Employment Agreement consistent with law, whichever comes first.
SECTION 5. The Mayor, or designee, is authorized to execute the Employment Agreement – Limited Term Retired Annuitant (Exhibit A) with Kathy Lee and to take all actions necessary to effectuate this appointment.
Exhibits:
A: Employment Agreement – Limited Term Retired Annuitant
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT – LIMITED TERM RETIRED ANNUITANT
INTERIM DIRECTOR OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
This Agreement is made and entered into this ___ day of __________, by and between the City of Berkeley (“Employer” or “City”) and Katherine Lee (“Employee” or “Retired Annuitant”), collectively (“Parties”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, The City’s Director of Police Accountability is a regular position that is currently vacant and information regarding the recruitment for the position has been posted; WHEREAS, Government Code Section 21221(h) permits the City to temporarily appoint a retired annuitant from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to a vacant position requiring specialized skills during recruitment for a permanent replacement; WHEREAS, Employee was previously employed by the City for 32 years and retired in July 2022, and the parties have determined that Employee is specially trained, experienced, competent, and possesses the requisite specialized skills and training necessary to perform satisfactorily in the interim role;
WHEREAS, The City desires to retain Employee on a temporary, as-needed basis to perform the duties of Interim Director of Police Accountability while the City conducts an active recruitment for the permanent position; and
WHEREAS, Employee is willing to serve under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the mutual covenants contained herein, the City and Employee agree as follows:
1.0 TERM OF APPOINTMENT
1.1 The term of this Agreement shall be for a limited duration beginning on March 31, 2026, and will end prior to the start date of a full-time permanent Director of Police Accountability, unless terminated earlier by either party.
1.2 This Agreement may be terminated immediately by the City, with or without cause, upon written notice. Employee acknowledges and agrees that Employee shall serve at the general direction of the City Council or its designee on an “at-will” basis and without due process and/or property rights to such employment or rights to appeal.
1.3 Employee may resign and terminate this Agreement upon two weeks’ prior written notice to the City. Unless otherwise agreed, no post-resignation compensation is owed beyond hours worked.
1.4 Employee’s employment is subject to the 960-hour per fiscal year limitation applicable to CalPERS retired annuitants.
2.0 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
2.1 Retired Annuitants are ineligible to serve or be employed by a public employer if, during the 12-month period prior to an appointment, the Retired Annuitant received any unemployment insurance compensation arising out of prior employment with a public employer. Gov. Code Section 7522.56.
2.2. Further, a Retired Annuitant that accepts employment, and has received unemployment insurance compensation within the 12 -month period preceding employment, must terminate employment effective the last day of the current payroll period. The Retired Annuitant shall not be eligible for reappointment for a period of 12 months following the termination date. Id.
2.3 In accordance with these provisions, Employee warrants that Employee has not received unemployment insurance compensation during the 12 -month period preceding this appointment. _______ (Initials)
3.0 180-DAY RULE
A Retired Annuitant is not eligible to be employed for a period of 180 days following the date of retirement, absent special circumstances. Employee warrants that Employee retired from public service in July 2022, and as such, the terms of this Agreement comply with the 180-day statutory requirements. _______ (Initials)
4.0 DUTIES AND AUTHORITY
The City shall employ Employee as Interim Director of Police Accountability, vested with the authority necessary to lead the Office of the Director of Police Accountability and its staff. Employee shall perform such duties consistent with the classification specification and the City Charter, Berkeley Municipal Code, and applicable policies.
5.0 WORK SCHEDULE AND 960-HOUR LIMITATION
5.1 Employee shall devote the reasonable time, interest, and effort necessary to perform the assigned duties, with an expectation that Employee will devote approximately 32 hours per week. The City retains the right to designate, reduce, change, or amend the number of hours assigned to Employee consistent with the City’s workload and other needs.
5.2 In no event shall Retired Annuitant work more than 960 hours in any fiscal year under this Agreement. Employee shall be responsible for keeping track of hours worked. Employee must submit record of hours worked to Payroll according to the same bi- weekly schedule as other City employees. The City will provide Employee with copies of the hours reports periodically submitted to CalPERS regarding Employee’s employment with City.
5.3 In compliance with CalPERS regulations and requirements, the Parties expressly agree that Employee cannot and shall not perform any “volunteer” work to City during Employee’s employment under this Agreement.
5.4 Employee will immediately notify the City should Employee perform work as a Retired Annuitant for any other CalPERS member agency during the term of this Agreement. _______ (Initials)
6.0 COMPENSATION
6.1 The City shall pay Employee an hourly rate of $122.44.
6.2 The hourly rate is within the City’s established salary range for the Director of Police Accountability classification, consistent with CalPERS retired annuitant requirements. Such compensation shall be the sole compensation for Employee’s services under this Agreement.
6.3 Payment shall be made in the City’s regular payroll cycle, subject to applicable withholdings.
7.0 BENEFITS
Except as required by state or federal law, Retired Annuitant shall not be entitled to receive any benefits (including but not limited to vacation and health benefits). No service credit shall accrue under CalPERS for hours worked under this Agreement.
8.0. INDEMNIFICATION
To the maximum extent permitted by law and City policy, the City shall defend and indemnify Employee for acts or omissions within the course and scope of duties under this Agreement, consistent with Government Code and City policies.
9.0 CONFIDENTIALITY AND ETHICS
9.1 Employee shall comply with all applicable conflict-of-interest, ethics, records retention, confidentiality, and public records laws and City policies, including filing any required Form 700 disclosures, if designated.
9. 2 Employee will not maintain any financial interest or engage in any other contract employment, occupation, work, endeavor or association, whether compensated for or not, that would in any way conflict with, or impair, Employee’s ability to perform the duties described in this Agreement.
10.0 WORKPLACE POLICIES
Employee shall comply with all City policies (including code of conduct, harassment prevention, information security, and timekeeping). Hours worked shall be tracked and reported consistent with City procedures for retired annuitants.
11.0 MODIFICATIONS
This Agreement may be modified only by a written amendment signed by the Mayor (or designee) and Employee, and any modification shall remain in conformance with applicable CalPERS post-retirement employment laws.
12.0 EFFECT ON EMPLOYEES CalPERS RETIREMENT;
INDEMNIFICATION
The City makes no representation on the impact, if any, this Agreement shall or may have upon Retired Annuitant’s CalPERS retirement benefits, status, duties, and/or obligations. Employee acknowledges that in entering into this Agreement, Employee has not relied upon any such representations in assessing the CalPERS-related impact of this temporary employment. Retired Annuitant releases the City from any and all CalPERS-related claims or liabilities that may arise in connection with Retired Annuitant’s employment pursuant to this Agreement.
13.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS
13.1 The text herein shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties.
13.2 Employee shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same without the prior written consent of the City.
13.3 Employee agrees that all documents and writings of any type produced in the performance of this Agreement and delivered to the City or its staff shall be the sole property of the City, including all rights therein of whatever kind and whether arising from common or civil law or equity. Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason, or upon expiration of this Agreement, all such documents and writings produced in the performance of this Agreement shall be transferred to and become the property of the City upon its request without additional compensation.
13.4 If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this Agreement is held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or portion thereof, shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect.
13.5 This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any litigation brought pursuant to it shall be in Alameda County.
13. 6 This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the City and Employee and supersedes and replaces any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings or commitments between the City and Employee. No waiver, alteration or
modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of both the City and Employee.
13.7 This Agreement may be signed in counterpart or duplicate copies, and any signed counterpart of duplicate copy shall be equivalent to a signed original for all purposes.
13.8 This Agreement shall not be construed against any one party but shall be construed as if jointly prepared by City and Employee.
Executed on the ___ day of __________, 2026, in Berkeley, Alameda County, California.
CITY OF BERKELEY: Employee:
___________________________________ _____________________________________ Adena Ishii, Mayor Katherine Lee APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Farimah Faiz Brown, City Attorney
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
ACTION CALENDAR
March 24, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police
Subject: Public Safety Technology: Surveillance Technology Ordinance and Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals, Policy Updates, and Contract Authority
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the following actions:
Surveillance Technology Ordinance (BMC 2.99)
1. Accept the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approve the Surveillance Use Policy for the Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) program.
2. Accept the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approve the Surveillance Use Policy for Community Video Streams.
3. Approve updated Surveillance Use Policies for fixed video cameras, reflecting Council-directed revisions to previously approved technology.
Police Equipment Ordinance (BMC 2.100)
4. Accept the Police Equipment Impact Statement and approve the Police Equipment Use Policy for UAS.
Contract Authority
5. Authorize the City Manager to amend the existing contract with Flock Safety to add Drone as First Responder (DFR) hardware, software, and services for an initial three-year term, in an amount not to exceed $750,000.
6. Authorize the City Manager to amend the existing contract with Flock Safety to add Condor PTZ fixed surveillance cameras for an initial four-year term, in an amount not to exceed $310,000, with an option to extend for one additional three-year term, for a total not to exceed $600,000.
7. Authorize the City Manager to amend the existing contract with Flock Safety to add Flock Nova investigative software for a one-year term, in an amount not to exceed $75,000, funded by the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP) grant previously accepted by Council on July 29, 2025.
8. Authorize the City Manager to amend the existing contract with Flock Safety to renew Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) for a two-year term, in an amount not to exceed $330,000, with an option to extend for an additional two-year term, for a total not to exceed $660,000.
SUMMARY
This item requests City Council approval to advance the Berkeley Police Department’s (BPD) public safety technology program through a consolidated set of actions. Only two of the technologies presented here are new to the City: the Drone as First Responder (DFR) program and a Community Video Streams integration. All other items involve renewals, extensions, or policy updates to technologies previously reviewed and approved by Council.
Consolidating these actions into a single item reflects the operational and fiscal advantages of maintaining the City’s public safety technology within one integrated platform. Flock Safety is the sole vendor capable of delivering these capabilities under a single Master Services Agreement (MSA), which has been extensively negotiated by the City Attorney’s Office and includes contractual protections that exceed the vendor’s standard terms. Flock has offered a 10% discount on new products if the City executes by the end of March 2026, representing over $100,000 in total savings. All prices meet or are below those listed for the same products on the Omnia cooperative purchasing consortium, which is the procurement mechanism used for this acquisition.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The total maximum financial commitment across all contracts is as follows:
DFR Program: Not to exceed $750,000 over three years. Fixed Cameras: Not to exceed $310,000 over the initial four-year term ($600,000 if the three-year option is exercised). Funding for the initial term is available in the General Fund allocation previously designated for surveillance cameras and transferred into the Police Department’s current fiscal year’s budget.
Flock Nova: Not to exceed $75,000 for one year. This expenditure is fully funded by the BSCC Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP) grant of $1,000,000 accepted by Council on July 29, 2025. The grant application identified $125,504 for investigative software; this contract falls within that allocation. No General Fund impact.
ALPR Renewal: Not to exceed $330,000 for two years ($660,000 if the two-year option is exercised).
At launch, the General Fund impact of this technology package is substantially offset by funding already in place. The PTZ camera contracts are funded by General Fund allocations previously designated for surveillance cameras and already transferred into the Police Department's current fiscal year budget. The Flock Nova contract is fully covered by the BSCC Byrne SCIP grant, with no General Fund impact. The City is therefore launching a comprehensive public safety technology upgrade with General Fund savings in the near term.
The ongoing subscription costs for the DFR program and ALPR renewal, the conversion of a Crime Analyst position to a new Senior Crime Analyst classification, and permanent funding of a Crime Analyst position (currently grant-funded through FY 27) will be funded through the permanent reduction of 3 sworn officer positions. At roughly $288,000–$292,000 per position in salary and benefits, 3 FTEs generate approximately $870,000 in savings per year. This exceeds the combined annual subscription costs for both programs, resulting in an average savings of about $160,000 to the General Fund each year even as the City deploys expanded capability. This approach has been reviewed and supported by the Berkeley Police Association.
The contracts are structured as annual subscriptions billed at signing for the first year and annually thereafter. Flock Safety has offered a 10% discount on new product lines (DFR, PTZ cameras, and Nova) if contracts are executed by the end of March 2026, representing over $100,000 in total savings across the combined contract terms. The ALPR renewal is priced at the existing contract rate. All prices meet or are below those listed for the same products on the Omnia cooperative purchasing consortium, which is the procurement mechanism the City is using for this acquisition and which satisfies the City’s competitive procurement requirements.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This consolidated public safety technology package advances the Strategic Plan goal to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.
The Berkeley Police Department currently operates 52 Flock Safety Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras under a contract that expires in July 2026. Council has previously authorized fixed video surveillance cameras on multiple occasions, most recently approving a transition to Flock Safety’s solar-powered Condor PTZ cameras on March 18, 2025, with the Surveillance Acquisition Report formally accepted on July 22,
2025. At the November 18, 2025, City Council meeting, the council directed staff to explore a Drone as First Responder program to improve public safety outcomes.
This item brings together the regulatory approvals, policy updates, and contract authority needed to move forward on all items. Rather than presenting each technology as a separate Council item over many months, this consolidated approach reflects the reality that these tools operate within a single platform and that unified procurement delivers significant fiscal, operational, and oversight advantages.
BACKGROUND
Legislative History
The technologies in this item are governed by two local ordinances and state law. BMC
2.99, the Surveillance Technology Ordinance, requires a Surveillance Acquisition Report and Use Policy for any new surveillance technology or material change to an existing one. BMC 2.100, the Police Equipment Ordinance (as amended and in effect as of March 12, 2026), requires an Impact Statement and Use Policy for controlled military equipment consistent with AB 481. The UAS program is subject to both ordinances.
Community Video Streams and fixed cameras are subject to BMC 2.99. The ALPR renewal involves no new technology and no policy changes; it requires only contract authority.
Council action on each technology to date:
ALPRs: Surveillance Acquisition Report accepted and Use Policy approved July 2023. Contract authority approved October 2023 and executed July 2024, expiring July 2026. No new approvals required beyond contract renewal authority. Fixed Cameras: Originally authorized December 2021, and again January 2024.
Transition to Flock Safety approved March 2025. Surveillance Acquisition Report for Flock Condor cameras accepted July 2025. Updated Use Policies presented here reflect Council-directed revisions and require Council approval. Drones: Surveillance Acquisition Report accepted and Use Policy approved June 2023. These policies authorize BPD to request field-deployed UAS from outside agencies through mutual aid for specified circumstances. Council directed staff to explore a department run UAS program, including DFR, in November 2025. This item presents the Surveillance Acquisition Report, updated Use Policy, Impact Statement for BPD to acquire and use both field-deployed and DFR drones, and contract authority for recurring DFR costs.
Community Video Streams: This technology was discussed at BPD’s January 2026 community meeting. This item presents the Surveillance Acquisition Report and Use Policy to Council for the first time. These materials were submitted to the
Police Accountability (PAB) in February 2026, and discussed during their subsequent regular public meetings.
Flock Nova: Funded by the Byrne SCIP grant accepted by Council on July 2025, which identified investigative software as an eligible expenditure for the City’s Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Program.
Community Engagement
Every technology in this item has been subject to extensive community engagement and civilian oversight. The Police Accountability Board (PAB) has had the opportunity to review, discuss, and provide recommendations on each technology through public meetings, consistent with the deliberative process contemplated by the Surveillance Technology Ordinance and the Police Equipment Ordinance. A timeline of key engagement milestones follows:
ALPRs: The PAB received the ALPR Surveillance Acquisition Report and Use Policy for review in May 2023. After independent review by the ODPA, the PAB held a special meeting in June 2023 to discuss the proposed policies. The Public Safety Policy Committee held a special meeting later in June 2023 to discuss the ALPR policies and voted to send a qualified positive recommendation to Council on the condition that PAB concerns be addressed. Council approved the Surveillance Acquisition Report and Use Policy in July 2023 and approved the ALPR contract in October 2023. The PAB received a BPD presentation on ALPR operations and data- sharing practices in November 2024.
Fixed Cameras: The PAB reviewed the proposed surveillance camera policies in March 2023 and provided written recommendations. The Public Safety Policy Committee received updates on camera and drone policies in March 2023. Council discussed the camera use policies in May 2023 and approved the final use policy in June 2023. In January 2024, Council voted to approve additional camera locations.
Council approved revised camera locations and the vendor transition to Flock Safety in March 2025, and the PAB reviewed the revised locations and vendor transition at its March 2025 meeting. In July 2025, Council heard from BPD and Flock Safety about data security and data-sharing before accepting the Surveillance Acquisition Report, with Council members directing additional safeguards including language from the PAB to limit system access and data sharing. Council continued its consideration of the fixed camera program at its September 2025 meeting, during which concerns about federal data access were raised and the vote was continued to allow additional review.
Drones: The PAB first reviewed proposed UAS policies for borrowing drones through mutual aid in February 2023, after BPD provided draft policies and an acquisition report in January 2023. The earlier UAS policies were included in the June 2023 Council surveillance ordinance item alongside fixed camera policies. The PAB took up the Drone as First Responder issue at its September 2025 meeting and
voted to partner with UC Berkeley’s Criminal Law & Justice Center to assess operational, legal, and oversight considerations. The Public Safety Policy Committee reviewed the DFR proposal in October 2025 and voted to send a positive recommendation to Council. At its November 2025 meeting, the PAB discussed data security concerns related to the Flock platform. The Council directed staff to explore a DFR program in November 2025 after a meeting in which Councilmembers posed detailed questions about data practices, recording policies, and privacy safeguards.
The ODPA prepared a preliminary analysis of DFR technology, presented to the PAB at its December 2025 meeting. BPD presented the DFR Impact Statement and Use Policy to the PAB at its February 2026 meeting.
Community Meeting - January 15, 2026: The Police Department held a well- attended open community information session on January 15, 2026, to discuss the full suite of current and proposed public safety technologies. The session, which received extensive local news coverage, described how fixed cameras, ALPRs, drones, and community video streams work in practice, the data protections in place for existing technology, and the safeguards planned for proposed new tools.
Community members asked questions and provided feedback that informed the policies and contract terms presented here.
Throughout this process, the PAB has served its function as an independent civilian oversight body. While the PAB and BPD have not always agreed- and the Department respects the Board’s independence to reach its own conclusions- the iterative process of presentation, questioning, public comment, and written recommendations has produced stronger policies. The engagement record on these technologies spans more than three years and 23 public meetings across the Police Accountability Board, Public Safety Policy Committee, City Council, and BPD-hosted community meeting.
Why Flock Safety
Staff conducted an extensive evaluation of available vendors for each technology category before recommending Flock Safety as the City’s consolidated platform. The evaluation considered product capability, data security, contract flexibility, pricing, interoperability, and the vendor’s responsiveness to the City’s legal and policy requirements.
Product quality across categories
Flock Safety offers fully featured, field-proven products in every category the City seeks:
license plate readers, fixed video surveillance, drone-as-first-responder, investigative analytics, and community camera integration. No other single vendor can deliver all of these capabilities. Staff evaluated competing products from Axon, Skydio, Brinc, Avigilon and others. Axon came closest to matching Flock’s breadth, but its ALPR and fixed camera software currently offers only search capability and does not support alerts or hotlists, which are features that have added significant public safety value for the
City, particularly for real-time response. Other vendors required the City to own and maintain hardware, lacked real-time alerting, or could not provide the level of technical support and product upgrades that Flock delivers as part of its subscription model.
Single ecosystem advantage
Operating all public safety technology on a single platform creates substantial benefits for the City. From an oversight and audit perspective, a unified system means one dashboard, one set of access logs, one audit trail, and one point of accountability. This simplifies compliance with BMC 2.99, BMC 2.100, and AB 481 reporting requirements, and makes it easier to conduct regular audits. Operationally, officers benefit from a single login, consolidated alerts across camera types, and the ability to correlate data from ALPRs, fixed cameras, drones, and community streams in one workflow.
Contract and legal terms
The City Attorney’s Office has negotiated a single Master Services Agreement with Flock Safety that governs all product lines. Every redline proposed by the City Attorney’s Office was accepted by Flock. The MSA includes protections that go well beyond the vendor’s standard terms of service:
• The City owns all of its data, including anonymized derivatives. Flock is prohibited from selling, sharing, or distributing City data without explicit City authorization.
• Flock may disclose data to a government agency only upon a legal request and with the City’s written consent. Consistent with the City’s sanctuary policies, footage cannot be provided to federal immigration authorities in response to an administrative subpoena or similar request without a court order. • Flock has agreed to include contractual financial penalties for data breaches or unauthorized disclosures, mirroring the framework approved by the Oakland City Council in December 2025 for its Flock agreement.
• Flock must promptly notify the City of any security incident or data breach and describe the scope and corrective steps.
• The City’s ownership and control of its data survives contract termination.
These terms would apply uniformly across all product lines under the MSA so there are consistent protections whether the City is using ALPRs, fixed cameras, drones, or analytics software.
Responsiveness to community and City concerns
Throughout the negotiation process, Flock Safety has demonstrated a willingness to align its practices with Berkeley’s values. When the City Attorney’s Office flagged concerns about federal access to data, Flock worked with staff to craft contract language that reflects the City’s sanctuary city ordinance and state privacy law. When staff raised questions about data-sharing defaults based on reporting from other jurisdictions, Flock provided transparent answers and made platform changes so that settings are restrictive by default.
Staff independently confirmed with agencies that had experienced publicized issues that all concerns stemmed from default settings that were permissive out of the box, not from vendor overrides or policy violations. Flock has also stopped its federal data- sharing pilot programs nationally and introduced additional permission controls in response to community feedback from jurisdictions across the country. The company’s willingness to accept every legal redline from the City Attorney’s Office, proactively offer a financial penalty clause, and work iteratively with staff over time reflects an alignment of incentives and accountability.
Fiscal advantage
Flock has offered the City a 10% discount on new product lines- DFR, PTZ cameras, and Nova- if contracts are executed by the end of March 2026, representing over $100,000 in total savings. The ALPR renewal is priced at the existing contract rate. All prices across every product line meet or are below those listed for the same products on the Omnia cooperative purchasing consortium, which is the competitively bid procurement vehicle the City is using for this acquisition.
A consolidated procurement also reduces administrative overhead: one MSA, one vendor relationship, one procurement cycle, and one set of invoices, rather than managing separate agreements with multiple vendors. For reference, Alameda County is preparing a similar consolidated Flock procurement package for consideration later this year.
Technology Descriptions
Drone as First Responder (DFR) - New Technology
The DFR program provides BPD with drone dispatch capability integrated into the FlockOS platform. The system includes DJI Matrice 4TD drones with Dock 3 charging stations and Aerodome radar for detect-and-avoid capability. Drones launch from rooftop docking stations and can arrive at the scene of a call for service before ground units, providing real-time aerial video to dispatchers and responding officers. Within two years, the DJI hardware will be replaced with Flock’s American-made, NDAA-compliant Alpha drone. The DFR Impact Statement and Use Policy are attached.
Community Video Streams - New Technology
This capability allows BPD to view live or recorded video from private cameras whose owners have voluntarily registered and opted in to share access. The system does not involve the City purchasing or installing any cameras. Instead, it uses Flock Safety’s software to map registered camera locations and, with explicit owner permission, route video feeds to BPD’s FlockOS dashboard. Before any camera is activated, BPD must complete a pre-integration review including an in-person site assessment and public notification signage. All integrated cameras will be published on the City website.
Camera owners retain ownership and can revoke access at any time. Facial recognition is strictly prohibited. All BPD accesses of the streams are logged and auditable, and are restricted to the uses described in the attached use policies. The Surveillance Acquisition Report and Use Policy are attached.
Fixed Video Cameras (Pan-Tilt-Zoom) - Previously Approved, Policy Update Solar-powered PTZ cameras installed and maintained by Flock Safety under a subscription model. The Surveillance Acquisition Report was accepted by Council on July 22, 2025. The updated Use Policies presented here incorporate Council-directed revisions and require Council approval before contract execution.
Nova - Grant-Funded Investigative Software
Nova is a data analysis platform that centralizes records from the department’s computer-aided dispatch (CAD), records management system (RMS), and digital evidence management system. It also provides access to open-source intelligence and shared inter-agency data to support case-linking and firearm case resolution. This tool is funded by the SCIP grant and directly supports the City’s Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Program.
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - Contract Renewal The City’s existing network of 52 Flock Safety ALPR cameras. The current contract expires in July 2026. This item requests authority to renew for two years with an option for an additional two-year extension. No changes to the previously approved Surveillance Acquisition Report or Use Policy are proposed.
How It All Comes Together: A Real-Time Information Center The technologies described above are not standalone tools. They are components of a single, integrated real-time information center (RTIC) that BPD will build around FlockOS. When a 911 call comes in, analysts can simultaneously dispatch a drone to the scene for aerial video, pull up nearby ALPR and fixed camera feeds, check community-registered cameras for relevant angles, and cross-reference vehicle or suspect information through Nova analytics- all from one dashboard, in real time.
To design and operationalize this workflow, BPD will seek to hire a Senior Crime Analyst and permanently fund a Crime Analyst position (currently grant funded) using savings generated by the reduction in sworn officer positions to manage the RTIC on an ongoing basis. In preparation for those roles, BPD is currently developing the operational infrastructure the analyst will rely on: building the operational workflows that connect each data stream, designing standard operating procedures for how dispatchers, analysts, and officers interact with the feeds, and ensuring strict compliance with the City's data policies and access controls. This approach is the core reason the single-platform strategy matters. Fragmented systems from multiple vendors would make real-time correlation impossible without extensive custom integration work.
FlockOS provides it natively, and the analysts are the people turning that capability into a functioning operation.
An RTIC is designed to function as a resource multiplier, which is particularly important given BPD’s ongoing staffing challenges and the City’s constrained budget environment. Rather than requiring additional patrol officers or dispatchers to monitor each data source independently, the platform allows a single analyst to synthesize information across all systems simultaneously and surface actionable information to officers already in the field. This means BPD can extend its operational capacity without a proportional increase in personnel costs. At a time when the city is managing a significant structural deficit and recruiting, hiring, and retaining sworn officers remains difficult and expensive, an RTIC enables the department to do more with its existing workforce by directing resources more precisely, reducing reactive deployment, and improving response times without expanding headcount.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The ALPR and PTZ cameras operate on solar power and battery systems thereby limiting the carbon footprint of public safety operations. The DFR program may also reduce vehicle emissions by decreasing the number of patrol car dispatches to calls that can be assessed aerially.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Approving this item allows the City to move forward on a comprehensive, integrated public safety technology program that has been years in development. Each component has either been previously reviewed and approved by Council or is presented here for the first time with full documentation under the applicable ordinances.
The consolidation into a single vendor platform is not merely a matter of administrative convenience. It is a deliberate choice to maximize oversight, simplify compliance, and ensure that every piece of technology the Police Department operates is governed by the same contractual protections, the same audit infrastructure, and the same accountability mechanisms. A single MSA, negotiated to the City’s specifications by the City Attorney’s Office and accepted in full by Flock, provides a durable legal framework
that protects the City’s data, upholds its sanctuary policies, and holds the vendor to financial consequences for violations.
The proposed technology suite, funded by permanently eliminating 3 officer positions, will result in a net savings of about $160,000 per year to the General Fund after accounting for all technology subscription costs and the Crime Analyst positions, while providing response capabilities that multiply the effectiveness of public safety resources.
That coupled with the 10% discount offered by Flock for execution by March 2026 provides a compelling fiscal incentive to act now, and the vendor’s track record of responsiveness to this City’s legal, policy, and community concerns gives staff confidence that this partnership will serve Berkeley well.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff assessed and considered procuring each technology category from a different vendor. This approach was rejected because it would fragment oversight across multiple platforms, require separate MSAs with varying levels of data protection, increase administrative burden, and forgo the ecosystem discount. Staff also evaluated specific competing products, most notably from Axon, whose ALPR and fixed camera products currently lack the alerting and hotlist capabilities that are central to BPD’s real- time response model. Maintaining the status quo- renewing the ALPR contract alone and deferring all other technologies- was considered but would leave Council-directed initiatives unfulfilled and forfeit the consolidated pricing advantage.
CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police, (510) 981-5700
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Surveillance Acquisition Report: Unmanned Aerial Systems
3. Surveillance Use Policy (Policy 1303): Unmanned Aerial Systems
4. Police Equipment Impact Statement (Policy 709): Unmanned Aerial Systems
5. Police Equipment Use Policy (Policy 611): Unmanned Aerial Systems
6. Surveillance Acquisition Report: Community Video Streams
7. Surveillance Use Policies (Policies 355 and 1306): Community Video Streams
8. Updated Surveillance Use Policies (Policies 351 and 1304): Fixed Video Cameras
9. Master Services Agreement
10. Financial Penalties Amendment
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###‑N.S.
APPROVING SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND POLICE EQUIPMENT
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, UPDATED USE POLICIES, AND AUTHORIZING
CONTRACTS WITH FLOCK SAFETY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY TECHNOLOGY WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has adopted BMC 2.99, the Surveillance Technology Ordinance, which requires City Council approval of a Surveillance Acquisition Report and Surveillance Use Policy prior to the acquisition or use of new surveillance technology; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has adopted BMC 2.100, the Police Equipment Ordinance, which requires City Council approval of a Police Equipment Impact Statement and Police Equipment Use Policy for controlled military equipment, consistent with AB 481; and
WHEREAS, the Drone as First Responder (DFR) portion of the Unmanned Aerial Systems program constitutes both a new surveillance technology under BMC 2.99 and controlled military equipment under BMC 2.100, and the Police Department has prepared and published the required Surveillance Acquisition Report, Surveillance Use Policy, Impact Statement, and Police Equipment Use Policy for Council review; and WHEREAS, Community Video Streams constitute a new surveillance technology under BMC 2.99, and the Police Department has prepared and published the required Surveillance Acquisition Report and Surveillance Use Policy for Council review; and WHEREAS, fixed video cameras were previously approved by Council, and updated Surveillance Use Policies reflecting Council-directed revisions are presented for approval; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department held a community information session on January 15, 2026, to present and gather feedback on the full suite of public safety technologies, and the Police Accountability Board has had an opportunity to review and provide input on each technology through multiple public meetings; and WHEREAS, the City Council accepted the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP) grant award of $1,000,000 on July 29, 2025, which identified investigative software as an eligible expenditure, and Flock Nova falls within that allocation; and WHEREAS, the City’s existing Flock Safety ALPR contract expires in July 2026, and renewal authority is required to maintain continuity of service; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office has negotiated a Master Services Agreement with Flock Safety that includes protections for City data ownership, restrictions on federal access consistent with the City’s sanctuary policies, financial penalties for unauthorized disclosures, security incident notification requirements, and post-termination data
protections, and Flock Safety has accepted every revision proposed by the City Attorney’s Office; and
WHEREAS, funding for the technology suite will come from eliminating up to 6 sworn officer positions, as supported by the Berkeley Police Association, resulting in a net savings to the General Fund; funding for fixed cameras is available in the General Fund allocation designated for surveillance cameras; funding for Flock Nova is available from the BSCC SCIP grant with no General Fund impact; and
WHEREAS, all prices meet or are below those listed for the same products on the Omnia cooperative purchasing consortium, satisfying the City’s competitive procurement requirements; and
WHEREAS, Flock Safety has offered a 10% discount on new product lines if contracts are executed by the end of March 2026, representing over $100,000 in savings.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Surveillance Technology Ordinance Approvals
1. The City Council hereby accepts the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approves the Surveillance Use Policy for the Unmanned Aerial Systems program.
2. The City Council hereby accepts the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approves the Surveillance Use Policy for Community Video Streams.
3. The City Council hereby approves the updated Surveillance Use Policies for fixed video cameras.
Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals
4. The City Council hereby accepts the Police Equipment Impact Statement and approves the Police Equipment Use Policy for unmanned aerial systems.
Contract Authority
5. The City Manager is authorized to amend the existing Contract #32400088 with Flock Group, Inc. (Flock Safety) to add Drone as First Responder hardware, software, and services for an initial three-year term, in an amount not to exceed $750,000.
6. The City Manager is authorized to amend the existing Contract #32400088 with Flock Group, Inc. (Flock Safety) to add fixed surveillance cameras for an initial four-
year term, in an amount not to exceed $310,000, with an option to extend for one additional three-year term, for a total amount not to exceed $600,000.
7. The City Manager is authorized to amend the existing Contract #32400088 with Flock Group, Inc. (Flock Safety) to add Nova investigative software for a one-year term, in an amount not to exceed $75,000, funded by the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP) grant.
8. The City Manager is authorized to amend the existing Contract #32400088 with Flock Group, Inc. (Flock Safety) to renew Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) for a two-year term, in an amount not to exceed $330,000, with an option to extend for an additional two-year term, for a total amount not to exceed $660,000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the total aggregate amount authorized under items 5 through 8 of this Resolution shall not exceed $1,465,000 for the initial contract terms, and shall not exceed $2,085,000 in the event all optional extension terms are exercised, with no individual contract term extending beyond seven years from the date of execution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute any amendments to the above contracts and the Master Services Agreement with Flock Safety, provided that any amendments do not increase the total amounts authorized herein and are consistent with the approved Use Policies and Impact Statements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the authorized sworn officer strength of the Berkeley Police Department is hereby reduced by 3 full-time equivalent positions, effective July 1, 2026, with the resulting salary and benefit savings to fund the ongoing technology subscription costs authorized herein, the Senior Crime Analyst conversion, and the permanent funding of the Crime Analyst position that is currently grant-funded.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that grant funds received under the SCIP grant and used for the Flock Nova contract shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by this body.
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM
1 Background
The Berkeley Police Department (BPD) seeks to acquire a comprehensive Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) program to enhance public safety operations and improve incident response times. This acquisition includes three distinct capabilities: interior-capable drones for searching confined spaces, field-deployed drones carried in patrol vehicles for immediate on-scene situational awareness, and a "Drone as a First Responder" (DFR) system capable of launching from a rooftop docking station. While UAS technology offers broad applications across various City departments such as for wildfire monitoring and disaster response, this Acquisition Report specifically addresses the use of this equipment by the Police Department for law enforcement purposes.
This document satisfies the requirements of BMC 2.99 for “publicly-released written report produced prior to acquisition... that includes...” sections covering description, purpose, location, impact, mitigation, data types and sources, data security, fiscal cost, third party dependence and access, alternatives, and experience of other entities of the equipment.
1. Description
Information describing the Surveillance Technology and how it works, including product descriptions from manufacturers
The following are descriptions of drone models that are representative of a broader range of drones used for the same purposes.
Description:
The Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) described in this appendix consists of four different types of aircraft, including attached cameras, and internal components to support the safe and effective operation of the systems. Two of them are traditional UAS and two of them would allow the implementation of a “Drone as a First Responder” (DFR) system. The UAS are the following models:
• Avata 2: This UAS would be used for tactical operations and searches within interior confined spaces such as a warehouse, commercial building or residence. • DJI Matrice 4T: This UAS would be used for patrol operations to rapidly respond to the scene of an incident and provide real-time video and situational awareness to officers responding to the scene. These systems would include the UAS, batteries, and software integration with our current CAD and Flock systems.
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM
2 • DJI Matrice 4TD / Flock Alpha: This UAS would be dedicated to DFR response to rapidly respond to the scene of an incident and provide real-time video and situational awareness to officers responding to the scene. It would also include the installation of two charging and telecommunications docks on the roof of the Public Safety Building. Within two years, this UAS would be replaced with Flock Alpha UAS and a battery swapping dock.
How it Works:
Remote controllers would be used to operate each type of UAS. They provide a live video feed and ensure the safe and effective operations of the UAS. Digital media cards would be installed in the UAS and would store the video footage from the flights. The DFR system includes the installation of two charging and telecommunications docks.
Manufacturers’ Descriptions:
"DJI Avata 2 is a compact and portable FPV camera drone equipped with built-in propeller guards. The aircraft uses both GNSS and a Vision System, allowing for stable hovering and smooth aerobatic maneuvers while flying both indoors and out." "The DJI Matrice 4 Thermal drone introduces a compact, intelligent drone for professional use. Equipped with a thermal camera, enhanced sensing, and a laser range finder, this drone offers safer and more reliable operations. The Matrice 4T is ideal for industries including electricity, emergency response, public safety, and forestry conservation.” "The DJI Matrice 4TD is a professional-grade thermal drone designed for rapid, accurate intelligence across utility inspections, solar and wind maintenance, industrial monitoring, public safety, and search-and-rescue missions. Combining high-resolution thermal imaging with a visual camera, this dual-spectrum platform reveals details invisible to conventional sensors, allowing teams to detect overheating equipment, identify hotspots in solar arrays, monitor turbine performance, and locate heat signatures during emergency operations. Rugged, IP-rated construction and extended flight endurance ensure reliable performance in challenging environments, making the M4TD a mission-ready solution for demanding field conditions."
"Flock Alpha sets a new standard for rapid response in public safety. American-made and NDAA-compliant, Flock Alpha is purpose-built for DFR, enhancing speed, coverage area, and camera power in a fully integrated solution."
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM
3 2. Purpose
Information on the proposed purpose(s) for the Surveillance Technology The primary objective of the UAS program is to leverage technology to preserve life and enhance safety.
• By providing an aerial vantage point, the UAS allows officers to create time and distance from a threat. This provides opportunities for negotiation and de- escalation that are not possible when officers are forced to make split-second decisions face-to-face with a suspect.
• The UAS allows for the remote assessment of hazardous scenes (e.g., suspicious devices, armed individuals), reducing the physical risk to officers and bystanders. • UAS can rapidly clear calls for service (such as unfounded reports), allowing patrol officers to remain available for genuine emergencies and reducing police presence where it is not needed.
3. Location
The general location(s) it may be deployed and reasons for deployment Officers may use UAS anywhere officers have jurisdiction to operate as sworn peace officers. All deployments are strictly governed by the authorized use cases and privacy protections established in Policy 611 (UAS Operations) and Surveillance Use Policy 1303.
4. Impact
An assessment identifying potential impacts on civil liberties and civil rights including but not limited to potential disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups The Department acknowledges that UAS operations involve inherent privacy considerations, including the risk of inadvertently capturing footage of private areas (e.g., backyards or through windows) or uninvolved community members. To address this, the Department has established strict prohibitions against random surveillance or targeting individuals based on protected characteristics. While the aerial vantage point provides critical safety data, the Department’s policies prioritize civil liberties by restricting recording to authorized missions and mandating that cameras be diverted away from private spaces when not actively engaged in a call for service, as detailed in the "Mitigations" section below.
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM
4 5. Mitigations
Information regarding technical and procedural measures that can be implemented to appropriately safeguard the public from any impacts identified To safeguard the public’s welfare and civil liberties, the Department will implement the following affirmative technical and procedural measures:
• All DFR cameras will be programmed to orient toward the horizon (preventing ground recording) while in transit to a call for service. The camera will only point down upon arrival at the authorized scene.
• All UAS flights are logged, and flight data is auditable. Video data is stored on secure, encrypted servers (Evidence.com) with strict chain-of-custody controls. • The UAS will not be equipped with facial recognition software or weapons of any kind.
• As required by BMC 2.99 and BMC 2.100, the Department will publish data regarding deployments on an annual basis.
• Information including flight logs and incident type will be published on a publicly accessible transparency portal shortly after the conclusion of a flight, typically within 1 hour after docking.
• The program is subject to review by the Police Accountability Board and approval by the City Council via the Annual Military Equipment Report and the Annual Surveillance Technology Report.
6. Data Types and Sources
A list of the sources of data proposed to be collected, analyzed, or processed by the Surveillance Technology, including "open source" data
Data collection is limited to video (visible and infrared) and associated telemetry (e.g., flight path, altitude) necessary for safe flight operations and situational awareness. The UAS will capture real-time video to assist pilots in navigating safely and assessing authorized scenes. These recordings are utilized solely for legitimate law enforcement purposes, including criminal investigations, administrative reviews, and training, in strict accordance with state laws and Department policy.
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM
5 7. Data Security
Information about the steps that can be taken to ensure adequate security measures to safeguard the data collected or generated from unauthorized access or disclosure The Department will implement and maintain comprehensive data security protocols to preserve the integrity, confidentiality, and lawful use of UAS videos. Video recording will occur only during authorized operations and will not include continuous or passive surveillance. All recorded data will be stored securely on an internal hard drive and/or SD cards prior to upload to BPD’s evidence database. Access to videos will be limited to authorized personnel with a legitimate law enforcement or administrative need. Any release or access to videos by third parties requires prior authorization and will be limited to legally authorized agencies or pursuant to a valid court order.
8. Fiscal Cost
The fiscal cost of each type of Controlled Equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment, the costs of each proposed use, the costs of potential adverse impacts, and the annual, ongoing costs of the equipment, including operating, training, transportation, storage, maintenance, and upgrade costs.
The costs below represent estimates. Costs are subject to change at the time of purchase.
Initial Cost:
• Purchase of field-based UAS (Avata 2 & Matrice 4T): Total $44,500. • Lease of PSB-based DFR (Year 1): $100,000.
• Radar (Year 1): included.
• Dock Installation: $15,000.
Cost of Use:
• Each individual use of the UAS incurs a negligible financial cost, limited primarily to the electricity required to recharge the aircraft batteries. The operational cost is absorbed within the existing salary of the trained Pilot in Command (PIC) and does not require additional overtime or specialized funding. For the DFR program, the annual lease covers unlimited flights, meaning there is no incremental cost for high- frequency usage.
Costs of Potential Adverse Impacts:
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM
6 • Costs of adverse impacts could include property damage caused by a malfunctioning drone, but the experience of other agencies with drones and similar programs indicates that such incidents are extremely rare. Furthermore, strict adherence to FAA maintenance schedules, pre-flight inspections, and pilot training requirements serves to minimize the risk of malfunction or operator error. Any costs associated with accidental damage or liability claims would be addressed through the City’s existing claims process.
Annual and Ongoing Costs:
• DFR Lease: $125,000 per year (includes upgrade to Flock Alpha). • Radar: $150,000 per year.
• Parts/Maintenance (for purchased units): $2,000 per year.
Training Costs:
• Training (4 primary pilots): $24,000.
• Training (8 additional pilots): $48,000.
Maintenance and Storage Costs:
• Parts/maintenance for purchased units: $2,000 per year. • Parts/maintenance for leased units: included.
Upgrade Costs:
• DFR upgrades are included in the lease. Within two years, this UAS would be replaced with Flock Alpha UAS and a battery swapping dock.
9. Third Party Dependence and Access
Whether use or maintenance of the technology will require data gathered by the technology to be handled or stored by a third-party vendor on an ongoing basis, and whether a third party may have access to such data or may have the right to sell or otherwise share the data in aggregated, disaggregated, raw or any other formats
All UAS data will be uploaded and stored on Axon’s Evidence.com platform in line with existing departmental protocol for evidence collection. Axon complies with the EU-U.S.
Privacy Shield Framework and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework as set forth by the U.S. Department of Commerce regarding the collection, use, and retention of personal information transferred from the European Union and Switzerland to the United States
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM
7 (collectively, “Privacy Shield”). Axon has certified to the U.S. Department of Commerce that it adheres to the Privacy Shield Principles.
BPD will only share UAS data with other law enforcement agencies on a case-by-case basis in connection with an active investigation, or in response to a lawful judicial warrant or court order in compliance with state and local law.
10. Alternatives
A summary and general assessment of potentially viable alternative methods (whether involving the use of a new technology or not), if any, considered before deciding to propose acquiring the Surveillance Technology
In the absence of a UAS program, the department would be limited to less effective and more costly alternatives. If we were to gain the same level of operational support, we could attempt to increase the amount of officers to match the coverage and responsiveness of aerial support. However that is not feasible at this time due to well established challenges in hiring and training suitable candidates. It would also not address underlying efficiency issues in that ground-based units lack the elevated perspective needed for efficient searches, crowd monitoring, and scene management, and offer reduced capacity to maintain time and distance for de-escalation. This can heighten the potential for confrontational encounters and diminish effectiveness in pursuits or rapidly evolving incidents.
Additionally, taking no action would leave existing operational challenges unaddressed.
The department would continue to rely on outside agencies for aerial support, risking delays in critical moments. Without its own UAS capability, the department would forgo enhancements in officer safety and public protection, while falling behind regional peers who have already adopted this widely accepted and increasingly standard public safety tool.
11. Experience of Other Entities
To the extent such information is available, a summary of the experience of comparable government entities with the proposed technology, including any unanticipated financial or community costs and benefits, experienced by such other entities The Alameda County Sheriff's Office has operated its UAS program since 2015 and only reports a single community complaint, which was ultimately deemed unrelated to drone activity. The agency implemented a public transparency portal and documented multiple
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM
8 operational successes, including enhanced officer safety, improved suspect apprehension, efficient crime scene documentation, and the successful location of missing persons.
The Hayward Police Department launched its UAS program in March 2022. Since then, the department has conducted 75 deployments without any citizen complaints or unexpected financial impacts. The program has been integral in reducing risk during critical incidents.
The Fremont Police Department began using UAS technology in 2017 and now maintains a fleet of 16 drones operated by 25 trained personnel. The department reports no community complaints, maintains regular updates to its transparency portal, and is currently developing its Drone as First Responder (DFR) capability. Fremont Police report that the program delivers significant operational advantages and has become an integrated part of its modern policing strategy.
These examples illustrate the increasing regional adoption and effectiveness of UAS programs across local police departments and reinforce their role as a valuable and accepted tool in contemporary law enforcement.
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/24, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Surveillance Use Policy- Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)
Law Enforcement Services Manual
Surveillance Use Policy-Unmanned Aerial
System (UAS)
1303.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the use of an unmanned aerial system (UAS) and for the storage, retrieval and dissemination of images and data captured by the UAS. Department personnel shall adhere to requirements for Unmanned Aerial Systems covered in this policy as well as the corresponding Use Policy - 611.
1303.2 AUTHORIZED USE
Authorized operators may deploy the UAS in the following circumstances:
1. To provide real-time situational awareness during high-risk or critical incidents, such as barricaded suspects, hostage situations, active shooters, the apprehension of armed and dangerous suspects, the pre-planning and service of a warrant allowing officers to create time and distance to formulate de-escalation strategies, facilitate safe tactical planning, and reduce the need for immediate physical engagement.
2. To assist in locating lost, missing, or injured persons during search and rescue operations.
3. To rapidly respond to calls for service to verify the nature of the incident, potentially determining that a law enforcement response is unnecessary for unfounded reports or low-priority incidents, thereby acting as a resource multiplier and keeping patrol officers available for other calls.
4. To locate fleeing suspects to effectively contain perimeters and reduce the need for dangerous ground-based foot pursuits.
5. To track fleeing vehicles from a safe distance, allowing patrol units to de-escalate or terminate dangerous ground pursuits while maintaining visual contact.
6. To clear interior buildings or confined spaces remotely to prevent potentially violent encounters between officers and hidden suspects.
Policy
1303
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/24, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Surveillance Use Policy- Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)
7. To assist the Fire Department with fire mitigation and suppression, hazardous materials releases, or disaster response and recovery.
8. To remotely inspect potential explosive devices or hazardous objects.
9. To document complex crime scenes, accident scenes, or areas where an aerial perspective is critical for the investigation.
10. To respond to active criminal activity at mass gatherings or special events.
11. To mitigate hazards caused by other UAS interfering with emergency operations.
12. For pilot certification training and maintenance of proficiency.
13. To address other unforeseen exigent circumstances where there is an imminent threat to public safety, provided the deployment is consistent with the general privacy and safety principles of this policy.
1303.3 PROHIBITED USE
The UAS shall not be used:
1. To conduct random or arbitrary surveillance activities. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, first amendment assemblies in accordance with Policy 428 First Amendment Assemblies.
2. To target a person based solely on actual or perceived characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, or disability.
3. To harass, intimidate, or discriminate against any individual or group.
Furthermore, the UAS shall not be equipped with:
1. Facial recognition software
2. Biometric analysis capabilities
3. Weapons of any kind, including lethal or non-lethal munitions.
1303.4 DATA COLLECTION
Data collection shall be limited to video (visible and infrared) and associated telemetry
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/24, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Surveillance Use Policy- Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)
(e.g., flight path, altitude) necessary for safe flight operations and situational awareness.
The UAS will capture real-time video to assist pilots in navigating safely and assessing authorized scenes. These recordings shall be utilized solely for legitimate law enforcement purposes, including criminal investigations, administrative reviews, and training, in strict accordance with state laws and Department policy.
1303.5 DATA ACCESS
Access to videos shall be limited to authorized personnel with a legitimate law enforcement or administrative need. Any release or access to videos by third parties requires prior authorization and shall be limited to legally authorized agencies or pursuant to a valid court order.
1303.6 DATA PROTECTION
The Department shall implement and maintain comprehensive data security protocols to preserve the integrity, confidentiality, and lawful use of UAS videos. Video recording shall occur only during authorized operations and shall not include continuous or passive surveillance.
1303.7 CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS PROTECTIONS
The Department acknowledges that UAS operations involve inherent privacy considerations, specifically the risk of inadvertently capturing footage of private areas (e.g., backyards or through windows) or uninvolved community members. To address this, the Department prioritizes civil liberties by restricting recording to authorized missions and strictly adhering to the restrictions on random surveillance outlined in Section 611.6 (Prohibited Use).
To safeguard these rights, UAS operations shall adhere to the following restrictions:
1. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to FAA regulations and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., residence, yard, enclosure).
2. Operators and observers shall take reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertently recording or transmitting images of uninvolved community members or areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Cameras shall be diverted away from private spaces when not actively engaged in a permitted use.
3. For DFR operations, cameras shall be programmed to orient toward the horizon (preventing ground recording) while in transit to a call for service and shall only be directed toward the scene upon arrival at the authorized location.
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/24, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Surveillance Use Policy- Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)
1303.8 DATA RETENTION
UAS footage should be purged by BPD within 60 days if it does not contain any data of evidentiary value. If the data has evidentiary value, it should be uploaded into BPD's evidence database and kept pursuant to the established retention guidelines set forth in policy 804-Records Maintenance and Release.
1303.9 PUBLIC ACCESS
Unauthorized use, duplication, and/or distribution of UAS camera footage is prohibited.
Personnel shall not make copies of any UAS camera footage for their personal use and are prohibited from using a recording device such as a personal camera or any secondary video camera to capture UAS camera footage.
All UAS camera footage is property of the Berkeley Police Department and shall not be copied, released or disseminated in any form or manner outside the parameters of established policy, procedure, or laws.
The Custodian of Records, or their designee, will be responsible for handling requests for UAS camera footage.
1303.10 THIRD PARTY DATA SHARING
Pursuant to the Records Maintenance and Release policy, data collected from the UAS may only be shared with other law enforcement agencies on a case-by-case basis in connection with an active investigation, or in response to a lawful judicial warrant or court order in compliance with state and local law.
1303.11 TRAINING
The Program Coordinator will coordinate training of PICs and Visual Observers. The training course and materials will be approved through the training staff. An approved department instructor will oversee all training. Each training session will be documented and forwarded to the Policy and Training Bureau Sergeant.
1303.12 AUDITING AND OVERSIGHT
Division Captains or their designee shall ensure compliance with this Surveillance Use Policy.
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/24, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Surveillance Use Policy- Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)
The Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability shall conduct biennial audits of UAS use.
Intentional violation of this policy may serve as grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to the Policy 1010, Personnel Complaints policy.
1303.13 MAINTENANCE
All UAS maintenance shall be conducted by the owner/operator of the device consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications and as needed based on UAS usage.
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED
AERIAL SYSTEM
1 Background
The Berkeley Police Department (BPD) seeks to acquire a comprehensive Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) program to enhance public safety operations and improve incident response times. This acquisition includes three distinct capabilities: interior-capable drones for searching confined spaces, field-deployed drones carried in patrol vehicles for immediate on-scene situational awareness, and a "Drone as a First Responder" (DFR) system capable of launching from a rooftop docking station. While UAS technology offers broad applications across various City departments such as for wildfire monitoring and disaster response, this Impact Statement specifically addresses the use of this equipment by the Police Department for law enforcement purposes.
This document satisfies the requirements of AB 481 for “approval of the governing body, by an ordinance adopting military equipment use policy” for a specific type of military equipment: “unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial... vehicle” (AB 481). It also satisfies the requirements of BMC 2.100 for “a publicly released, written document that includes...” sections covering description, purpose, fiscal cost, impact, mitigations, alternatives, and third-party dependence of the equipment.
1. Description
A description of each type of Controlled Equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, intended uses and effects, and how it works, including product descriptions from the manufacturer of the Controlled Equipment.
The following are descriptions of drone models that are representative of a broader range of drones used for the same purposes.
Description:
The Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) described in this appendix consists of four different types of aircraft, including attached cameras, and internal components to support the safe and effective operation of the systems. Two of them are traditional UAS and two of them would allow the implementation of a “Drone as a First Responder” (DFR) system. The UAS are the following models:
• Avata 2: This UAS would be used for tactical operations and searches within interior confined spaces such as a warehouse, commercial building or residence.
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED
AERIAL SYSTEM
2 • DJI Matrice 4T: This UAS would be used for patrol operations to rapidly respond to the scene of an incident and provide real-time video and situational awareness to officers responding to the scene. These systems would include the UAS, batteries, and software integration with our current CAD and Flock systems. • DJI Matrice 4TD / Flock Alpha: This UAS would be dedicated to DFR response to rapidly respond to the scene of an incident and provide real-time video and situational awareness to officers responding to the scene. It would also include the installation of two charging and telecommunications docks on the roof of the Public Safety Building. Within two years, this UAS would be replaced with Flock Alpha UAS and a battery swapping dock.
Quantity:
Our initial purchase recommendation for drones is:
• DJI Avata 2: 4 units
• DJI Matrice 4T: 4 units
• DJI Matrice 4TD: 2 units
• Flock Alpha: 1 unit to replace the 2 Matrice 4TDs within 2 years Ongoing inventory counts will be updated in the Annual Police Equipment Report as required by BMC 2.100.
Capabilities:
• The Avata 2 is a compact system designed for operation in confined interior spaces.
It allows officers to remotely search buildings during high-risk alarms or warrant services, minimizing the need for officers to physically enter potentially hazardous environments without prior visual assessment.
• The Matrice 4T is a field-deployed unit carried by patrol officers for immediate operational support. It features high-resolution thermal and zoom sensors ideal for locating missing persons in complex terrain or tracking fleeing suspects to prevent dangerous ground pursuits.
• The Matrice 4TD and Flock Alpha serve as the core of the Drone as First Responder (DFR) program. These systems are capable of autonomous dispatch to calls for service, often arriving before ground units. This capability allows for the rapid verification of incidents, potentially allowing officers to downgrade their response or clear unfounded calls without physical police presence. They provide real-time
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED
AERIAL SYSTEM
3 situational awareness to responding officers and facilitate safer approaches and de-escalation strategies.
Lifespan:
The expected lifespan of the above UAS models is approximately 3 years.
Uses and Effects:
Authorized operators may deploy the UAS in accordance with Unmanned Aerial Systems Use Policy 611.5 Permitted Use and 611.6 Prohibited Use.
How it Works:
Remote controllers would be used to operate each type of UAS. They provide a live video feed and ensure the safe and effective operations of the UAS. Digital media cards would be installed in the UAS and would store the video footage from the flights. The DFR system includes the installation of two charging and telecommunications docks.
Manufacturers’ Descriptions:
"DJI Avata 2 is a compact and portable FPV camera drone equipped with built-in propeller guards. The aircraft uses both GNSS and a Vision System, allowing for stable hovering and smooth aerobatic maneuvers while flying both indoors and out." "The DJI Matrice 4 Thermal drone introduces a compact, intelligent drone for professional use. Equipped with a thermal camera, enhanced sensing, and a laser range finder, this drone offers safer and more reliable operations. The Matrice 4T is ideal for industries including electricity, emergency response, public safety, and forestry conservation.” "The DJI Matrice 4TD is a professional-grade thermal drone designed for rapid, accurate intelligence across utility inspections, solar and wind maintenance, industrial monitoring, public safety, and search-and-rescue missions. Combining high-resolution thermal imaging with a visual camera, this dual-spectrum platform reveals details invisible to conventional sensors, allowing teams to detect overheating equipment, identify hotspots in solar arrays, monitor turbine performance, and locate heat signatures during emergency operations. Rugged, IP-rated construction and extended flight endurance ensure reliable performance in challenging environments, making the M4TD a mission-ready solution for demanding field conditions."
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED
AERIAL SYSTEM
4 "Flock Alpha sets a new standard for rapid response in public safety. American-made and NDAA-compliant, Flock Alpha is purpose-built for DFR, enhancing speed, coverage area, and camera power in a fully integrated solution."
2. Purpose
The specific purpose or purposes that each type of Controlled Equipment is intended to achieve.
The primary objective of the UAS program is to leverage technology to preserve life and enhance safety.
• By providing an aerial vantage point, the UAS allows officers to create time and distance from a threat. This provides opportunities for negotiation and de- escalation that are not possible when officers are forced to make split-second decisions face-to-face with a suspect.
• The UAS allows for the remote assessment of hazardous scenes (e.g., suspicious devices, armed individuals), reducing the physical risk to officers and bystanders. • UAS can rapidly clear calls for service (such as unfounded reports), allowing patrol officers to remain available for genuine emergencies and reducing police presence where it is not needed.
3. Fiscal Cost
The fiscal cost of each type of Controlled Equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment, the costs of each proposed use, the costs of potential adverse impacts, and the annual, ongoing costs of the equipment, including operating, training, transportation, storage, maintenance, and upgrade costs.
The costs below represent estimates. Costs are subject to change at the time of purchase.
Initial Cost:
• Purchase of field-based UAS (Avata 2 & Matrice 4T): Total $44,500. • Lease of PSB-based DFR (Year 1): $100,000.
• Radar (Year 1): included.
• Dock Installation: $15,000.
Cost of Use:
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED
AERIAL SYSTEM
5 • Each individual use of the UAS incurs a negligible financial cost, limited primarily to the electricity required to recharge the aircraft batteries. The operational cost is absorbed within the existing salary of the trained Pilot in Command (PIC) and does not require additional overtime or specialized funding. For the DFR program, the annual lease covers unlimited flights, meaning there is no incremental cost for high- frequency usage.
Costs of Potential Adverse Impacts:
• Costs of adverse impacts could include property damage caused by a malfunctioning drone, but the experience of other agencies with drones and similar programs indicates that such incidents are extremely rare. Furthermore, strict adherence to FAA maintenance schedules, pre-flight inspections, and pilot training requirements serves to minimize the risk of malfunction or operator error. Any costs associated with accidental damage or liability claims would be addressed through the City’s existing claims process.
Annual and Ongoing Costs:
• DFR Lease: $125,000 per year (includes upgrade to Flock Alpha). • Radar: $150,000 per year.
• Parts/Maintenance (for purchased units): $2,000 per year.
Training Costs:
• Training (4 primary pilots): $24,000.
• Training (8 additional pilots): $48,000.
Maintenance and Storage Costs:
• Parts/maintenance for purchased units: $2,000 per year. • Parts/maintenance for leased units: included.
Upgrade Costs:
• DFR upgrades are included in the lease. Within two years, this UAS would be replaced with Flock Alpha UAS and a battery swapping dock.
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED
AERIAL SYSTEM
6 4. Impact
An assessment specifically identifying any potential impacts that the use of Controlled Equipment might have on the welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties of the public.
Welfare and Safety
The use of UAS technology will provide the Berkeley Police Department with an industry- standard tool that significantly enhances operational safety and efficiency. The UAS will improve response times to critical emergencies and calls for service, particularly those hampered by traffic congestion or geographic barriers. By providing rapid, aerial situational awareness, the UAS allows officers to assess threats and locate suspects before physical engagement. This capability allows officers to use time and distance to formulate de- escalation strategies, thereby reducing the likelihood of dangerous encounters for both officers and the community.
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
The Department acknowledges that UAS operations involve inherent privacy considerations, including the risk of inadvertently capturing footage of private areas (e.g., backyards or through windows) or uninvolved community members. To address this, the Department has established strict prohibitions against random surveillance or targeting individuals based on protected characteristics. While the aerial vantage point provides critical safety data, the Department’s policies prioritize civil liberties by restricting recording to authorized missions and mandating that cameras be diverted away from private spaces when not actively engaged in a call for service, as detailed in the "Mitigations" section below.
5. Mitigations
Specific, affirmative technical and procedural measures that will be implemented to safeguard the public from such impacts.
To safeguard the public’s welfare and civil liberties, the Department will implement the following affirmative technical and procedural measures:
• All DFR cameras will be programmed to orient toward the horizon (preventing ground recording) while in transit to a call for service. The camera will only point down upon arrival at the authorized scene.
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED
AERIAL SYSTEM
7 • All UAS flights are logged, and flight data is auditable. Video data is stored on secure, encrypted servers (Evidence.com) with strict chain-of-custody controls. • The UAS will not be equipped with facial recognition software or weapons of any kind.
• As required by BMC 2.99 and BMC 2.100, the Department will publish data regarding deployments on an annual basis.
• Information including flight logs and incident type will be published on a publicly accessible transparency portal shortly after the conclusion of a flight, typically within 1 hour after docking.
• The program is subject to review by the Police Accountability Board and approval by the City Council via the Annual Military Equipment Report and the Annual Surveillance Technology Report.
6. Alternatives
Alternative method or methods by which the Police Department can accomplish the purposes for which the Controlled Equipment is proposed to be used, and rationale for selection over alternative methods.
In the absence of a UAS program, the department would be limited to less effective and more costly alternatives. If we were to gain the same level of operational support, we could attempt to increase the amount of officers to match the coverage and responsiveness of aerial support. However that is not feasible at this time due to well established challenges in hiring and training suitable candidates. It would also not address underlying efficiency issues in that ground-based units lack the elevated perspective needed for efficient searches, crowd monitoring, and scene management, and offer reduced capacity to maintain time and distance for de-escalation. This can heighten the potential for confrontational encounters and diminish effectiveness in pursuits or rapidly evolving incidents.
Additionally, taking no action would leave existing operational challenges unaddressed.
The department would continue to rely on outside agencies for aerial support, risking delays in critical moments. Without its own UAS capability, the department would forgo enhancements in officer safety and public protection, while falling behind regional peers who have already adopted this widely accepted and increasingly standard public safety tool.
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED
AERIAL SYSTEM
8 7. Third Party Dependence
Whether use or maintenance of the Controlled Equipment will require the engagement of third party service providers.
All UAS data will be uploaded and stored on Axon’s Evidence.com platform in line with existing departmental protocol for evidence collection. Axon complies with the EU-U.S.
Privacy Shield Framework and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework as set forth by the U.S. Department of Commerce regarding the collection, use, and retention of personal information transferred from the European Union and Switzerland to the United States (collectively, “Privacy Shield”). Axon has certified to the U.S. Department of Commerce that it adheres to the Privacy Shield Principles.
8. Legal and Procedural Rules
Authorized use must comply with state, federal laws, and Policy 611 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations.
9. Training
The UAS Supervisor/Program Coordinator will coordinate training of Pilots in Command and Visual Observers. The training course and materials will be approved through the training staff. An approved department instructor will oversee all training. Each training session will be documented and forwarded to the Policy and Training Bureau Sergeant.
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/24, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations - 1 Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations
611 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the use of an unmanned aerial system (UAS) and for the storage, retrieval and dissemination of images and data captured by the UAS. Department personnel shall adhere to requirements for Unmanned Aerial Systems covered in this policy as well as the corresponding Surveillance Use Policy 1303.
611.1 DEFINITIONS
Drone as First Responder (DFR) - A mode of operation where a UAS is deployed immediately in response to a call for service or other emergency. This mode of operation provides real-time aerial situational awareness to dispatchers, analysts and responding officers, assisting in the assessment of incidents, the coordination of resources, and the potential de-escalation or clearance of calls without the need for immediate physical police presence.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – An entity of the federal government that regulates all aspects of civil aviation.
Pilot in Command (PIC) –Trained officer who is the sole person responsible for the operation of the UAS.
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) - An unmanned aircraft of any type that is capable of sustaining directed flight, whether preprogrammed or remotely controlled (commonly referred to as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)), and all of the supporting or attached systems designed for gathering information through imaging, recording or any other means.
Visual Observer –Trained officer who may act as a spotter for PIC to assist in navigating the UAS and avoidance of hazards.
611.2 POLICY
Unmanned aerial systems may be utilized for the purpose of enhancing the department's mission to safeguard our diverse community by enabling remote visual Policy
611
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/24, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations - 2 assessment and real-time situational awareness in the situations specified in this policy.
Any use of a UAS will also be in strict accordance with BMC 13.114 Sanctuary City Ordinance, constitutional and privacy rights, and FAA regulations.
All uses of the UAS shall be reported in compliance with the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) 2.99 Surveillance Technology Ordinance, and BMC 2.100 Police Equipment Ordinance.
Additionally, the Department shall publish data regarding specific requests, flight paths, and deployments on the Department's transparency portal. Flight logs and incident types for DFR operations should be published as soon as practicable, typically within one hour of docking.
611.3 PRIVACY
The Department acknowledges that UAS operations involve inherent privacy considerations, specifically the risk of inadvertently capturing footage of private areas (e.g., backyards or through windows) or uninvolved community members. To address this, the Department prioritizes civil liberties by restricting recording to authorized missions and strictly adhering to the restrictions on random surveillance outlined in Section 611.6 (Prohibited Use).
To safeguard these rights, UAS operations shall adhere to the following restrictions:
1) Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to FAA regulations and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., residence, yard, enclosure).
2) Operators and observers shall take reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertently recording or transmitting images of uninvolved community members or areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Cameras shall be diverted away from private spaces when not actively engaged in a permitted use. 3) For DFR operations, cameras shall be programmed to orient toward the horizon (preventing ground recording) while in transit to a call for service and shall only be directed toward the scene upon arrival at the authorized location. 611.4 PROGRAM COORDINATOR
The Police Chief will appoint a program coordinator who will be responsible for the management of the UAS program. The program coordinator will ensure that policies and procedures conform to current laws, regulations, and best practices. 611.5 PERMITTED USE
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/24, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations - 3 Authorized operators may deploy the UAS in the following circumstances:
1) To provide real-time situational awareness during high-risk or critical incidents, such as barricaded suspects, hostage situations, active shooters, the apprehension of armed and dangerous suspects, the pre-planning and service of a warrant allowing officers to create time and distance to formulate de-escalation strategies, facilitate safe tactical planning, and reduce the need for immediate physical engagement. 2) To assist in locating lost, missing, or injured persons during search and rescue operations.
3) To rapidly respond to calls for service to verify the nature of the incident, potentially determining that a law enforcement response is unnecessary for unfounded reports or low-priority incidents, thereby acting as a resource multiplier and keeping patrol officers available for other calls.
4) To locate fleeing suspects to effectively contain perimeters and reduce the need for dangerous ground-based foot pursuits.
5) To track fleeing vehicles from a safe distance, allowing patrol units to de-escalate or terminate dangerous ground pursuits while maintaining visual contact. 6) To clear interior buildings or confined spaces remotely to prevent potentially violent encounters between officers and hidden suspects.
7) To assist the Fire Department with fire mitigation and suppression, hazardous materials releases, or disaster response and recovery.
8) To remotely inspect potential explosive devices or hazardous objects. 9) To document complex crime scenes, accident scenes, or areas where an aerial perspective is critical for the investigation.
10) To respond to active criminal activity at mass gatherings or special events. 11) To mitigate hazards caused by other UAS interfering with emergency operations. 12) For pilot certification training and maintenance of proficiency. 13) To address other unforeseen exigent circumstances where there is an imminent threat to public safety, provided the deployment is consistent with the general privacy and safety principles of this policy.
611.6 PROHIBITED USE
1) The UAS shall not be used:
a) To conduct random or arbitrary surveillance activities. This prohibition includes,
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/24, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations - 4 but is not limited to, first amendment assemblies in accordance with Policy 428 First Amendment Assemblies.
b) To target a person based solely on actual or perceived characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, or disability. c) To harass, intimidate, or discriminate against any individual or group. 2) Furthermore, the UAS shall not be equipped with:
a) Facial recognition software
b) Biometric analysis capabilities
c) Weapons of any kind, including lethal or non-lethal munitions. 611.7 TRAINING
The Program Coordinator will coordinate training of PICs and Visual Observers. The training course and materials will be approved through the training staff. An approved department instructor will oversee all training. Each training session will be documented and forwarded to the Policy and Training Bureau Sergeant. 611.8 RETENTION REQUIREMENTS
UAS footage should be purged by BPD within 60 days if it doesn't contain any data of evidentiary value. If the data has evidentiary value, it should be uploaded into BPD's evidence database and kept pursuant to the established retention guidelines set forth in policy 804-Records Maintenance and Release.
611.9 RELEASE OF RECORDINGS
1) Unauthorized use, duplication, and/or distribution of UAS camera footage is prohibited. Personnel shall not make copies of any UAS camera footage for their personal use and are prohibited from using a recording device such as a personal camera or any secondary video camera to capture UAS camera footage. 2) All UAS camera footage is property of the Berkeley Police Department and shall not be copied, released or disseminated in any form or manner outside the parameters of established policy, procedure, or laws.
3) The Custodian of Records, or their designee, will be responsible for handling requests for UAS camera footage.
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS
1 Background
Pursuant to BMC 2.99 Surveillance Technology Ordinance, this report and the associated surveillance use policy must be approved by City Council before “[e]ntering into an agreement with a non-City entity to acquire, share or otherwise use Surveillance Technology or the information it provides” (BMC2.99.030(1)(d). The Berkeley Police Department (BPD) seeks to implement a community safety video integration capability to enhance real-time public safety operations and improve investigative efficiency. This initiative leverages software integration to access video footage from cameras voluntarily registered and shared by non-City entities.
This acquisition report is not for physical hardware but for the software capability to view community video streams. This approach acts as a resource multiplier, allowing authorized staff to virtually canvass areas for evidence and gain real-time situational awareness during critical incidents without the cost of installing new City poles and cameras.
This document satisfies the requirements of BMC 2.99 for “publicly-released written report produced prior to acquisition... that includes...” sections covering description, purpose, location, impact, mitigation, data types and sources, data security, fiscal cost, third party dependence and access, alternatives, and experience of other entities of the equipment.
1. Description
Information describing the Surveillance Technology and how it works, including product descriptions from manufacturers
Description:
The technology does not involve the City purchasing new cameras. Instead, it leverages software integrations to allow authorized BPD personnel to view live or recorded video streams from private cameras, only where the owner has explicitly granted permission to share data.
This system aggregates disparate video feeds into a centralized dashboard accessible to authorized BPD personnel, acting as a resource multiplier for investigations without requiring the City to install infrastructure.
How it Works:
The system functions through a cloud-based platform. Community members create an account and register their cameras. This places a pin on the BPD map indicating a camera exists at that location. For compatible systems that opt-in, the video feed is routed via secure API to the BPD dashboard. Access is permission-based. Camera owners retain ownership and can revoke access at any time. BPD personnel access the system via
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS
2 secure login. Live viewing is restricted to active incidents, while historical access is used for gathering evidence.
Manufacturers’ Descriptions:
The following descriptions are provided by Flock Safety, which is one vendor capable of delivering this integration.
"Flock Safety Wing® allows customers to easily integrate video cameras into FlockOS® for a seamless workflow. [It] integrates live stream traffic cameras, publicly or privately owned livestream security cameras into one cloud-based situational awareness dashboard to increase response time in mission-critical incidents."
"Registering your camera lets law enforcement know you have footage that could help during a criminal investigation. Places a pin on your local law enforcement's camera map... Integrating your business cameras gives law enforcement secure, live access to video streams and the ability to download footage when it's needed as evidence, or for a real-time crisis response."
2. Purpose
Information on the proposed purpose(s) for the Surveillance Technology The proposed purpose of accessing community video streams is to provide real-time awareness and investigative capacity in following use cases:
• To support specific and active criminal investigations. • To support serious traffic-related investigations.
• To support police misconduct investigations, and
• To respond to and review critical incidents or natural disasters.
3. Location
The general location(s) it may be deployed and reasons for deployment Deployment of the Community Video Stream integration is a voluntary software integration with the Police Department. The Department will focus integration efforts on cameras located in the following high-priority areas:
• Integration will be prioritized for cameras owned by businesses and non-residential commercial property owners in major thoroughfares and districts, such as the Elmwood, Solano, Telegraph, Fourth Street, and Downtown business districts.
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS
3 • To facilitate rapid response to active shooter events, mass casualty incidents, or other critical public safety threats, the Department may enter into agreements with facilities or campuses where immediate video access could be vital for saving lives.
Actual locations are determined entirely by the entities that voluntarily agree to register or integrate their cameras and meet the requirements for integration. All locations will be within the City of Berkeley.
4. Impact
An assessment identifying potential impacts on civil liberties and civil rights including but not limited to potential disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups The Department acknowledges that community video streams involve privacy considerations. The use policy strictly prohibits accessing cameras in areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists without a warrant. Access would be driven by specific criminal incidents or calls for service, not constant monitoring. The policy, local ordinances, and state law all would prohibit sharing this information for immigration enforcement purposes.
To further mitigate impacts, every camera must pass a Pre-Integration Review- including an in-person site assessment to confirm the camera is not positioned to capture areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists- before it is connected to the Department’s system.
5. Mitigations
Information regarding technical and procedural measures that can be implemented to appropriately safeguard the public from any impacts identified To safeguard the public’s welfare and civil liberties, the Department will implement the following affirmative technical and procedural measures:
• Access is strictly permission-based. Camera owners must actively "opt-in" and can revoke access at any time.
• The use of facial recognition technology on any stream is strictly prohibited. • All system access is logged. The audit trail records the user, date, time, and specific camera accessed as well as the case number and/or reason. • Data is stored on CJIS-compliant servers.
Pre-Integration Review: In addition to the above, before any community video stream is integrated into the Department’s system, the following review process shall be completed:
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS
4 • A designated Department member shall conduct an in-person visit to each camera location to: (i) confirm the camera’s physical location and field of view; and (ii) verify the camera is not positioned to capture areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, including but not limited to the interior of residences, private yards, restrooms, changing areas, or medical facilities.
• Prior to integration, signage shall be posted near each location with integrated cameras informing the public that the area is monitored by a camera integrated with the Berkeley Police Department. Signage shall be maintained for the duration of the integration.
• The Department shall publish and maintain on the City of Berkeley website a current list and map of all community cameras that have been integrated with the Department’s system.
• The Investigations Division Captain, or their designee, shall review and approve the site assessment before integration is finalized. Integration shall not proceed if the site assessment identifies unresolved privacy concerns.
6. Data Types and Sources
A list of the sources of data proposed to be collected, analyzed, or processed by the Surveillance Technology, including "open source" data
Data collection is limited to camera footage and associated metadata voluntarily provided by community members. The system would integrate data from third-party hardware owned by non-City entities. BPD would not own the cameras nor any non-evidentiary data.
Footage found to contain evidentiary value would be downloaded and stored according to existing evidence retention policies and protocols.
7. Data Security
Information about the steps that can be taken to ensure adequate security measures to safeguard the data collected or generated from unauthorized access or disclosure This program would utilize a multi-layered security architecture to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of the data:
• Access requires secure login credentials with Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA). • Access is restricted to authorized personnel and audited for compliance. • The storage environment complies with CJIS standards. • Evidentiary data downloaded for investigations is stored in the Department’s digital evidence system (Evidence.com) and retained according to state law. Non- evidentiary data remains under the control of the camera owner.
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS
5 8. Fiscal Cost
The fiscal cost of each type of Controlled Equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment, the costs of each proposed use, the costs of potential adverse impacts, and the annual, ongoing costs of the equipment, including operating, training, transportation, storage, maintenance, and upgrade costs.
The costs below represent estimates. Hardware costs and integration costs are paid by the private camera owners.
Initial Cost:
• Hardware: $0 (Cameras are owned by private entities). • Software Integration: Estimated $30 per stream per year paid by camera owners. • For the first four years of integration, operating costs are covered through the department’s existing agreement with Flock for the FlockOS platform. Thereafter, the annual subscription cost is estimated to be $65,000.
Cost of Use:
• The operational cost is absorbed within the existing salary of the investigating officers and this increased efficiency will likely result in time savings.
Costs of Potential Adverse Impacts:
• Potential costs could arise from data breach litigation or claims of privacy violation.
However, the reliance on voluntary consent to access cameras that already are in place as well as strict audit logs minimizes this risk. Strict adherence to the Use Policy will further mitigate liability.
Annual and Ongoing Costs:
• No ongoing costs are incurred by the Department.
Training Costs:
• Training is included in the software subscription and absorbed into regular in- service training hours.
Maintenance and Storage Costs:
• Maintenance of the software platform is included in the subscription. Maintenance of physical cameras is the responsibility of the private owners.
Upgrade Costs:
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS
6 • Software upgrades are included in the annual subscription model.
9. Third Party Dependence and Access
Whether use or maintenance of the technology will require data gathered by the technology to be handled or stored by a third-party vendor on an ongoing basis, and whether a third party may have access to such data or may have the right to sell or otherwise share the data in aggregated, disaggregated, raw or any other formats
All evidentiary video will be uploaded and stored on the Department’s digital evidence platform (Evidence.com) in line with existing departmental protocol for evidence collection. The evidence platform vendor complies with applicable data protection frameworks regarding the collection, use, and retention of personal information.
Live and recorded video streams that have not been downloaded as evidence remain on the third-party camera systems and under the control of the camera owners. The Department does not own, store, or have ongoing custody of this data.
10. Alternatives
A summary and general assessment of potentially viable alternative methods (whether involving the use of a new technology or not), if any, considered before deciding to propose acquiring the Surveillance Technology
In the absence of a community video streams program, the primary alternative is the traditional method of physical canvassing. This process requires officers to physically walk neighborhoods after a crime, locate cameras, identify owners, and request footage manually. This method is time and resource-consuming and often relies on the owner being present, having the appropriate login and being technically capable of exporting the footage. It delays investigations and pulls officers away from other duties. In contrast, remote access makes the process more efficient for both the department and the community member.
The Department considered significantly expanding the network of City-owned and operated fixed cameras to match the coverage provided by community streams. This alternative was deemed fiscally unfeasible. The cost to purchase additional City-owned cameras would be prohibitively expensive.
Another alternative is to rely on physical surveillance by officers to deter crime and capture evidence. While physical surveillance is a valid tactic, it is limited by the cost and availability of resources. It does not provide the persistent, resource-multiplying capability of a camera network, nor does it allow for the retrospective review of evidence crucial for prosecution.
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS
7 A final alternative would be not acquiring access to community video streams. Without this technology, the Department would forgo enhancements in investigative efficiency and would continue to rely on slower, manual methods that may result in the loss of critical evidence or loss of available personnel power.
11. Experience of Other Entities
To the extent such information is available, a summary of the experience of comparable government entities with the proposed technology, including any unanticipated financial or community costs and benefits, experienced by such other entities In December 2025, the City of Oakland City Council voted 7-1 to approve a similar program under their "Community Safety Camera Systems" policy. OPD has established strict governance that explicitly prohibits the use of the technology for facial recognition, harassment, or immigration enforcement.
Regional jurisdictions like Alameda County, Vacaville, and Elk Grove also utilize fixed surveillance cameras and video integration as tools for public safety and crime deterrence which reflects a regional standard for the use of such technology in modern policing. San Francisco has publicized substantial public safety benefits associated with this technology used in concert with drones as a first responder and automated license plate readers.
Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
Community Video Streams
355.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy provides guidance for the use of the community video stream integration by the Berkeley Police Department (BPD). The purpose of accessing community video streams is to provide real-time awareness and investigative capacity in the following use cases:
• To support specific and active criminal investigations. • To support serious traffic-related investigations.
• To support police misconduct investigations.
• To respond to and review critical incidents or natural disasters.
This initiative leverages software integration to access camera footage from cameras voluntarily registered and shared with BPD. This approach acts as a resource multiplier, allowing authorized staff to virtually canvass areas for evidence and gain real-time situational awareness during critical incidents without the cost or intrusiveness of installing new City poles and cameras. 355.2 POLICY
The Berkeley Police Department utilizes a community video streams system to enhance its anti- crime strategy, to effectively allocate and deploy personnel, support investigations, and to enhance safety and security in public areas. As specified by this policy, cameras owned by community partners in strategic locations throughout the City may be shared with the Police Department in order to record, deter, and solve crimes, to help the City safeguard against potential threats to the public, and to help manage emergency response situations during natural and human-made disasters, among other uses specified in Section 355.3.1.
Community video streams in public areas will be used in a legal and ethical manner while recognizing and protecting constitutional standards of privacy.
355.3 OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
BPD members authorized to review community video streams may only access and review video from public areas and public activities where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists, and only for the purposes authorized by this policy.
355.3.1 PLACEMENT REVIEW AND MONITORING
Deployment of the Community Video Stream integration is a voluntary software integration with the Police Department. However, the Department will focus its integration efforts on cameras located in the following high-priority areas:
• Integration will be prioritized for cameras owned by businesses and non-residential commercial property owners in major thoroughfares and districts, such as the Elmwood, Solano, Telegraph, Fourth Street, and Downtown business improvement districts. • To facilitate rapid response to active shooter events, mass casualty incidents, or other critical public safety threats, the Department may enter into agreements with facilities or Policy
355
Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
campuses where immediate video access could be vital for saving lives.
Actual locations are determined entirely by the entities that voluntarily agree to register or integrate their cameras and meet the requirements for integration. All locations will be within the City of Berkeley.
355.3.2 COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAM CAMERA MARKINGS
All public areas monitored by integrated community video streams shall be marked in a conspicuous manner with unobstructed signs to inform the public that the area is under police surveillance, as required by the Pre-Integration Review process below. Signage shall be maintained for the duration of the integration.
355.3.3 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER TECHNOLOGY
The Department may integrate technologies not otherwise prohibited with the community video streams system, provided that such use does not conflict with this policy or expand internal or external access beyond what is allowed by City law or Department policy. For example, integration may occur on a shared access platform where video data and automated license plate reader data are viewable in the same system.
355.3.4 PRE-INTEGRATION REVIEW
Before any community video stream is integrated into the Department’s system, the following review process shall be completed:
• A designated Department member shall conduct an in-person visit to each camera location to:
o Confirm the camera’s physical location and field of view. o Verify the camera is not positioned to capture areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, including but not limited to the interior of residences, private yards, restrooms, changing areas, or medical facilities. • Prior to integration, signage shall be posted in a conspicuous location near each integrated camera informing the public that the area is monitored by a camera integrated with the Berkeley Police Department. Signage shall be maintained for the duration of the integration.
• The Department shall publish and maintain on the City of Berkeley website a current list and map of all community cameras that have been integrated with the Department’s system.
• The Investigations Division Captain, or their designee, shall review and approve the site assessment before integration is finalized. Integration shall not proceed if the site assessment identifies unresolved privacy concerns.
355.4 VIDEO SUPERVISION
Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
Access to community video streams camera data shall be limited to Berkeley Police Department (BPD) personnel utilizing the camera database for uses authorized above, with technical assistance from Public Works Department and Department of Information Technology personnel. Information may be shared in accordance with Sections 355.6 or 1304.9 below. BPD members seeking access to the camera system shall obtain the approval of the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee.
Supervisors should monitor community video streams access and usage to ensure BPD members are complying with this policy, other applicable department policy, and applicable laws.
Supervisors should ensure such use and access is appropriately documented. 355.4.1 VIDEO LOG
No one without authorization will be allowed to login and view the recordings. Those who are authorized and login should automatically trigger the audit trail function to ensure compliance with the guidelines and policy.
355.4.2 PROHIBITED ACTIVITY
Community video streams systems will not intentionally be used to invade the privacy of individuals or observe areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.
Community video streams systems shall not be used in an unequal or discriminatory manner and shall not target protected individual characteristics including, but not limited to race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation.
Community video streams equipment shall not be used to harass, intimidate or discriminate against any individual or group.
Community video streams systems and recordings are subject to the Berkeley Police Department's Immigration Law Policy, and hence may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials, unless required by federal law.
Video recordings shall not be disclosed to law enforcement agencies from other states if the purpose of the request is to support the enforcement of laws that restrict or criminalize reproductive rights or rights regarding the provision or receipt of gender-affirming care. 355.5 STORAGE AND RETENTION OF MEDIA
The Department acknowledges that the Community Video Stream integration relies on cameras and storage systems owned and operated by non-City entities. Consequently, video footage and associated metadata that is not downloaded or captured by the Department remains under the sole control and retention schedule of the camera owner.
Evidentiary data downloaded for investigations is stored in the Department’s digital evidence system. Once downloaded, data is retained in accordance with state law and existing Departmental evidence retention protocols.
Any recordings needed as evidence in a criminal or police misconduct proceeding shall be copied to a suitable medium and booked into evidence in accordance with current evidence procedures
Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
355.5.1 EVIDENTIARY INTEGRITY
All media downloaded and retained pursuant to this Policy shall be treated in the same manner as other evidence. Media shall be accessed, maintained, stored and retrieved in a manner that ensures its integrity as evidence, including strict adherence to chain of custody requirements.
Electronic trails, including encryption, digital masking of innocent or uninvolved individuals to preserve anonymity, authenticity certificates and date and time stamping, shall be used as appropriate to preserve individual rights and to ensure the authenticity and maintenance of a secure evidentiary chain of custody.
355.6 RELEASE OF VIDEO IMAGES
Data collected and used in a police report shall be made available to the public in accordance with department policy and applicable state or federal law, also referenced in Policy 1304.8.
Requests for recorded video images from the public or the media shall be processed in the same manner as requests for department public records pursuant to Policy 804, Records Maintenance and Release.
Requests for recorded video from other law enforcement agencies shall be referred to the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee for release in accordance with this policy and must be related to a specific active criminal investigation.
Requests for recorded video from the Office of Director of Police Accountability and Police Accountability Board shall be referred to the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee, for release in accordance with Charter Article XVIII, Section 25, Subdivision (20)(a).
Recorded video images that are the subject of a court order or subpoena shall be processed in accordance with the established department subpoena process.
The Chief of Police will report any request from federal immigration authorities, vendor, or any non-local agency to access data for federal immigration enforcement purposes within 10 days of receiving the request.
The Department does not own, control, or have the right to share the live video streams or raw data stored on the third-party camera systems involved in this integration. Release and data- sharing provisions in this policy and in Surveillance Use Policy 1306 apply only to evidentiary data the Department has actually downloaded and retained.
355.7 COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS AUDIT
The community video streams software generates a site log each time the system is accessed.
The site log is broken down by server, device, user or general access. The site log is kept on the server for two years and is exportable for reporting. System audits will be conducted by the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability (OSPA) on a regular basis, at least biennial. As part of the audit, OSPA will confirm that BPD does not enter any direct data sharing agreements or give direct access to outside agencies. A log of any instance of when surveillance footage has been shared, including date, time, reasons for search, and any recipient agencies.
BPD will enforce against prohibited uses of the cameras pursuant to Policy 1010, Personnel Complaints, or other applicable law or policy. The City Manager shall enforce against any