Agenda packet — Berkeley City Council, March 8, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

121
Exhibit B

TENANT:

NFS UNLIMITED, LLC, a Texas limited
liability company
By:

Steven L. Scheinthal
Vice President
Date:

LANDLORD:

CITY OF BERKELEY, a public body corporate
and politic
By:

Dee Williams-Ridley
City Manager
Date:

Page 60 of 63 ends

122
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.

COUNTY OF _________________________ )
On ________________________ before me, ____________________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared
________________________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature_________________________________________
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF TEXAS )
) SS.

COUNTY OF HARRIS )
On ________________________, 2022 before me, ______________________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared Steven L. Scheinthal, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of Texas that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature_________________________________________

Page 61 of 63 ends

123
Exhibit C - Improvements

EXHIBIT C

IMPROVEMENTS
Tenant agrees to complete the following improvements within the Initial Term of this Lease.

Cost of these improvements may be eligible for credit against annual rent, as provided in section 3.3.C of the lease.
 Roof: Tenant shall replace the building roof. Landlord acknowledges that work is expected to start in 2022, and may be completed prior to this lease execution. Landlord agrees that this work will be eligible for credit against annual rent, as provided in section

3.3.C of the Lease.
 Parking lot reconstruction: The parking lot adjacent to the restaurant shall be reconstructed by tenant. This work includes mobilization, traffic control, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, asphalt concrete paving (3 inches), Aggregate Base (9 inches), Pavement marking and striping, curb and gutter, C3 Storm Water Treatment, concrete walkway, trash enclosure relocation and improvements, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) curb ramps, construction testing, permits, and similar, construction contingencies, design, construction management and inspection. The parking lot and path of travel adjacent to the restaurant in the Non-Exclusive Use Area depicted in Exhibit A shall be maintained by the tenant for the duration of this lease term and option term, in a manner consistent with section 5.6.
 Accessibility Improvements: The following accessibility improvements to will be made in accordance with Table C-1, below:

Page 62 of 63 ends

124
Exhibit C - Improvements
Table C-1: Accessibility Improvements
ADA Accessability Survey Report for the Berkeley Marina - Recommendations appropriate for Skates to fund | 2021 Record Number Category Description Sub Description Item Finding On Site
Finding Recommendation
Recommended
Value Deviation
Measure
Units Costing Info
Estimated
Cost Code Reference
88446 Photo 1 Parking
Parking Lot Next to
Seawall Drive
Next to Skates, Left
Accessible Space
ISA is Faded or
Damaged
ISA marking is faded
and not viewable.

Faded or
Damaged
Repaint the ISA marking
in the parking space.

See
Recommendation
Re-stripe existing
parking space $117.00
ADA 502, CA
11B-502.6
88442 Photo 1 Parking
Parking Lot Next to
Seawall Drive
Next to Skates, Left
Accessible Space
Outline is Faded,
Damaged or Missing
The accessible
parking space
outline is faded,
Faded or
Damaged
Re-stripe the existing
parking space marked as
accessible to define the
See
Recommendation
Re-stripe existing
parking space $350.00
ADA 502, 502.2,
CA 11B-502.2
88443 Photo 1 Parking
Parking Lot Next to
Seawall Drive
Next to Skates, Left
Accessible Space Parking Space Width
The accessible
parking space does
not meet the

98.00 inches
Re-stripe the accessible
parking space.

At least 108.00
inches -10.00 inches
Re-stripe existing
parking space $350.00
ADA 502, 502.2,
CA 11B-502.2
88444 Photo 1 Parking
Parking Lot Next to
Seawall Drive
Next to Skates, Left
Accessible Space Parking Space Slope
The surface of the
accessible parking
space has a slope

3.70 percent
Pave the parking lot to
provide a level surface.

Up to 2.08
percent 1.62 percent
Repave surface to
correct slope and re-
stripe
$3,800.00
ADA 502, 502.4,
CA 11B-502.4
88445 Photo 1 Parking
Parking Lot Next to
Seawall Drive
Next to Skates, Left
Accessible Space Access Aisle
There is an
accessible parking
space designated in
the parking lot.

No Access
Aisle
Provide a compliant
access aisle at the
parking space. Parking
spaces shall each
See
Recommendation
Paint ground
markings and install
a post mounted sign
$370.00
ADA 502, 502.3,
502.3, CA 11B-
502.2
88449 Photo 2 Parking
Parking Lot Next to
Seawall Drive
Next to Skates, Right
Accessible Space
International
Symbol of Access
(ISA) is Faded or
ISA marking is faded
and not viewable.

Faded or
Damaged
Repaint the ISA marking
in the parking space.

See
Recommendation
Re-stripe existing
parking space $117.00
ADA 502, CA
11B-502.6
88447 Photo 2 Parking
Parking Lot Next to
Seawall Drive
Next to Skates, Right
Accessible Space Parking Space Width
The accessible
parking space does
not meet the
minimum
requirements for
width.

98.00 inches
Re-stripe the accessible
parking space.

At least 108.00
inches -10.00 inches
Re-stripe existing
parking space $350.00
ADA 502, 502.2,
CA 11B-502.2
88448 Photo 2 Parking
Parking Lot Next to
Seawall Drive
Next to Skates, Right
Accessible Space Access Aisle
There is an
accessible parking
space designated in
the parking lot.

There is no access
aisle located at the
parking space.

No Access
Aisle
Provide a compliant
access aisle at the
parking space. Parking
spaces shall each
provide an access aisle
that may be shared.

See
Recommendation
Paint ground
markings and install
a post mounted sign
$370.00
ADA 502, 502.3,
502.3, CA 11B-
502.288414 Photo 3
Curb
Ramps
Curb Ramp Next to
Skates Restaurant -
Right
Appurtenances
Utilities, gratings or
other
appurtenances are
located on the curb
ramp.

Not
Compliant
Provide a compliant
curb ramp free of
appurtenances.

See
Recommendation Install curb ramp $1,440.00
ADA 406, CA
11B-
406,PROWAG
R204
Total: Total: $7,264.00

Page 63 of 63 ends

125
126
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

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Updates to the Measure T1 Phase 1 Project List

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the following updates to the T1 Phase 1 list of approved projects:

1. Add the following project - Streets: West Street (adjacent to Strawberry Creek Park) from Addison to End.

2. Change the phase of the following project - Parks: Aquatic Park Tide Tubes Cleanout, (add “Construction”).

3. Remove the following:

A. Projects added in October 2020:
i. Streets:
a. Arcade Avenue from Fairlawn Drive to Grizzly Peak Boulevard; b. Cedar Street from 6th Street to San Pablo Avenue;
c. Center Street from Martin Luther King Jr. Way to Shattuck Ave; d. Dohr Street from Ashby Avenue to Prince Street;
e. Rose Street from Le Roy Avenue to La Loma Avenue;
f. Santa Fe Avenue from Gilman Street to Cornell Avenue/Page St; g. Shasta Road from Grizzly Peak Boulevard to east City limit; and h. West Street from Bancroft Way to Dwight Way.
ii. Parks: James Kenney Park Play and Picnic Area
B. Projects added in July 2019:
i. Green Infrastructure:
a. Heinz Avenue near RR tracks;
b. Jones Street between Fourth St and RR tracks;
c. Ninth Street at Codornices Creek;
d. Evaluation of Sacramento Street center median; and
e. Tenth Street at Codornices Creek.

Page 1 of 7 ends

127
Updates to the Measure T1 Phase 1 Project List CONSENT CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

C. Projects from the original approved list:
i. Streets: Bancroft from Shattuck to Milvia

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There are minimal fiscal impacts from these changes, which involve a clean-up of the existing Measure T1 list of projects. The West Street (Addison to End) street paving was added with existing contingency to complete the Strawberry Creek Park project. The Aquatic Park project included construction, and this change corrects that omission. The streets and park projects added in October 2020 were completed with other funding sources. The 5 green infrastructure projects added in July 2019 could not be completed due to funding and permitting constraints. The street segment Bancroft from Shattuck to Milvia is moving forward with separate funding under the Southside complete streets project.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
As Phase 1 of the T1 bond program nears completion with the last two projects currently in construction – Marina Streets and the North Berkeley Senior Center – there are several final adjustments needed to the approved project list. These updates are needed to ensure that the final approved list includes only those projects that were completed with T1 funding, and to remove those that were completed with other funding sources.

Added project: Paving of West Street (Addison to End) was added with existing contingency to complete the street segment adjacent to the Strawberry Creek Park Play Structure funded by T1.

Changed phase: The Aquatic Park Tide Tubes project was intended to include all phases through construction. This change corrects that omission.

Removed projects:

In October 2020, as a precaution to ensure that the City met our deadline of spending 85% of bond proceeds within 3 years, Council authorized the addition of multiple street segments, as well as the James Kenney Park Play and Picnic Area Project.1 These projects were fully funded with separate sources and were in construction at the time, providing staff the opportunity to allocate Measure T1 funds if needed. The T1 program ultimately met that 85% deadline without needing to include these projects. Because these projects were not allocated T1 funds, they now need to be removed from the T1 list.

In July 2020, Council authorized the removal of the King School Park Bioswale project and addition of 12 alternate green infrastructure projects. As planned, all 12 projects 1 See https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2020/10_Oct/Documents/2020-10- 13_Item_06_Measure_T1_Phase_1_Project_List.aspx.

Page 2 of 7 ends

128
Updates to the Measure T1 Phase 1 Project List CONSENT CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 3 ends

were evaluated at the time, with the intent of prioritizing those that could go to construction based on timing and feasibility. Of the 12, construction of 7 were completed with T1 funding. The remaining 5 listed above were not pursued due to permitting and funding constraints.2
The street segment on Bancroft between Shattuck and Milvia, approved by Council in the original T1 list in June 2017, was incorporated into the Southside Complete Streets Project. It is moving forward via separate funding in next fiscal year.3 Section 4.5 of the Measure T1 Policies and Procedures manual states the following:
“When changes need to be made at the program-level, such as adding/removing a project or changing the project’s level of completion, staff will review these options with the Lead Commissions and seek Council’s approval to revise the approved list. This process is intended to ensure that any change to the approved Measure T1 project list is made with community input, Commission oversight, and Council approval.” The recommended changes in this report were reviewed the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission on February 9, 2022 and the Public Works Commission on February 3, 2022.

BACKGROUND
In November 2016, Berkeley voters approved Measure T1 – a $100 million dollar general obligation bond to repair, renovate, replace or reconstruct the City’s aging existing infrastructure, including facilities, streets, sidewalks, storm drains, and parks.

Measure T1 passed with 86.5% of the vote.4
From December 2016 through June 2017, the City undertook a robust public process to gather input on the proposed projects. In addition to three Measure T1 Workshops for the general public, the Parks & Waterfront and Public Works Commissions invited and received input from the public and other City Commissions. They submitted a joint report to Council in June 20175 detailing their recommendations. The City Manager incorporated this input and submitted a final recommended list of projects.6 Council adopted this list and proposed plan for implementing Phase 1 of the T1 bond program on June 27, 2017.
2 See https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/07_Jul/Documents/2019-07- 23_Item_22_Authorizing_the_modification_of_the_Measure_T1_.aspx. 3 See https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Parks_Rec_Waterfront/Level_3__-General/2017-06- 27%20Resolution%2068,076%20Adopt%20the%20Final%20List%20of%20Projects%20for%20Implemen tation%20in%20Phase%201%20of%20Measure%20T1.pdf.
44 See https://www.cityofberkeley.info/MeasureT1/.
5 See https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Parks_Rec_Waterfront/Level_3__- General/Measure%20T1%20-%20Joint%20Commission%20Report%20- %20June%202017%20w%20attachments.pdf.
6 See https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/06_June/Documents/2017-06- 27_Item_49_Implementing_Phase_1.aspx.

Page 3 of 7 ends

129
Updates to the Measure T1 Phase 1 Project List CONSENT CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 4 ends

On January 23, 2018, Council approved Resolution No. 68,290-N.S., authorizing $2 million from Measure T1 Phase 1 funds to be allocated to the Adult Mental Health Clinic located at 2640 Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

On July 23, 2019, Council approved Resolution No. 69,051-N.S., authorizing the removal of the King School Park-bio swale project and the addition of 12 alternate green infrastructure projects to the Measure T1 Phase 1 project list.

On December 10, 2019, Council approved Resolution No. 69,221-N.S., authorizing: 1) Removal of the Transfer Station Conceptual Master Plan and West Berkeley Service Center Conceptual Design; 2) Change of phase from construction to planning for the Berkeley Health Clinic, Public Safety Building, Hopkins Street (San Pablo to the Alameda) and Bancroft Way (Milvia to Shattuck); 3) Change of phase from design to planning for Berkeley Municipal Pier and Tom Bates (Gilman) Fields North Field House / Restroom; 4) Addition of San Pablo Park Play Structure Replacement (ages 2-5), Strawberry Creek Park – Play Structure Replacement, and Codornices Creek at Kains Avenue.

On October 18, 2020, Council approved Resolution No. 69,581-N.S., authorizing the following additions to the Measure T1 Phase 1 project list with no additional funding:

James Kenney Park play area (ages 2-5, and 5-12) and picnic area; Euclid Street (at Rose Garden); Cedar Street from 6th Street to San Pablo Avenue; Center Street from Martin Luther King Jr. Way to Shattuck Avenue; Rose Street from Le Roy Avenue to La Loma Avenue; Santa Fe Avenue from Gilman Street to Cornell Avenue/ Page Street; Shasta Road from Grizzly Peak Boulevard to east City limit; Arcade Avenue from Fairlawn Drive to Grizzly Peak Boulevard; Dohr Street from Ashby Avenue to Prince Street; and West Street from Bancroft Way to Dwight Way.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Measure T1 projects include environmentally sustainable elements, such as electrification for facilities projects, permeable pavers or bioswales for street projects, and energy saving lighting in parks.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
These adjustments are needed to clean up the final Phase 1 list, to align the approved list of projects with actual T1 expenditures.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront, 981-6700 Liam Garland, Director, Public Works, Project Manager, 981-6437

Page 4 of 7 ends

130
Updates to the Measure T1 Phase 1 Project List CONSENT CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 5 ends

Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Updates to the Measure T1 Phase 1 Project List

Page 5 of 7 ends

131
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

UPDATES TO THE MEASURE T1 PHASE 1 PROJECT LIST
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, Council adopted Resolution 68,076-N.S., approving a list of projects for Measure T1 Phase 1; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2018, Council approved Resolution No. 68,290-N.S., authorizing $2 million from Measure T1 Phase 1 funds to be allocated to the Adult Mental Health Clinic located at 2640 Martin Luther King Jr. Way; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2019, Council approved Resolution No. 69,051-N.S., authorizing the removal of the King School Park Bioswale project and the addition of 12 alternate green infrastructure projects to the Measure T1 Phase 1 project list; and WHEREAS, existing T1 projects were added, changed level of completion or removed due to funding availability and/or project feasibility; and WHEREAS, since the current Phase 1 list has not been revised to reflect the above changes; and
WHEREAS, the Measure T1 Phase 1 list must be revised to comply with Section 4.5 of the Measure T1 Bond Policies and Procedures Manual, which states “When changes need to be made at the program-level, such as adding/removing a project or changing the project’s level of completion, staff will review these options with the Lead Commissions and seek Council’s approval to revise the approved list. This process is intended to ensure that any change to the approved Measure T1 project list is made with community input, Commission oversight, and Council approval”; and WHEREAS, the revised list was reviewed by the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission on February 9, 2022 and the Public Works Commission on February 3, 2022.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Measure T1 Phase 1 Project List be updated to reflect the projects listed in Exhibit A.

Exhibit A: Updates to the Measure T1 Phase 1 Project List

Page 6 of 7 ends

132
Exhibit A
Phase 1 Measure T1- Revised List of Projects (March 8, 2022) Facilities/Buildings
Adult Mental Health Services Center - Planning, Design, and Construction Frances Albrier Community Center - Planning
Live Oak Community Center - Planning, Design and Construction North Berkeley Senior Center - Planning, Design and Construction Old City Hall, Veterans Building and Civic Center Park - Planning Restrooms - Citywide Needs Assessment - Planning
Restrooms - Strawberry Creek Park Restroom Replacement - Planning, Design, and Construction Tom Bates (Gilman) Fields North Field House / Restroom - Planning Willard Club House Renovation - Planning
City Wide Safety Improvements
Berkeley Health Clinic - Electrical - Planning
Corporation Yard - Roof & Electrical - Design and Construction Marina Corp Yard - Electrical - Design and Construction Public Safety Bldg - Mechanical + HVAC - Planning
Parks Improvement Projects
Aquatic Park Tide Tubes Clean Out- Planning, Permiting and Construction Berkeley Municipal Pier - Planning
Berkeley Rose Garden Drainage - Planning and Design
Berkeley Rose Garden Pathways, Tennis Courts - Planning, Design and Construction Citywide Irrigation System - Planning, Design and Construction Codornices Creek at Kains Avenue - Planning, Design and Construction Grove Park Phase 2 - Field Improvements - Planning, Design and Construction Play Structure Replacement - George Florence Park (2) - Planning, Design, and Construction Play Structure Replacement (Ages 5-12) - San Pablo Park - Planning, Design, and Construction Play Structure Replacement (Ages 2-5) - San Pablo Park - Planning, Design, and Construction Play Structure Replacement (Ages 5-12) - Strawberry Creek Park - Planning, Design, and Construction San Pablo Park Tennis Courts - Planning, Design and Construction Tom Bates (Gilman) Fields Artificial Turf Replacement - Planning, Design, and Construction Green Infrastructure
Page Street - near RR Tracks - Planning, Design and Construction Channing Way near RR Tracks - Planning, Design and Construction Dwight Way - near RR Tracks - Planning, Design and Construction Grayson Street near RR Tracks - Planning, Design and Construction Piedmont Avenue Median - Planning, Design and Construction Piedmont Avenue Traffic Circle - Planning, Design and Construction Ward Street - Planning, Design and Construction
Street asphalt repaving segments
2nd Street - Delaware to Addison - Planning
Adeline Street -Derby to Ashby - Planning, Design, and Construction Euclid Street @ Rose Garden- Planning, Design and Construction Hearst Street - Milvia to Henry - Planning, Design, and Construction Marina Streets - Lower University Ave / Marina Blvd / Spinnaker Way Renovation - Planning, Design, & Construction Monterey Avenue - Alameda to Hopkins - Planning, Design, and Construction Ward Street - San Pablo to Acton - Planning, Design, and Construction West Street - Allston to Strawberry Creek Park- Planning, Design and Construction

Page 7 of 7 ends

133
134
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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution accepting a cash donation in the amount of $3,400 for a memorial bench to be placed at the Berkeley Marina in front of M-Dock in memory of Roger Garfinkle, DragonMax Founder and Coach.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The value of a single bench and memorial plaque is $3,400, which covers the purchasing and installation costs performed by the City. The cash donation will be deposited into Marina Fund donation revenue budget code 608-52-544-591-0000-000- 000-481110 and will be appropriated in FY 2022.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Berkeley Racing Canoe Center (BRCC), Sandra Oliver, and Susan McKay, wish to donate a memorial bench in memory of Roger Garfinkle, DragonMax Founder and Coach, to be placed at the Berkeley Marina in front of M-Dock with a cash donation of $3,400. Per the City’s Park Bench Donation Policy, individuals may donate memorial benches to the City’s parks in selected locations, subject to the approval of the Director of the Parks Recreation & Waterfront Department, and pay for all associated costs, subject to Council disclosure and approval of the gift donation. The Director has determined that the proposed donation complies with the City’s Bench Donation Policy as described in Resolution No. 64,148-N.S. and has approved the donation, subject to Council approval.

BACKGROUND
Benches are placed throughout the City in accordance with the City’s Park Bench Donation Policy approved by Council on July 22, 2008 (Resolution No. 64,148-N.S.).

The City’s Open Governance Ordinance (OGO) requires City Council disclosure and approval of any gift to the City in excess of $1,000 (BMC Section 2.06.150, Ord. 7,166- N.S.)

Page 1 of 3 ends

135
Donation: Memorial Bench at the Berkeley Marina –Roger Garfinkle CONSENT CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACT
The City’s vendor for benches, Dumor, Inc., makes its priority to purchase only sustainably-harvested wood derived from stringently-regulated timber source locations, including California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. This policy reduces solid waste volumes in landfills, helps conserve natural resources and limits the environmental effects resulting from the extraction of virgin materials. The benches therefore comply with the City’s environmentally preferable purchasing policy, specifically section 3.7 Forest Conservation.

CONTACT PERSON
Bruce Pratt, Parks Superintendent, 510-981-6635
Attachments:
1: Resolution

Page 2 of 3 ends

136
RESOLUTION NO. -N.S.

DONATION: MEMORIAL BENCH AT THE BERKELEY MARINA IN FRONT OF M-

DOCK IN MEMORY OF ROGER GARFINKLE
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, Council adopted the Park Bench Donation Policy (Resolution No. 64,148-N.S.); and
WHEREAS, the City’s Open Governance Ordinance (OGO) requires City Council disclosure and approval of any gift to the City in excess of $1,000 (BMC Section 2.06.150, Ord. 7,166-N.S.); and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Racing Canoe Center (BRCC), Sandra Oliver, and Susan McKay, wish to donate a memorial bench in memory of Roger Garfinkle, DragonMax Founder and Coach, to be placed at the Berkeley Marina in front of M-Dock with a cash donation of $3,400; and
WHEREAS, per the City’s Park Bench Donation Policy, individuals may donate memorial benches to the City’s parks in selected locations, subject to the approval of the Director of the Parks Recreation & Waterfront Department, and pay for all associated costs, subject to Council disclosure and approval of the gift donation; and WHEREAS, the Director has determined that the proposed donation complies with City’s Bench Donation Policy as described in Resolution No. 64,148-N.S. and has approved the proposed donation; and
WHEREAS, the cash donation will be deposited into Marina Fund donation revenue budget code 608-52-544-591-0000-000-000-481110 and will be appropriated in FY 2022.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that a cash donation in the amount of $3,400 for a memorial bench to be placed at the Berkeley Marina in front of M-Dock in memory of Roger Garfinkle is hereby accepted.

Page 3 of 3 ends

137
138
Office of the Director
of Police Accountability
1947 Center Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 TEL: 510-981-4950 TDD: 510-981-6903 FAX: 510-981-4955 Website: www.cityofberkeley.info/dpa/ Email: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Katherine J. Lee, Interim Director of Police Accountability Subject: Ratification of Police Accountability Board’s Standing Rules

RECOMMENDATION
Ratify Standing Rules of the Police Accountability Board, revised in consideration of Mayor Arreguin’s proposed amendments.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Police Accountability Board (“Board”) first presented its Standing Rules for ratification at the December 14, 2021 Council meeting. On that date, the Council referred the item back to the Board with the revisions submitted at the meeting by Mayor Arreguin. (Attachment 1.)
Subsequently, the Police Accountability Board considered the Mayor’s proposed amendments and, with some relatively minor changes, approved revised Standing Rules, which are now submitted for Council’s review and ratification. (See Attachment 2 [redlined] and Attachment 3 [clean].)

BACKGROUND
The Police Accountability Board is independent of the City Manager and answerable directly to the City Council. Article XVIII, Section 125 of the City Charter sets forth duties and obligations of the Board with respect to how the Board operates and its subject matter jurisdiction.

City Charter Article XVIII, Section 125 (13)(e) states that, unless otherwise specified, rules of procedure governing the conduct of the Board must comply with the Commissioners’ Manual. The Board’s Standing Rules elaborate upon some of the procedural rules of the Commissioners’ Manual, such as those governing the election of a Chair and Vice-Chair, submission of agenda items, and meeting procedures.

Additionally, the Board’s Standing Rules establish procedures for powers granted under the City Charter, such as review of Departmental policies, appointment of members of the public to subcommittees, and commendations of Berkeley Police Department personnel.

Page 1 of 23 ends

139
Ratification of Police Accountability Board’s Standing Rules CONSENT CALENDAR March 8, 2022
The amendments suggested by Mayor Arreguin address concerns about Police Accountability Board subcommittees, found in Section J of the Standing Rules.

Most of the Mayor’s amendments in Section J.1. expand the mechanism by which public members of subcommittees are recruited and appointed, requiring widely publicizing the opportunity to serve on subcommittees and establishing a pool of interested and qualified applicants. The Chair must endeavor to appoint public subcommittee members in a way that reflects the diversity of our community. The Board is wholly supportive of these revisions.

Other amendments proposed by the Mayor concern the timing of appointments and term of public subcommittee members. Those proposals are more appropriate for standing subcommittees, however, and the Board’s subcommittees are ad hoc in nature. Among their characteristics, Board subcommittees are established by the Board for a finite purpose as the need arises, and terminate in one year unless the Board extends the subcommittee’s term. Therefore, the Board suggests deleting the annual appointment requirement in Section J.1. and the one-year term for public subcommittee members in Section J.4. This will allow public members to be appointed at or around the time that Board subcommittees are established, and serve terms corresponding to the life of the subcommittee. Furthermore, as Board subcommittees have a life of only one year unless reauthorized, and Section J.4. requires reappointment of public members at the time of reauthorization, public subcommittee members may serve no longer than one year without being subject to reappointment.

Another amendment proposed by the Mayor deletes some language in Section J.3. about subcommittees convening if they are not a majority of subcommittee members present. As this may have been confusing, the Board is agreeable to deleting the language. Also, the Board supports the addition of Section J.8., repeating Charter language prohibiting public member access to confidential information.

Finally, a few additional, minor edits that do not affect the substance of the Standing Rules have been made.

The Board voted unanimously at its January 26, 2022 meeting to approve the Mayor’s proposed amendments to its Standing Rules, as further revised and appearing as Attachments 2 and 3. Moved/Second: Calavita/Harris; Ayes – Calavita, Chang, Harris, Leftwich, Levine, Mizell, Moore, Owens, Ramsey; Noes – none; Abstentions – none; Absent – none.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City Charter directs the Police Accountability Board to adopt rules of procedure that are subject to ratification by the City Council.

Page 2 of 23 ends

140
Ratification of Police Accountability Board’s Standing Rules CONSENT CALENDAR March 8, 2022

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Katherine J. Lee, Interim Director of Police Accountability, Office of the Director of Police Accountability, 510-981-4950.

Attachments:
1: Supplemental Agenda Material for the December 14, 2021 Council meeting, Item #48, submitted by Mayor Arreguin
2: Police Accountability Board Standing Rules, approved January 26, 2022 (redlined) 3: Police Accountability Board Standing Rules, approved January 26, 2022 (clean)

Page 3 of 23 ends

141

Page 4 of 23 ends

142

Page 5 of 23 ends

143

Page 6 of 23 ends

144

Page 7 of 23 ends

145

Page 8 of 23 ends

146

Page 9 of 23 ends

147

Page 10 of 23 ends

148

Page 11 of 23 ends

149
ATTACHMENT 2
Pending City Council approval
Police Accountability Board
Standing Rules
Approved Oct. 27, 2021
Including Mayor’s Proposed Amendments 12-14-21
And DPA’s further revisions 1-26-22

A. PURPOSE
These Standing Rules are established by the Police Accountability Board to ensure transparency and efficiency of our operations.

B. AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
Amendments and revisions to these Standing Rules shall be adopted by a majority vote of the Board, except that the Board may not adopt rules that conflict with the enabling Charter amendment (Measure II) or the Commissioners’ Manual.

C. AGENDA ITEMS – REGULAR MEETINGS
Individual Board members shall submit agenda items to the Board secretary by 12:00 noon one week before the meeting date.

D. COMMUNICATIONS
Individual Board members shall submit communications to be included in the agenda packet to the Board secretary by 12:00 noon one week before the meeting date to ensure inclusion in the packet. Communications received after this deadline and before 3:00 p.m. on the meeting day will be distributed via email and/or hard copy at the meeting. If communications are received after 3:00 p.m. on the meeting day, the Board secretary will make every effort, but cannot guarantee, to have hard copies available at the meeting.

E. MEETING PROCEDURES

1. Items shall be introduced by the Board member or staff member who proposed the item. The Chair shall then allow an initial period for discussion by recognizing Board members in rotation to ensure that each Board member has the opportunity to speak before a Board member is allowed to speak again. Board members are allowed a maximum of two minutes to speak each time they are given the floor.

2. After a motion on the item is made and seconded, the Chair will recognize the maker of the motion, and then the seconder, to speak. After that, the Chair will recognize Board members in rotation, giving each Board member the opportunity to speak before a Board member is allowed to speak again. Board members are allowed a maximum of one minute to speak each time they are given the floor, and must confine their remarks to the merits of the motion. The Chair may give the

Page 12 of 23 ends

150
Police Accountability Board
Standing Rules

10.27.2021
2 of 6

maker of the motion an additional minute to speak before putting the matter to a vote.

3. A pending motion may be modified by a “friendly amendment”; that is, by a proposed amendment that is accepted by the maker and seconder of the motion.

4. Action on a motion may be by either voice or general consent. In either case, the Chair shall repeat, or ask the Board secretary to repeat, the motion before the action.

5. Guest speakers who are not on the agenda may address the Board only by general consent, or upon a formal motion.

6. None of these procedural rules shall supersede the procedures set forth in Robert’s Rules of Order.

F. PUBLIC COMMENT

1. Public comment shall be agendized near the beginning and at the end of each Board meeting. The Chair, subject to the consent of the Board, may determine the time limit for each speaker and the total number of speakers.

2. Before an agenda item is heard, the Chair or Vice-Chair may poll members of the public present to determine if a significant number of them wish to speak on a particular agenda item. If so, the Chair or Vice-Chair may move that public comment on that item can be heard just before the item.

G. POLICY COMPLAINTS AND REVIEWS

1. A request for the Board to review a BPD policy, practice, or procedure may be initiated by a member of the public by filing a policy complaint on a form provided by the Office of the Director of Police Accountability, and is considered a “policy complaint.”
a) Policy complaints should be reviewed by staff and brought to the Board for discussion and action within 30 days of filing or the next regular meeting of the Board if the 30 days has expired.
b) Additionally, a public comment period shall be agendized immediately preceding consideration of the policy complaint, limited to comments on that complaint. Policy complainants will be allowed to speak for five minutes. Other members of the public will be allowed up to three minutes; the time allotted is subject to the discretion of the Chair, who will consider the number of persons wishing to speak. Board members may ask policy complainants brief questions. The BPD will be given an opportunity to respond to the Board. The Board may accept the policy complaint upon a majority vote.

2. The Board may initiate a review of a BPD policy, practice, or procedure upon a majority vote.

3. a) For policy complaints or policy reviews, Board members shall then determine

Page 13 of 23 ends

151
Police Accountability Board
Standing Rules

10.27.2021
3 of 6

how to proceed. Possible actions include, but are not limited to: considering the issue as a whole Board, assigning a Board member to research the issue, asking staff to investigate or research the issue, or establishing a subcommittee. If a subcommittee is created it will seek BPD involvement in its policy review and, upon completing its review, will present its conclusions and recommendations to the full Board.
b) The full Board may recommend to the BPD, City Manager, or City Council that the BPD adopt a new policy, revise an existing policy, or take no action. Upon conclusion, a policy complaint shall be formally closed by a majority vote of the Board.

H. REGULAR MEETINGS
Regular meetings shall be held on the second and fourth Wednesday of the month, except in the months of August, November, and December. The Board shall not meet in August, and shall meet only on one Wednesday of the month in November and December. Exceptions shall be made when a meeting day falls on a religious holiday.

Regular meetings shall commence at 7:00 p.m., and shall be held at a location or locations as may be determined by the Board, or virtually via teleconference when allowed by an emergency order.

I. ELECTIONS

1. Elections shall be held during the second January meeting of each year. During the Board meeting preceding the election meeting, the nomination of the Chair will precede the nomination of the Vice-Chair, and the following nomination process will be followed for each office:
a) The presiding Chair declares the nomination process open. b) A Board member nominates another Board member or themself. A Board member must be present in order to be nominated and may decline the nomination.
c) The nomination is seconded (the nomination fails if there is no second).

2. At the second January meeting of the year, the following election process will be followed for each office:
a) Additional nominations shall occur in accordance with section I.1. b) Each nominee is allowed two (2) minutes to express their reason for seeking the position. A nominee may decline this opportunity.
c) Board members pose questions to each candidate.
d) The presiding Chair calls for a roll vote and then announces the winner, except in the following circumstances:
i. If there is only one nominee for a position, the presiding Chair may seek or move a vote by acclamation.

Page 14 of 23 ends

152
Police Accountability Board
Standing Rules

10.27.2021
4 of 6

ii. If a tie occurs among nominees, the presiding Chair will conduct a second round of voting, including any additional nominations. iii. If a clear winner is still not identified after a second round of voting, the presiding Chair will conduct a coin toss to break the tie and determine a winner. The Board secretary will assign “heads” and “tails.”

3. The Board secretary will record the maker and the second of the nomination motion as well as the total votes and results per office.

4. The outgoing Chair and Vice-Chair will be given the opportunity to make 2-minute departing statements after the election process takes place. The newly-elected Chair and Vice-Chair will assume their positions at the end of the meeting.

J. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SUBCOMMITTEES

1. In accordance with the City Charter, the Chair may appoint members of the public to policy subcommittees to which they have applied to through an open application process in which they have expressed an interest. Candidates for the Board subcommittees must complete and file an application form with the Office of the Director of Police Accountability. Subcommittee vacancies shall be widely advertised and publicly posted. The Board will launch an initial application process to solicit interest from Berkeley residents who wish to serve on Board subcommittees. After the initial application period, the Board will accept applications on a rolling basis and make such appointments annually. Such appointments are subject to approval of the Board. Members of the public seeking to serve on a subcommittee must: a) be residents of the City of Berkeley; b) must submit an application detailing their interest and qualifications and bc) present themselves at a Board meeting before or at the time of the appointment and speak on the public record on their intent to serve and what they will bring to the subcommittee work and deliberations. The Chair shall endeavor to appoint members to subcommittees in a manner that is broadly inclusive and reflective of race, ethnicity, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, economic status, neighborhoods, and various communities of interest in the City. Toward that end, in soliciting applications for Board subcommittees, the Director of Police Accountability shall reach out to civic, community, and civil rights organizations, among others.

2. Members of the public appointed to subcommittees are non-voting members and may not be selected to be the subcommittee Chair

3. Board members must constitute a majority of membership of any subcommittee, but a subcommittee may convene and conduct business even if Board members are not a majority of subcommittee members present. However, aA quorum of voting Board members must be present to convene a meeting.

4. The term of appointment for members of the public appointed to subcommittees shall be one year and members can serve consecutive terms shall not exceed the life of the subcommittee and members can serve consecutive terms. If a subcommittee must be reauthorized, any members of the public serving on the

Page 15 of 23 ends

153
Police Accountability Board
Standing Rules

10.27.2021
5 of 6

subcommittee must be reappointed by the Chair, subject to the approval of the Board.

5. A public member of a subcommittee who is absent from two consecutive subcommittee meetings is automatically removed from the subcommittee, but may be reinstated by the Chair if good cause for the absences is shown.

6. The Chair, subject to the approval of the Board, may remove a member of the public from a subcommittee for good cause. Examples of good cause are: failure to work cooperatively with subcommittee members; unruly or disruptive behavior at meetings; or failure to participate in the work of the subcommittee.

7. All actions by the Chair to appoint, reappoint, or remove a member of a public to or from a subcommittee shall occur at a Board meeting.

7.8. In accordance with the City Charter, policy subcommittee members shall not have access to confidential personnel file information or any other confidential information.

K. MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS
The Board shall constitute a mutual aid subcommittee no later than the first meeting in February of each year to review the compendium of agreements made between the BPD and other law enforcement entities. The Board or the subcommittee may determine which agreements to review.

L. COMMENDATIONS OF BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL

1. The Board regularly receives copies of communications praising Berkeley Police Department (BPD) personnel for noteworthy service; these commendations are both external (from members of the public) and internal (from fellow BPD or City of Berkeley employees). This process shall be used when the Board desires to bestow additional recognition upon those BPD personnel, or when a Board member on his or her own initiative wants the Board to recognize BPD personnel. 2 The Board may commend or otherwise honor with a special award or recognition an individual sworn officer or civilian employee of the BPD, or a group of officers and/or employees of the BPD, such as a team or division.

3. The Board secretary shall agendize commendations the Board receives from the BPD periodically, as received. A Board member wishing to initiate a commendation or other honor from the Board shall submit the proposal to the Board secretary for placement on the Board agenda in accordance with Section C of these rules. The proposal shall include the name of the person or group to be honored, and a description of the noteworthy action.

4. For the Board to issue a commendation or other honor, the BPD officer, employee, or group must be found to have performed an extraordinary service or performed in an extraordinary manner that meets one or more of the following criteria:
a) Exceptional valor, bravery, or heroism;
b) Superior handling of a difficult situation;

Page 16 of 23 ends

154
Police Accountability Board
Standing Rules

10.27.2021
6 of 6

c) An action or performance that is above and beyond typical duties; d) Extraordinary compassion, empathy, or kindness.

5. A motion to commend or otherwise honor BPD personnel shall include the act or incident giving rise to the honor and describe how it meets the above criteria. The motion must receive a majority of affirmative votes of Board members present at the meeting to pass.

6. Following the meeting, the Board secretary shall communicate the Board’s action in writing to the City Council, and shall also forward the commendation to the Chief of Police, with a request that the commendation or other honor be placed in the personnel file of each sworn officer or civilian employee commended.

###

Page 17 of 23 ends

155
ATTACHMENT 3
Pending City Council approval
Police Accountability Board
Standing Rules
Approved Oct. 27, 2021
Including Mayor’s Proposed Amendments 12-14-21
And DPA’s further revisions 1-26-22

A. PURPOSE
These Standing Rules are established by the Police Accountability Board to ensure transparency and efficiency of our operations.

C. AGENDA ITEMS – REGULAR MEETINGS
Individual Board members shall submit agenda items to the Board secretary by 12:00 noon one week before the meeting date.

E. MEETING PROCEDURES

Page 18 of 23 ends

156
Police Accountability Board
Standing Rules

10.27.2021
2 of 6

maker of the motion an additional minute to speak before putting the matter to a vote.

3. A pending motion may be modified by a “friendly amendment”; that is, by a proposed amendment that is accepted by the maker and seconder of the motion.

4. Action on a motion may be by either voice or general consent. In either case, the Chair shall repeat, or ask the Board secretary to repeat, the motion before the action.

5. Guest speakers who are not on the agenda may address the Board only by general consent, or upon a formal motion.

6. None of these procedural rules shall supersede the procedures set forth in Robert’s Rules of Order.

F. PUBLIC COMMENT

G. POLICY COMPLAINTS AND REVIEWS

2. The Board may initiate a review of a BPD policy, practice, or procedure upon a majority vote.

3. a) For policy complaints or policy reviews, Board members shall then determine

Page 19 of 23 ends

157
Police Accountability Board
Standing Rules

10.27.2021
3 of 6

Regular meetings shall commence at 7:00 p.m., and shall be held at a location or locations as may be determined by the Board, or virtually via teleconference when allowed by an emergency order.

I. ELECTIONS

Page 20 of 23 ends

158
Police Accountability Board
Standing Rules

10.27.2021
4 of 6

3. The Board secretary will record the maker and the second of the nomination motion as well as the total votes and results per office.

J. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SUBCOMMITTEES

1. In accordance with the City Charter, the Chair may appoint members of the public to policy subcommittees to which they have applied through an open application process. Candidates for the Board subcommittees must complete and file an application form with the Office of the Director of Police Accountability.

Subcommittee vacancies shall be widely advertised and publicly posted. The Board will launch an initial application process to solicit interest from Berkeley residents who wish to serve on Board subcommittees. After the initial application period, the Board will accept applications on a rolling basis. Such appointments are subject to approval of the Board. Members of the public seeking to serve on a subcommittee must: a) be residents of the City of Berkeley; b) submit an application detailing their interest and qualifications and c) present themselves at a Board meeting before or at the time of the appointment and speak on the public record on their intent to serve and what they will bring to the subcommittee work and deliberations. The Chair shall endeavor to appoint members to subcommittees in a manner that is broadly inclusive and reflective of race, ethnicity, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, economic status, neighborhoods, and various communities of interest in the City. Toward that end, in soliciting applications for Board subcommittees, the Director of Police Accountability shall reach out to civic, community, and civil rights organizations, among others.

2. Members of the public appointed to subcommittees are non-voting members and may not be selected to be the subcommittee Chair

3. Board members must constitute a majority of membership of any subcommittee. A quorum of Board members must be present to convene a meeting.

4. The term of appointment for members of the public appointed to subcommittees shall not exceed the life of the subcommittee and members can serve consecutive terms. If a subcommittee must be reauthorized, any members of the public serving on the subcommittee must be reappointed by the Chair, subject to the approval of the Board.

Page 21 of 23 ends

159
Police Accountability Board
Standing Rules

10.27.2021
5 of 6

7. All actions by the Chair to appoint, reappoint, or remove a member of a public to or from a subcommittee shall occur at a Board meeting.

8. In accordance with the City Charter, policy subcommittee members shall not have access to confidential personnel file information or any other confidential information.

L. COMMENDATIONS OF BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL

Page 22 of 23 ends

160
Police Accountability Board
Standing Rules

10.27.2021
6 of 6

###

Page 23 of 23 ends

161
162
Office of the Mayor
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7100 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7199 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 8, 2022
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín (Author), Councilmembers Terry Taplin (Co-Sponsor), Ben Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), and Rigel Robinson (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Support of SB 922

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution in support of SB 922 (Wiener), which would permanently exempt transportation-related projects from CEQA. Send a copy of the Resolution to Governor Gavin Newsom, State Senators Scott Wiener and Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.

BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an assessment of environmental impacts of certain proposed projects before approval. Certain projects, such as increasing services on rail lines, are exempt. Under SB 288, signed into law in September 2020, additional transportation projects including bus rapid transit projects, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and zero-emission charging stations also became exempt. However, most of these exemptions are set to expire on January 1, 2023, with bicyclist project exemptions expiring on January 1, 2030. In July 2020, the City Council voted to send a letter of support for SB 288 (Attachment 3).

In recent years, Berkeley has updated its Bike Plan and Pedestrian Plan, while also pursuing efforts to improve transportation safety such as Vision Zero. Not only do these plans aim to improve safety and accessibility, but they also double as helping us achieve goals outlined under the Climate Action Plan and Vision Zero. Transportation accounts for approximately 60% of Berkeley’s greenhouse gas emissions, so advancing projects that promote sustainable forms of transportation are critical to reducing our carbon footprint. SB 288 has allowed for the acceleration of such projects that aim to meet and implement these goals. If SB 288 is allowed to sunset, it risks placing delays on these projects.

SB 922, introduced by State Senator Scott Wiener, would extend the exemptions outlined in SB 288 indefinitely.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS

Page 1 of 18 ends

163
Support of SB 922 CONSENT CALENDAR
March 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

The transportation sector comprises 60 percent of Berkeley’s greenhouse gas emissions. Ensuring the acceleration of sustainable infrastructure investments, which promote walking, biking, and taking public transit, is aligned with the goals put forth in the City’s Climate Action Plan.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100
Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Text of SB 922
3: Council Item in Support of SB 288

Page 2 of 18 ends

164
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

IN SUPPORT OF SB 922
WHEREAS, transportation accounts for 60% of greenhouse gas emissions produced in Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, advancing projects that support alternative modes of transportation such as public transit, bicycling, and walking are vital to both increasing accessibility and safety and reducing our carbon footprint; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has recently updated its Bike Plan and Pedestrian Plan, and is moving forward with Vision Zero and Vision 2050; all of these programs and plans call for increased transportation infrastructure to reduce reliance on vehicles and improve safety; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an assessment of environmental impacts of certain proposed projects before approval, with some transportations exempt, which was greatly expanded under SB 288; and WHEREAS, SB 288, supported by the Berkeley City Council and signed into law in September 2020, has most of its provisions expire in January 2023, and exemptions to certain bicycle programs expiring in January 2030, which would risk delaying future transportation projects aimed at achieving the goals outlined in Berkeley’s aforementioned policies; and
WHEREAS, SB 922, introduced by State Senator Scott Weiner, would extend the CEQA exemptions for transportation projects under SB 288 indefinitely.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it hereby supports SB 922.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of the Resolution be sent to Governor Gavin Newsom, State Senators Scott Wiener and Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.
.

Page 3 of 18 ends

165
SENATE BILL No. 922
Introduced by Senator Wiener
February 3, 2022
An act to amend Sections 21080.20 and 21080.25 of the Public Resources Code, relating to environmental quality.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 922, as introduced, Wiener. California Environmental Quality Act: exemptions: transportation-related projects.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.

CEQA, until January 1, 2030, exempts from its requirements bicycle transportation plans for an urbanized area for restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles under certain conditions.

This bill would extend the above exemption indefinitely. The bill would also repeal the requirement that the bicycle transportation plan is for an urbanized area and would extend the exemption to an active transportation plan or pedestrian plan, or for a feasibility and planning study for active transportation, bicycle facilities, or pedestrian facilities.

Page 4 of 18 ends

166
CEQA exempts from its requirements certain projects located in an urbanized area, including transit prioritization projects, as defined, and projects for pedestrian and bicycle facilities or for the institution or increase of new bus rapid transit, bus, or light rail services on public or highway rights-of-way. For those exempted projects exceeding $100,000,000 in 2020 United States dollars, CEQA, except as provided, requires the lead agency to complete and consider the results of a project business case and a racial equity analysis, as specified, and would require the lead agency, before exempting a project from CEQA, to hold at least 3 noticed public meetings in the project area, as provided.

CEQA requires the lead agency, before granting an exemption for projects under the above provisions, to certify that those projects will be carried out by a skilled and trained workforce, except as provided.

If the lead agency determines to carry out a project exempt under the above provisions, CEQA requires the lead agency to file a notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk of the county in which the project is located. Existing law repeals the above-described exemption on January 1, 2023.

This bill would extend the exemption indefinitely. The bill would revise and recast the exemption to, among other things, repeal the requirement that the exempted projects are located in an urbanized area, extend the exemption by revising the definition of transit prioritization projects, and require projects for the institution or increase of new bus rapid transit, bus, or light rail service to be located on a site that is wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau. The bill would revise the requirements for the project business case and racial equity analysis and noticed public meetings to apply to exempted projects exceeding $100,000,000 and would additionally require the lead agency to complete an analysis of residential displacement and suggest anti-displacement strategies, designs, or actions for those projects for which at least 50% of the project or projects’ stops and stations are located in an area at risk of residential displacement and will have a maximum of 15-minute peak headways. The bill would provide that the lead agency may make the skilled and trained workforce certification concurrent with the granting of the exemption and would provide that the certification requirement is not required under specified circumstances.

The bill would specify that the revision made by this measure to the exemption for projects for the institution or increase of new bus rapid 99 —
2 — SB 922

Page 5 of 18 ends

167
transit, bus, or light rail service may apply to projects for which a notice of exemption is filed before January 1, 2023. The bill would, for projects exempted by the above-described provisions for which a notice of exemption was filed before January 1, 2023, authorize the lead agency to either certify that the project will be completed by a skilled and trained workforce after the granting of the exemption or exempt those projects from the certification requirement if the lead agency demonstrates compliance with certain conditions.

V ote: majority.

Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 2 following:
line 3 (a)  Transit and sustainable transportation are critical to achieving line 4 California’s ambitious environmental goals. Transportation makes line 5 up 40 percent of the state’s emissions of greenhouse gases. To line 6 encourage people to drive less, the state must continue to build line 7 high-quality transit, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian-friendly line 8 infrastructure. Bringing down our transportation emissions by line 9 providing more sustainable options is essential for limiting global line 10 warming and avoiding the most devastating climate impacts. line 11 (b)  California has invested billions of dollars in reducing the line 12 environmental impacts stemming from the transportation sector, line 13 including almost $4,000,000,000 as part of the fiscal year 2021–22, line 14 to convert the state’s light- and heavy-duty vehicle fleet to zero line 15 emission, including its transit vehicles.
line 16 (c)   Additionally, on July 12, 2021, the Transportation Agency line 17 adopted the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure. line 18 The plan outlines how the state will prioritize sustainable line 19 transportation projects in all discretionary funding decisions. The line 20 plan builds on Executive Order N-19-19 and Executive Order line 21 N-79-20 signed by Governor Newsom in 2019 and 2020, line 22 respectively, targeted at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases line 23 in transportation to reach the state’s ambitious climate goals. line 24 SEC. 2. Section 21080.20 of the Public Resources Code is line 25 amended to read:
line 26 21080.20. (a)  This division does not apply to an active line 27 transportation plan, a pedestrian plan, or a bicycle transportation 99 SB 922 — 3 —

Page 6 of 18 ends

168
line 1 plan for an urbanized area for the restriping of streets and line 2 highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve line 3 street and highway intersection operations, and the related signage line 4 for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles. vehicles, or for a feasibility line 5 and planning study as described in Section 15262 of Title 14 of line 6 the California Code of Regulations.
line 7 (b)  Before determining that a project described in subdivision line 8 (a) is exempt pursuant to this section, the lead agency shall hold line 9 noticed public hearings in areas affected by the bic ycle line 10 transportation plan project to hear and respond to public comments. line 11 Publication of the notice shall be no fewer times than required by line 12 Section 6061 of the Government Code by the public agency in a line 13 newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the line 14 proposed project. If more than one area will be affected, the notice line 15 shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from line 16 among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas. line 17 (c)   If a local agency determines that a project is not subject to line 18 this division pursuant to this section and it determines to approve line 19 or carry out that project, the notice shall be filed with the Office line 20 of Planning and Research and the county clerk in the county in line 21 which the project is located in the manner specified in subdivisions line 22 (b) and (c) of Section 21152.
line 23 (d)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2030, line 24 and as of that date is repealed.
line 25 SEC. 3. Section 21080.25 of the Public Resources Code is line 26 amended to read:
line 27 21080.25. (a)  For purposes of this section, the following line 28 definitions apply:
line 29 (1)   “Affordable housing” means any of the following:
line 30 (A)   Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, line 31 or law that restricts rents or sales prices to levels affordable, as line 32 defined in Section 50052.5 or 50053 of the Health and Safety line 33 Code, to persons and families of moderate, lower, or very low line 34 income, as defined in Section 50079.5, 50093, or 50105 of the line 35 Health and Safety Code, respectively.
line 36 (B)  Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control line 37 through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power. line 38 (C)  Housing that had been occupied by tenants within five years line 39 from the date of approval of the development agreement by a line 40 primary tenant who was low income and did not leave voluntarily. 99 — 4 — SB 922

Page 7 of 18 ends

169
line 1 (2)  “Bicycle facilities” includes, but is not limited to, bicycle line 2 parking, bicycle sharing facilities, and bikeways as defined in line 3 Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code.
line 4 (3)  “High occupancy vehicle” means a vehicle with two or more line 5 occupants.
line 6 (2)
line 7 (4)  “Highway” means a way or place of whatever nature, line 8 publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes line 9 of vehicular travel. “Highway” includes a street. line 10 (5)  “Local agency” means a public transit operator, city, county, line 11 city and county, special district, joint powers authority, local or line 12 regional transportation agency, or congestion management agency. line 13 (3)
line 14 (6)  “New automobile capacity” means any new lane mileage line 15 of any kind other than sidewalks or bike lanes. line 16 (7)  “Part-time transit lanes” means designated highway line 17 shoulders that support the operation of transit vehicles during line 18 specified times.
line 19 (4)
line 20 (8)  “Project labor agreement” has the same meaning as defined line 21 in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public line 22 Contract Code.
line 23 (9)  “Public transit operator” has the same meaning as in line 24 Section 99210 of the Public Utilities Code.
line 25 (5)
line 26 (10)  “Skilled and trained workforce” has the same meaning as line 27 provided in Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part line 28 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code.
line 29 (6)
line 30 (11)  “Transit lanes” means street design elements that delineate line 31 space within the roadbed as exclusive to transit use, either full or line 32 part time.
line 33 (7)
line 34 (12)  “Transit prioritization projects” means any of the following line 35 transit project types on highw ays: highways or in the public line 36 right-of-way:
line 37 (A)  Signal coordination.
line 38 (B)  Signal timing modifications.
line 39 (C)  Signal phasing modifications.
99 SB 922 — 5 —

Page 8 of 18 ends

170
line 1 (A)  Signal and stop sign changes, such as signal coordination, line 2 signal timing modifications, signal modifications, or the installation line 3 of traffic signs.
line 4 (D)
line 5 (B)  The installation of wayside technology and onboard line 6 technology.
line 7 (E)
line 8 (C)  The installation of ramp meters.
line 9 (F)
line 10 (D)  The installation of dedicated transit lanes, transit queue line 11 jump or bypass lanes, or very high occupanc y high-occupancy line 12 vehicle lanes, and shared turning lanes. lanes and turn restrictions, line 13 the narrowing of lanes to allow for dedicated transit lanes or line 14 transit reliability improvements, or the widening of existing transit line 15 travel lanes by removing or restricting street parking. line 16 (E)  Transit stop changes, including, but not limited to, the line 17 installation of transit bulbs and the installation of transit boarding line 18 islands.
line 19 (F)  Pedestrian improvements, including, but not limited to, line 20 widening sidewalks, pedestrian bulbs and pedestrian refuge line 21 islands, and other improvements that increase pedestrian access line 22 to transit.
line 23 (8)  “Very high occupancy vehicle” means a vehicle with six or line 24 more occupants.
line 25 (b)  This division does not apply to any of the following projects:
line 26 (1)   Pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including new facilities. line 27 F or purposes of this paragraph, “bic ycle facilities” include, b ut line 28 are not limited to, bic ycle parking, bicycle sharing facilities, and line 29 bik eways as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways line 30 Code. facilities, within the public right-of-way. line 31 (2)   Projects that improve customer information and wayfinding line 32 for transit riders, bicyclists, or pedestrians. pedestrians within the line 33 public right-of-way.
line 34 (3)   Transit prioritization projects.
line 35 (4)   On highways with existing public transit service or that will line 36 be implementing public transit service within six months of the line 37 conversion, a project for the designation and conversion of general line 38 purpose lanes to bus-only lanes or highway shoulders to bus-only line 39 part-time transit lanes, for use either during peak congestion hours line 40 or all day.
99 — 6 — SB 922

Page 9 of 18 ends

171
line 1 (5)   A project for the institution or increase of new bus rapid line 2 transit, bus, or light rail service, including the construction of line 3 stations, stations or terminals, on existing public rights-of-way or line 4 existing highway rights-of-way, whether or not the right-of-way line 5 is in use for public mass transit. The project shall be located on a line 6 site that is wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or line 7 urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau. line 8
line 9 (6)  A project to construct or maintain infrastructure or facilities line 10 to charge or refuel zero-emission transit buses, vehicles, provided line 11 the project is carried out by a public transit agency that is subject line 12 to, and in compliance with, the State Air Resources Board’s line 13 Innovative Clean Transit regulations (Article 4.3 (commencing line 14 with Section 2023) of Chapter 1 of Division 3 of Title 13 of the line 15 California Code of Regulations) or any regulations identified by line 16 the State Air Resources Board’s 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, line 17 adopted on October 28, 2021, and the project is located on property line 18 owned by the transit local agency or within an existing public line 19 right-of-w ay. right-of-way or on property owned by a public or line 20 private utility.
line 21 (7)  The maintenance, repair, relocation, replacement, or removal line 22 of any utility infrastructure associated with a project identified in line 23 paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive.
line 24 (8)   A project that consists exclusively of a combination of any line 25 of the components of a project identified in paragraphs (1) to (7), line 26 inclusive.
line 27 (9)   A project carried out by a city or county local agency to line 28 reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements. requirements line 29 or institute parking maximums, remove or restrict parking, or line 30 implement transportation demand management requirements. line 31 (c)   Except as provided in subdivision (e), (f), a project exempt line 32 from this division under this section shall meet all of the following line 33 criteria:
line 34 (1)   A public local agency is carrying out the project and is the line 35 lead agency for the project.
line 36 (2)  The project is located in an urbanized area. line 37 (3)  The project is located on or within an e xisting public line 38 right-of-w ay.
line 39 (4)
99 SB 922 — 7 —

Page 10 of 18 ends

172
line 1 (2)  The project shall does not add physical infrastructure or line 2 striping that increases new automobile capacity on existing line 3 rights-of-way except for minor modifications needed for the line 4 efficient and safe movement of transit vehicles, such as extended line 5 merging lanes. The project shall not include the addition of any line 6 auxiliary lanes.
line 7 (5)
line 8 (3)  The construction of the project shall not require the line 9 demolition of affordable housing units.
line 10 (6)
line 11 (d)  (1)  For a project exceeding one hundred million dollars line 12 ($100,000,000) in 2020 United States dollars, ($100,000,000), a line 13 project exempt from this division under this section shall also meet line 14 all of the following:
line 15 (A)  The project is incorporated in a regional transportation plan, line 16 sustainable communities strategy, general plan, or other plan that line 17 has undergone a programmatic-level environmental review line 18 pursuant to this division within 10 years of the approval of the line 19 project.
line 20 (B)   The project’s construction impacts are fully mitigated line 21 consistent with applicable law.
line 22 (C)   (i)  The lead agency shall complete and consider the results line 23 of a project business case and a racial equity analysis. The Office line 24 of Planning and Research may set standards for the project business line 25 case and the racial equity analysis or delegate that authority to line 26 metropolitan planning organizations.
line 27 (ii)  The project business case required under this subparagraph line 28 shall set forth the rationale for why the project should be line 29 implemented to solve a problem or address an opportunity, outline line 30 strategic goals and objectives of the project, evaluate other options line 31 to achieve the project’s objectives, describe the economic costs line 32 and benefits of the project, describe the financial implications of line 33 the project, and establish what is required to deliver and operate line 34 the project.
line 35 (iii)  The racial equity analysis required under this subparagraph line 36 shall identify the racial equity impacts of the project, identify who line 37 will benefit from and be burdened by the project, and, where line 38 significant or disproportionate impacts exist, suggest strategies, line 39 designs, or actions to mitigate those impacts.
99 — 8 — SB 922

Page 11 of 18 ends

173
line 1 (D)   The lead agency shall hold noticed public meetings as line 2 follows:
line 3 (i)   Before determining that a project is exempt pursuant to this line 4 section, the lead agency shall hold at least three noticed public line 5 meetings in the project area to hear and respond to public line 6 comments.
line 7 (ii)   At least one of the three public meetings shall review the line 8 project business case and the racial equity analysis. The review of line 9 these documents does not inhibit or preclude application of this line 10 section.
line 11 (iii)   The lead agency shall conduct at least two noticed public line 12 meetings annually during project construction for the public to line 13 provide comments.
line 14 (iv)   The public meetings held pursuant to clauses (i) to (iii), line 15 inclusive, shall be in the form of either a public community line 16 planning meeting held in the project area or in the form of a line 17 regularly scheduled meeting of the governing body of the lead line 18 agency.
line 19 (E)  The lead agency shall give public notice of the meetings in line 20 subparagraph (D) to the last known name and address of all the line 21 organizations and individuals that have previously requested notice line 22 and shall also give the general public notice using at least one of line 23 the following procedures:
line 24 (i)  Publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation line 25 in the area affected by the project. If more than one area will be line 26 affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest line 27 circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in line 28 those areas.
line 29 (ii)   Posting of the notice onsite and offsite in the area where the line 30 project is located.
line 31 (iii)  Posting of the notice on the lead agency’s internet website line 32 and social media accounts.
line 33 (2)  In addition to the requirements of paragraph (1), for a line 34 project described in that paragraph for which at least 50 percent line 35 of the project or project’s stops and stations are located in an area line 36 that is at risk of residential displacement and that will have a line 37 maximum of 15-minute peak headways, the local agency shall line 38 complete an analysis of residential displacement and suggest line 39 anti-displacement strategies, designs, or actions. line 40 (d)
99 SB 922 — 9 —

Page 12 of 18 ends

174
line 1 (e)  (1)  (A)   Except as provided in subdivision (e), (f), in line 2 addition to the requirements of subdivision (c), before or line 3 concurrent with granting an exemption under this section, the lead line 4 agency shall take an action at a public meeting of its governing line 5 board to certify that the project will be completed by a skilled and line 6 trained workforce.
line 7 (B)  Subparagraph (A) does not apply if the lead agency has an line 8 existing policy or certification approved by its governing board line 9 that requires the use of a skilled and trained workforce to complete line 10 the project if the lead agency is a signatory to a project labor line 11 agreement that will require the use of a skilled and trained line 12 workforce on the project.
line 13 (2)   (A)  Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for a project line 14 that is exempted under this section, the lead agency shall not enter line 15 into a construction contract with any entity unless the entity line 16 provides to the lead agency an enforceable commitment that the line 17 entity and its subcontractors at every tier will use a skilled and line 18 trained workforce to perform all work on the project or a contract line 19 that falls within an apprenticeship occupation in the building and line 20 construction trades in accordance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing line 21 with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract line 22 Code.
line 23 (B)   Subparagraph (A) does not apply if any of the following line 24 requirements are met:
line 25 (i)   The lead agency has entered into a project labor agreement line 26 that will bind all contractors and subcontractors performing work line 27 on the project or the lead agenc y has contracted to use a skilled line 28 and trained workforce and the entity has agreed to be bound by line 29 that project labor agreement.
line 30 (ii)   The project or contract is being performed under the line 31 extension or renewal of a project labor agreement that was entered line 32 into by the lead agency before January 1, 2021. line 33 (iii)  The lead agency has entity contracted to perform the project line 34 entered into a project labor agreement that will bind the lead agency line 35 entity and all its subcontractors at every tier performing the project line 36 or the lead agenc y has contracted to use a skilled and trained line 37 workforce.
line 38 (e)
line 39 (f)  Subdivisions (c) and (d) (e) do not apply to a project line 40 described in paragraph (9) of subdivision (b).
99 — 10 — SB 922

Page 13 of 18 ends

175
line 1 (f)
line 2 (g)  If the lead agency determines that a project is not subject to line 3 this division pursuant to this section, and the lead agency line 4 determines to carry out that project, the lead agency shall file a line 5 notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and line 6 the county clerk of the county in which the project is located in line 7 the manner specified in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 21152. line 8 (g)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2023, line 9 and as of that date is repealed.
line 10 (h)  (1)  The amendments made to paragraph (5) of subdivision line 11 (b) by the measure adding this paragraph may apply to projects line 12 for which a lead agency has filed a notice of exemption under this line 13 section before January 1, 2023.
line 14 (2)  For projects for which a lead agency has filed a notice of line 15 exemption under this section before January 1, 2023, line 16 notwithstanding subdivision (d), as it read on December 31, 2022, line 17 the lead agency may certify that the project will be completed by line 18 a skilled and trained workforce after the granting of the exemption line 19 under this section or the lead agency may demonstrate compliance line 20 with subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e).

O
99 SB 922 — 11 —

Page 14 of 18 ends

176
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7170 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● E-Mail:

[email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 28, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Rigel Robinson and Councilmember Ben Bartlett Subject: Support for SB 288: Sustainable Transportation COVID-19 Recovery Act

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter to Senator Scott Wiener, Senator Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks in support of Senate Bill 288, which would exempt specified transportation projects from environmental review under CEQA, including bus rapid transit projects, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and zero-emission charging stations.

BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act requires agencies to assess the significant environmental impacts of proposed discretionary projects before approval. Current law exempts certain categories of projects from CEQA requirements, including increases to service on existing rail or highway rights-of-way.

SB 288, introduced by Senator Scott Wiener, would extend the following existing exemptions until 2030: 1) bicycle transportation plans for an urbanized area for restriping of streets and highways, 2) bicycle parking and storage, 3) signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and 4) related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles under certain conditions. Additionally, this bill would further exempt projects relating to updated and new transit stations, bus rapid transit lines, safer streets for biking and walking, zero-emission vehicle charging facilities, and repairs for bridge and transit storage facilities.

The environmental benefits of public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure are already well-documented. The City of Berkeley Climate Action Plan states that to meet our greenhouse gas reduction goals, “transportation modes such as public transit, walking and bicycling must become the primary means of fulfilling our mobility needs, and remaining motor vehicle use must be far less carbon-intensive.” 1 Recommended
actions to achieve this goal include:
 Increasing the safety, reliability, and frequency of public transit.  Accelerating implementation of the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans and continuing efforts to make walking and cycling safe, healthy, and enjoyable alternatives to driving.
1 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Energy_and_Sustainable_Development/Berkeley%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 15 of 18 ends

177
Support for SB 288 CONSENT CALENDAR July 28, 2020

Page 2 ends

 Creating incentives for low-carbon vehicles such as electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.

Several other countries, such as Canada and Germany, do not require full environmental impact reviews for sustainable transportation projects since they are presumed to have a positive impact on the environment.
2 Delays in such projects due to
CEQA reviews and lawsuits can add years to project timelines, driving up costs and obstructing the rapid infrastructure investments we need to effectively combat climate change.

Accelerating sustainable transportation projects is especially important now, as unemployment skyrockets and transportation agencies and cities across California struggle with strained budgets due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the bill text, “investments in building public transit, complete streets, and bicycle lanes are proven job generators and can help California avoid an extreme and prolonged recession by growing and protecting jobs. Studies have shown that complete streets projects create an average of 10 jobs per one million dollars. Investments in public transportation result in an average of 13 jobs per one million dollars spent and have a 5 to 1 economic return.”
3 SB 288 would put the City of Berkeley on the right track towards economic recovery and meeting our GHG reduction goals. The Council should support the passage of this legislation, and send the attached letter of support to Senator Scott Wiener, Senator Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The transportation sector comprises 60 percent of Berkeley’s greenhouse gas emissions. Ensuring the acceleration of sustainable infrastructure investments, which promote walking, biking, and taking public transit, is aligned with the goals put forth in the City’s Climate Action Plan.
4 CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rigel Robinson, (510) 981-7170
Attachm
ents:
1: Letter of support
2 https://sf.streetsblog.org/2020/06/16/bill-would-streamline-transit-bike-and-ped-projects/ 3 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB288 4 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/climate/

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 16 of 18 ends

178
Support for SB 288 CONSENT CALENDAR July 28, 2020

Page 3 ends

2: Bill text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB288

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 17 of 18 ends

179
Support for SB 288 CONSENT CALENDAR July 28, 2020

Page 4 ends

July 28, 2020
The Honorable Scott Wiener
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: City of Berkeley’s Support for Senate Bill 288
Dear Senator Wiener,
The Berkeley City Council would like to convey our full support for SB 288, regarding CEQA exemptions for sustainable transportation projects such as updated and new transit stations, bus rapid transit lines, pedestrian and bicycle projects, zero-emission vehicle charging facilities, and repairs for bridge and transit storage facilities.

As California sets out on a long road of economic recovery from the impacts of COVID- 19, renewed investment in public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure will create much-needed jobs. As the state slowly begins the process of re-opening safely, we must also ensure that polluting vehicle traffic does not bounce back to pre-COVID levels, which would prevent California from reaching its stated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Environmental reviews for public transportation projects that are inherently pro- environment are often lengthy, expensive, and can cause years of delay. Especially at a time when public transit agencies and cities are suffering from reduced ridership and severe budget cuts, these additional costs and delays can render projects infeasible altogether.

California should be fast-tracking such projects, not delaying them. The Berkeley City Council supports SB 288 and thanks you for taking the lead on this important issue.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council
CC: Senator Nancy Skinner
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 18 of 18 ends

180
Office of the Mayor
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7100 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7199 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 8, 2022
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín (Author), Councilmember Harrison (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Opposition to the California Two-Thirds Legislative Vote and Voter Approval for Fee and Charge Increases Initiative

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to oppose Initiative 21-0042A1, the California Two-Thirds Legislative Vote and Voter Approval for Fee and Charge Increases Initiative. Send a copy of the Resolution to the League of California Cities.

BACKGROUND
Initiative 21-0042A1, the California Two-Thirds Legislative Vote and Voter Approval for Fee and Charge Increases Initiative, also known by supporters as the deceptively named “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” is a proposed California proposition for the November 2022 election.

The proposed proposition would limit the ability of voters and state and local governments to raise revenues for government services. It does so by requiring any new or higher tax be passed by at least two-thirds. It also eliminates voters’ ability to advise how to spend revenues from proposed general tax on same ballot as the proposed tax. All measures passed between January 2022 and November 2022 would be invalidated unless reenacted within 12 months. It also expands the definition of “taxes” to include certain regulatory fees, broadening application of tax approval requirements.

This initiative is based on a proposed 2018 proposition that was ultimately withdrawn by its proponents after it received heavy opposition from local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses. The Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to approve Resolution No. 68,401–N.S., opposing the 2018 revision of this proposition.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
If the initiative is approved by California voters, it would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS

Page 1 of 13 ends

181
Oppose Initiative 21-0042A1 CONSENT CALENDAR
March 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

If the initiative is approved by California voters, it would impact our ability to raise funds to advance environmental measures outlined in our Climate Action Plan and Vision 2050.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100
Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Text of Initiative 21-0041A1

Page 2 of 13 ends

182
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

IN OPPOSITION OF INITIATIVE 21-0042A1
WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot; and WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources; and WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and WHEREAS, the measure makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to state and local services at risk, and could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and WHEREAS, the measure would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, and utilities.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it hereby opposes Initiative 21-0042A1.

Page 3 of 13 ends

183
BELL, McANDREWS & HILTACHK, LLP
Anabel Renteria
Initiative Coordinator
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSEL-ORS AT I.AW
455 C APIT O L MALL , S UITE 600
SACRAMENT O, CALIFOE=INIA 95014
(916) 44;a-7757
FA X [916) 44-;a-7 7 59
www.bmhlaw. com
January 4, 2022
2 1 - 0 0 4 2

RECEIVED
JAN O 4 2022
Office of the Attorney General
State of California

INITIATIVE COORDINATOR

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
PO Box 994255
Sacramento, CA 94244-25550
Re: Initiative 21-0042 - Amendment Number One
Dear Initiative Coordinator:

Pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 9002 of the Elections Code, enclosed please find Amendment #1 to Initiative No. 21-0042 "The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act." The amendments are reasonably germane to the theme, purpose or subject of the initiative measure as originally proposed .

I am the proponent of the measure and request that the Attorney General prepare a circulating title and summary of the measure as provided by law, using the amended language.

Thank you for your time and attention processing my request.

Sincerely,
~~
Thomas W. Hiltachk

Page 4 of 13 ends

184
2 1 - 0 0 4 2 Arndt. # /
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act [Deleted codified text is denoted in strikeout. Added codified text is denoted by italics and underline.] Section 1. Title
This Act shall be known, and may be cited as, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.

Section 2. Findings and Declarations
(a) Californians are overtaxed. We pay the nation's highest state income tax, sales tax, and gasoline tax. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California's combined state and local tax burden is the highest in the nation. Despite this, and despite two consecutive years of obscene revenue surpluses, state politicians in 2021 alone introduced legislation to raise more than $234 billion in new and higher taxes and fees.
(b) Taxes are only part of the reason for California's rising cost-of-living crisis. Californians pay billions more in hidden "fees" passed through to consumers in the price they pay for products, services, food, fuel, utilities and housing. Since 2010, government revenue from state and local "fees" has more than doubled.
(c) California's high cost of living not only contributes to the state's skyrocketing rates of poverty and homelessness, they are the pushing working families and job-providing businesses out of the state. The most recent Census showed that California's population dropped for the first time in history, costing us a seat in Congress. In the past four years, nearly 300 major corporations relocated to other states, not counting thousands more small businesses that were forced to move, sell or close. (d) California voters have tried repeatedly, at great expense, to assert control over whether and how taxes and fees are raised. We have enacted a series of measures to make taxes more predictable, to limit what passes as a "fee," to require voter approval, and to guarantee transparency and accountability. These measures include Proposition 13 (1978), Proposition 62 (1986), Proposition 218 (1996), and Proposition 26 (2010).
(e) Contrary to the voters' intent, these measures that were designed to control taxes, spending and accountability , have been weakened and hamstrung by the Legislature, government lawyers, and the courts, making it necessary to pass yet another initiative to close loopholes and reverse hostile court decisions.

Section 3. Statement of Purpose
(a) In enacting this measure, the voters reassert their right to a voice and a vote on new and higher taxes by requiring any new or higher tax to be put before voters for approval. Voters also intend that all fees and other charges are passed or rejected by the voters themselves or a governing body elected by voters and not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
(b) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is to increase transparency and accountability over higher taxes and charges by requiring any tax measure placed on the ballot- 1

Page 5 of 13 ends

185
either at the state or local level-to clearly state the type and rate of any tax, how long it will be in effect , and the use of the revenue generated by the tax.
(c) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is to clarify that any new or increased form of state government revenue, by any name or manner of extraction paid directly or indirectly by Californians, shall be authorized only by a vote of the Legislature and signature of the Governor to ensure that the purposes for such charges are broadly supported and transparently debated. (d) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is also to ensure that taxpayers have the right and ability to effectively balance new or increased taxes and other charges with the rapidly increasing costs Californians are already paying for housing, food, childcare, gasoline, energy , healthcare, education, and other basic costs of living, and to further protect the existing constitutional limit on property taxes and ensure that the revenue from such taxes remains local, without changing or superseding existing constitutional provisions contained in Section 1{c) of Article XIII A. (e) In enacting this measure, the voters also additionally intend to reverse loopholes in the legislative two thirds vote and voter approval requirements for government revenue increases created by the courts includin g, but not limited to, Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, Chamber of Commerce v. Air Resources Board, Schmeer v. Los Angeles County, Johnson v. County of Mendocino, Citizens Assn. of Sunset Beach v.

Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission, and Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir.

Section 4. Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution is amended to read:

Sec. 3(a} Every levy, charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by state law is either a tax or an exempt charge.
illlJ1l ~ Any change in state statute Jaw which results in any taxpayer paying a new or higher tax must be imposed by an act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature , and submitted to the electorate and approved by a maiority vote, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property, may be imposed. Each Act shall include:
(A) A specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed and an estimate of the annual amount expected to be derived from the tax.
(BJ A specific and legally binding and enforceable limitation on how the revenue from the tax can be spent.

If the revenue from the tax can be spent for unrestricted general revenue purposes. then a statement that the tax revenue can be spent for "unrestricted general revenue purposes" shall be included in a separate, stand-alone section. Any proposed change to the use of the revenue from the tax shall be adopted by a separate act that is passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature and submitted to the electorate and approved by a maiority vote. (2) The title and summary and ballot label or question required for a measure pursuant to the Elections Code shall. for each measure providing for the imposition of a tax, including a measure proposed by an elector pursuant to Article II, include:
{A) The type and amount or rate of the tax;
(BJ The duration of the tax: and
2

Page 6 of 13 ends

186
(CJ The use of the revenue derived from the tax.
(c} Any change in state law which results in any taxpayer paying a new or higher exempt charge must be imposed by an act passed by each of the two houses of the Legislature. Each act shall specify the type of exempt charge as provided in subdivision (e ), and the amount or rate of the exempt charge to be imposed.

Ml._fbt As used in this section and in Section 9 of Article II, "tax" means every aA1f levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by the State state law that is not an exempt charge. e1<eept the follo•Ning:
(e) As used in this section. "exempt charge" means only the following:
(1) a el:iarge imposes fer a s1=1eeifie eenefit eonferreEl or pri'+'ilege granteEl aireetly to tl:ie 13ayor tl:iat is not 1=1ro>viaeEl to tl:iose not et:iargeEI, anEI whiel:i aoes not e1<ceeEl tl:ie reasonal3Ie costs to tl:ie State of eonferring the benefit or granting the pri¥ilege to the 1=1a¥OF.
ill {-2+ A reasonable charge irnposeEl for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the rnasonable actual costs to the State of providing the service or product to the payor. f.11 ~ A charge in,poseEl for the reasonable regulatory costs to the State incident to issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof. (3) A levy, charge. or exaction collected from local units of government. health care providers or health care service plans that is primarily used by the State of California for the purposes of increasing reimbursement rates or payments under the Medi-Cal program, and the revenues of which are primarily used to finance the non-federal portion of Medi-Cal medical assistance expenditures. (4) A reasonable charge iR'l13oseEl for entrance to or use of state property, or the purchase. rental, or lease of state property, except charges governed by Section 15 of Article XI. (5} A fine, or penalty, or other monetary el:large including any applicable interest for nonpayment thereot imposed by the judicial branch of government or the State, as a result of a state administrative enforcement agency pursuant to adiudicatorv due process, to punish a violation of law. (6} A levy, charge, assessment, or exaction collected for the promotion of California tourism pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 13995) of Part 4.7 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. flL~Any tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022 ~, but prior to the effective date of this act, that was not adopted in compliance with the requirements of this section is void 12 months after the effective date of this act unless the tax or exempt charge is reenacted B'l the begislatuFe anel signea into law ey tl:ie <iio¥ernoF in compliance with the requirements of this section. [gl[.JlJG:} The State bears the burden of proving by a preponEleranee oftl:le clear and convincing evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is an exempt charge and not a tax. The State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the amount of the exempt charge is reasonable and that the amount charged does not exceed the actual cost of providing the service or product to the payor. ,tR-a-t tl:ie amouRt is RO n,ore tl:ian neeessary to cover the reasonable costs of the go•.•emn,ental actii,•i:t>,• ane 3

Page 7 of 13 ends

187
that the manner in •Nhiel.:i these cests are allecated ts a pa·1er bear a fair er reasenable relatienshi13 ts the 13a·1or's b1:1relens on, or benefits reeei11eel from, the go•.ieFRmental actit.iit'( (2) The retention ofrevenue by, or the payment to. a non-governmental entity ofa levv. charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by state law, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy. charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.
(3) The characterization of a levy, charge, or exaction of any kind as being voluntary, or paid in exchange for a benefit, privilege, allowance, authorization, or asset, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or an exempt charge. /4} The use of revenue derived from the levy, charge or exaction shall be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge. (h) As used in this section:
(1) "Actual cost" of providing a service or product means: (i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service or product to the payor, and {ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In computing "actual cost" the maximum amount that may be imposed is the actual cost less all other sources of revenue including, but not limited to taxes, other exempt charges, grants, and state or federal funds received to provide such service or product.
(2) "Extend" includes, but is not limited to, doing any of the following with respect to a tax or exempt charge: lengthening its duration. delaying or eliminating its expiration, expanding its application to a new territory or class ofpayor, or expanding the base to which its rate is applied. (3) "Impose" means adopt, enact, reenact, create, establish, collect, increase or extend. (4) "State law" includes, but is not limited to. any state statute, state regulation, state executive order. state resolution, state ruling, state opinion Jetter, or other legal authority or interpretation adopted, enacted. enforced, issued, or implemented by the legislative or executive branches of state government. "State law" does not include actions taken by the Regents of the University of California, Trustees of the California State University, or the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.

Section 5. Section 1 of Article XIII C of the California Constitution is amended, to read:

Sec. 1. Definitions. As used in this article:
{a) "Actual cost" of providing a service or product means: (i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service or product to the payor. and {ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In computing "actual cost" the maximum amount that may be imposed is the actual cost less all other sources of revenue including, but not limited to taxes. other exempt charges, grants, and state or federal funds received to provide such service or product.
(b) "Extend" includes, but is not limited to. doing any of the following with respect to a tax. exempt charge, or Article XIII D assessment. fee, or charge: lengthening its duration, delaying or eliminating its expiration. expanding its application to a new territory or class of payor, or expanding the base to which its rate is applied.
4

Page 8 of 13 ends

188
.lfl..W
11 General tax" means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes. (d} "Impose" means adopt, enact, reenact, create, establish, collect, increase, or extend. {clJb} "Local government" means any county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, any special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity, or an elector pursuant to Article fl or the initiative power provided by a charter or statute . (f) "Local law" includes. but is not limited to, any ordinance, resolution, regulation. ruling, opinion letter, or other legal authority or interpretation adopted, enacted, enforced, issued, or implemented by a local government.
{gl_{t} "Special district" means an agency of the State, formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies. f11L{d} "Special tax" means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.
111 i@} As used in this article, and in Section 9 of Article II, "tax" means every aRV-levy, charge, or exaction of any kind, imposed by a local go,;ernmeRt law that is not an exempt charge., exeept tl=le fellowiRg:
(i) As used in this section, "exempt charge" means only the following:
(1) A cl=large imposeel fer a speeifie beAefit eoAferreel or pri,;ilege graAteel eliFeetl')' to tl=le pa1,ior tl=lat is Rot pre1,•ieleel to these Rot ehargea, aA£l which £lees Rot exeeeel tl=le reaseAable costs to tl=le loeal gm,·ernFAeAt of conferriAg the beAefit or graAting tl:1e pri¥ilege.
ill R} A reasonable charge imposes for a specific local government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasoAable actual costs to the local government of providing the service or product. fl1 WA charge im13ose£l for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.

W {4t A reasonable charge imposeel for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.

Ml. fSt A fine, or penalty, or other FAOA@tar,· eharge including any applicable interest for nonpayment thereat imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government administrative enforcement agency pursuant to adiudicatorv due process, as a res1,1lt of to punish a violation of law. ill -f6t A charge imposed as a condition of property development. No levv, charge, or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled may be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy. f.i1 f7t An AssessFAeRts a Rel property relate el fees assessment. fee. or charge imJ;1oseel iA aeeoraanee witl=l the pro¥isio A5 of subject to Article XI 11 D, or an assessment imposed upon a business in a tourism marketing district, a parking and business improvement area, or a property and business improvement district. 5

Page 9 of 13 ends

189
(7) A charge imposed for a specific health care service provided directly to the payor and that is not provided to those not charged. and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the health care service. As used in this paragraph, a "health care service" means a service licensed or exempt from licensure by the state pursuant to Chapters 1. 1.3, or 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.

The local government bears the b1:1rden of proving by a preponderance of the e .. ·ielence that a lew, charge, or other exaction is not a ta1<, that the amo1:1nt is no more than necessaPJ' to cover the reasonable costs of the go•,ernfflental acti•.«ity anel that tJ:ie manner in which those costs are allocateel to a pa•ror bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the pa•ror's blslrdens on, or bene:fits receiveel from, the go1a1ernmental acfa•ity.

Section 6. Section 2 of Article XIII C of the California Constitution is amended to read :

Sec. 2. Local Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution:
(a) Every levy. charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by local law is either a tax or an exempt charge. All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either general taxes or special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes. (b) No local Jaw go,.·ernment whether proposed by the governing body or by an elector, may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body. (c) An•r general tax imposed, el<tended, or increaseel, •.-.iitho1:1t •.·oter approval, lay any local go,.·ernment on or after Janlslary 1, 1995, ana prior ta the effecti,.·e date of this article, shall contin1:1e to be imposed only if appro,.·ea b1• a majority vote of the voters voting in an election OR the issye of the in:iposition, whicl::i election sl::iall be l::ield witl::iin t•Ne 1•ears ef the effectii.ie date of this article and in com13liance with slslbdi\·isien (b}. {El) No local law government. whether proposed by the governing body or by an elector. may impose, eMteRd, er increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. {d) The title and summary and ballot label or question required for a measure pursuant to the Elections Code shall. for each measure providing for the imposition of a tax, include:
(1) The type and amount or rate of the tax;
(2) the duration of the tax; and
(3) The use of the revenue derived from the tax. If the proposed tax is a general tax. the phrase "for general government use" shall be required, and no advisory measure may appear on the same ballot that would indicate that the revenue from the general tax will. could. or should be used for a specific purpose. (e) Only the governing body of a local government. other than an elector pursuant to Article II or the initiative power provided by a charter or statute. shall have the authority to impose any exempt charge.

The governing body shall impose an exempt charge by an ordinance specifying the type of exempt charge 6

Page 10 of 13 ends

190
as provided in Section l(i) and the amount or rate of the exempt charge to be imposed. and passed by the governing body. This subdivision shall not apply to charges specified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (i) of Section 1.
ff) No amendment to a Charter which provides for the imposition, extension, or increase of a tax or exempt charge shall be submitted to or approved by the electors. nor shall any such amendment to a Charter hereafter submitted to or approved by the electors become effective for any purpose. (q) Any tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022, but prior to the effective date of this act, that was not adopted in compliance with the requirements of this section is void 12 months after the effective date of this act unless the tax or exempt charge is reenacted in compliance with the requirements of this section.
{h)(1) The focal government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a levy, charge or exaction is an exempt charge and not a tax. The local government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the amount of the exempt charge is reasonable and that the amount charged does not exceed the actual cost of providing the service or product to the payor. (2} The retention of revenue by, or the payment to, a non-governmental entity of a levy. charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local law, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.
(3) The characterization of a levy. charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by a local law as being paid in exchange for a benefit. privilege, allowance, authorization, or asset, shall not be factors in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or an exempt charge. (4) The use of revenue derived from the levy, charge or exaction shall be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.

Section 7. Section 3 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution is amended, to read:

Sec. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges Limited (a) No tax, assessment, fee, 6f charge, or surcharge, including a surcharge based on the value ofpropertv, shall be assessed 13y a Ry ageRC'f upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except:
(1) The ad valorem property tax impeseEI p1::1rsYaRt te described in Section 1(a) of Article XIII and Section 1/a) of Article XIII A, and described and enacted pursuant to the voter approval requirement in Section 1/b) Q[Article XII I A.
(2) Any special non-ad valorem tax receiving a two-thirds vote of qualified electors pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII A, or after receiving a two-thirds vote of those authorized to vote in a community facilities district by the Legislature pursuant to statute as it existed on December 31, 2021. (3) Assessments as provided by this article.
(4) Fees or charges for property related services as provided by this article. 7

Page 11 of 13 ends

191
(b) For purposes of this article, fees for the provision of electrical or gas service shall not be deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of property ownership.

Section 8. Sections 1 and 14 of Article XIII are amended to read:

Sec. 1 Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or the laws of the United States:
(a) All property is taxable and shall be assessed at the same percentage of fair market value. When a value standard other than fair market value is prescribed by this Constitution or by statute authorized by this Constitution, the same percentage shall be applied to determine the assessed value. The value to which the percentage is applied, whether it be the fair market value or not, shall be known for property tax purposes as the full value.
(b) All property so assessed shall be taxed in proportion to its full value. (c) All proceeds from the taxation of property shall be apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

Sec. 14. All property taxed by state or local government shall be assessed in the county, city, and district in which it is situated. Notwithstanding any other provision of/aw, such state or local property taxes shall be apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

Section 9. General Provisions
A. This Act shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purposes.

B. (1) In the event that this initiative measure and another initiative measure or measures relating to state or local requirements for the imposition, adoption, creation, or establishment of taxes, charges, and other revenue measures shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the other i nitiative measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this initiative measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions ofthe other initiative measure or measures shall be null and void. (2) In furtherance of this provision, the voters hereby declare that this measure conflicts with the provisions of the "Housing Affordabili ty and Tax Cut Act of 2022" and "The Tax Cut and Housing Affordability Act," both of which would impose a new state property tax (called a "surcharge") on certain real property, and where the revenue derived from the tax is provided to the State, rather than retained in the county in which the property is situated and for the use of the county and cities and districts within the county, in direct violation of the provisions of this initiative. (3) If this initiative measure is approved by the voters, but superseded in whole or in part by any other conflicting initiative measure approved by the voters at the same election, and such conflicting initiative is later held invalid, this measure shall be self-executing and given full force and effect.

C. The provisions of this Act are severable. If any portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, or application of this Act is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Act. The People of the State of California hereby declare that they would have adopted this Act and each and every portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, and application not 8

Page 12 of 13 ends

192
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Act or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid.

D. If this Act is approved by the voters of the State of California and thereafter subjected to a legal challenge alleging a violation of state or federal law, and both the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend this Act, then the following actions shall be taken:
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter 6 of Part 2 of Division 3 ofTitle 2 of the Government Code or any other law, the Attorney General shall appoint independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California. (2) Before appointing or thereafter substituting independent counsel, the Attorney General shall exercise due diligence in determining the qualifications of independent counsel and shall obtain written affirmation from independent counsel that independent counsel will faithfully and vigorously defend this Act. The written affirmation shall be made publicly available upon request. (3) A continuous appropriation is hereby made from the General Fund to the Controller, without regard to fiscal years, in an amount necessary to cover the costs of retaining independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California. (4) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the proponents of this Act, or a bona fide taxpayers association, from intervening to defend this Act.
9

Page 13 of 13 ends

193
194
Rashi Kesarwani
Councilmember District 1

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 8, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (Author), Councilmember Taplin (Author), Councilmember Robinson (Co-Sponsor), and Councilmember Wengraf (Co-Sponsor)
SUBJECT: Referral to Implement State Law AB 43 for Reduced Speed Limits on High-Injury Commercial Corridors

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager to implement state law AB 43 on:
● High-injury commercial corridors as identified in our Vision Zero Annual Report, 2020-20211 in order to allow a reduction in speed limits by 5 miles per hour.
● Any other corridors covered by AB 43, as appropriate, in order to implement reduced prima facie speed limits and identify those corridors for future traffic studies where prima facie limits are presently unsafe.

Upon completion of this referral, we note that a budget allocation would be needed in the amount of $25,000 to $50,000 for new speed limit signage. Funding will be requested later (likely for the FY 2023-24 budget) in order to allow time for staff to determine the applicable streets for additional signage.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
New State Law AB 43 Allows for Reduction of Speed Limits on Streets with a High Percentage of Commercial Activity. Assembly Bill 43, signed into law in October 2021, allows cities to take into account the presence of vulnerable pedestrian groups such as seniors, children, people with disabilities and unhoused individuals when setting speed limits and allowing them to reduce speeds on certain types of streets. The law provides for reducing speed limits on non-commercial 1 See City of Berkeley Vision Zero Annual Report, 2020-2021, March 2021

Page 1 of 5 ends

195
streets beginning June 30, 2024. Beginning January 2022, local jurisdictions may reduce speed limits on a highway contiguous to a business activity district as follows:
● 30 miles per hour speed limit may be reduced by 5 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour; and
● 25 miles per hour may be reduced to 20 miles per hour. 2 The new speed limits apply only to those streets that comply with the below conditions:
● A maximum of four traffic lanes;
● A maximum posted 30 or 25 miles per hour speed limit immediately prior to and after the business activity district if establishing a 25 or 20 miles per hour speed limit;
● The business activity district meeting the criteria of at least three of the below listed requirements:

1. 50 percent or more of the fronting property consisting of retail and/or dining commercial uses;

2. Inclusion of parking spaces along the road;

3. Traffic signals and stop signs located at internals of no more than 600 feet;

4. Marked crosswalks not controlled by a traffic control device.

According to the map shown below, several of our busiest commercial corridors (such as: Gilman, San Pablo, Shattuck, Telegraph and University) are also among our high-injury network of streets. This referral requests staff to consider reducing speeds along those applicable commercial areas in the interest of enhancing public safety and protecting the health and well being of pedestrians inhabiting those areas.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley Has Established a Vision Zero Goal. In March of 2018, Berkeley adopted a VIsion Zero Resolution3 seeking to end all traffic-related deaths and severe injuries on our streets by 2028. Passage of this resolution officially joined us to the network of cities throughout the country mobilized to address the significant numbers of injuries and fatalities on the nation’s roadways, and to pursue safe mobility for all users.4 By adopting this resolution, Berkeley committed to an equity-focused data driven approach to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries recognized as a result of how our streets are designed and regulated. As such, traffic fatalities and injuries are understood not as inevitable, rather preventable through attention to data indicating causes of collisions and designing projects emphasizing safety. 2 See the text for Assembly Bill No. 43, section 22358.9 (a) (1) 3 See Resolution No. 68,371-N.S. In Support of Vision Zero, adopted March 27, 2018 4 See the VIsion Zero Website

Page 2 of 5 ends

196
Data Reveals Berkeley’s Network of High-Injury Streets. Our Vision Zero program uses information based on the most recent 10 years of collision data available through the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). This information indicates on which streets the highest number of accidents occur, as well as the types of California Vehicle Code Violations associated with the collisions. The map below shows the location of 277 severe injury and fatality crashes between 2010 and 2019, also representing the streets where the greatest number of fatality and severe injury crashes occurred.

Source: City of Berkeley Vision Zero Annual Report 2020-2021, p. 9 During these same years, the top two traffic violations resulting in severe injuries or deaths on Berkeley streets were: drivers traveling at unsafe speeds and drivers not yielding at crosswalks, as shown in the chart below.

Page 3 of 5 ends

197
Source: City of Berkeley Vision Zero Annual Report 2020-2021, p. 5 Studies have shown that the faster a colliding vehicle is traveling, the more damage is done to the struck pedestrian.5 As speeding is shown as the top violation resulting in severe injuries and deaths on Berkeley streets, reducing speed limits can both save lives and lessen the severity of injury.

FISCAL IMPACTS
Staff time to determine which commercial corridors are AB 43 applicable. Funding will be requested later (likely for the FY 2023-24 budget) in order to allow time for staff to determine the applicable streets for additional signage. Costs for new speed limit signs are $250 per sign, and staff time for installation will need to be budgeted.

Budget is unlikely to exceed $50,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Safe streets encourage increased pedestrian, bicycle and micro-mobility usage, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from non-electric vehicles. This aligns with the City’s Strategic Plan priority to be a global leader in addressing climate change, protecting the environment, and advancing environmental justice. 5 See U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries, October 21, 1999

Page 4 of 5 ends

198

CONTACT
Rashi Kesarwani, Councilmember District 1 (510) 981-7110

Page 5 of 5 ends

199
200
Kate Harrison
Vice Mayor, District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Harrison (Author), Mayor Arreguín (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Taplin (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Wengraf (Co- Sponsor)
Subject: Adopt a Resolution Supporting Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to the General Fund and Grant of Such Funds for the Berkeley Commission on the Status of Women’s Annual Dues to the Association of California Commissions for Women

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of $100 each from Vice Mayor Harrison, Mayor Arreguín, and Councilmember Taplin’s office budgets to the Association of California Commissions for Women to cover the prorated 2021-2022 annual membership dues and full dues for 2022-2023 for the Berkeley Commission on the Status of Women, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of the aforementioned Mayor and Council office budgets, and providing for prospective “pre-approval” of such dues on an ongoing basis.

CURRENT SITUATION, EFFECTS, AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION Berkeley Commission on the Status of Women has no means to pay for its membership dues to the Association of California Commissions for Women. This resolution provides a short-term and long-term means of paying such dues.

BACKGROUND
In past years the Commission has been affiliated with the statewide organization of commissions. Affiliation fees were waived for the 2020 fiscal year and were cut in half for the 2021 fiscal year. In order to remain a member in good standing, the Commission needs to pay the prorated affiliation fee of $100 for this year and the entire $200 fee for next year (see attached). This Resolution also establishes such dues payments as a “pre-approved” expense in future years as part of the Council’s annual resolution pursuant to Resolution No. 70,072-N.S.

The Association of California Commissions for Women provides a voice for women of all races, creeds and economic status throughout the State of California. The benefits of Association membership include collaborating with other commissions on strategic

Page 1 of 4 ends

201
Adopt a Resolution Supporting Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to the General Fund and Grant of Such Funds for the Berkeley Commission on the Status of Women’s Annual Dues to the Association of California Commissions for Women

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 8, 2022
planning, networking to achieve local commission goals and pursue initiatives, training, leadership, event planning/conventions, and raising awareness of women’s Issues.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No General Fund impact; $300 is available from Office Budget discretionary accounts.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
No discernable impact.

CONTACT PERSON
Vice Mayor Kate Harrison, (510) 981-7140

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. 2021-2022 ACCW Annual Membership Form

Page 2 of 4 ends

202
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, Vice Mayor Kate Harrison, Mayor Arreguín and Councilmember Taplin have funds in their office expenditure accounts; and
WHEREAS, a non-profit tax-exempt entity, the Association of California Commissions for Women, requires funds in the amount of $300 to provide Berkeley’s Commission of the Status of Women with the prorated annual membership dues amount for 2021-2022 and the full amount for 2022-2023; and
WHEREAS, the provision of such funds for dues payments would enhance and further facilitate the Commission’s ongoing municipal public purpose, including providing Berkeley Commissioners with opportunities to collaborate with other commissions on strategic planning, networking to achieve local commission goals and pursue initiatives, training, leadership, event planning/conventions, and generally raising awareness of women’s issues; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the $100 each relinquished by Vice Mayor Harrison, Mayor Arreguín and Councilmember Taplin from their Council Office Budget shall be granted to the Association of California Commissions for Women on behalf of Berkeley Commission on the Status of Women to cover dues payments that further the Commission’s municipal public purpose.

BE IT FURTHER AND FINALLY RESOLVED that further dues expenses beyond the 2022-2023 period shall be considered “pre-approved” pursuant to Resolution No. 70,072 N.S.

Page 3 of 4 ends

203

2021-2022 Annual Membership Form
https://www.accwca.com/
EIN#: 61-2004081
For Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH YOUR COMMISSION’S PAYMENT

The Association of California Commissions for Women (ACCW) relies on the participation and contributions of each California Commission for Women to sustain its mission, which is to promote viability, strength, and effectiveness of member Commissions within the State of California.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Name of Commission:
___________________________________________________________________ Commission Email/Telephone: ____________________________________________________________ Commission Website Address:
____________________________________________________________ Commission Mailing Address:
_____________________________________________________________ 2021-2022 Commission Chair Name:______________________________________________________ Chair Email:_______________________________________________________ 2021-2022 Commission Vice Chair Name:_____________________________________________ Vice-Chair Email: __________________________________________________ Commission Terms (ex. Fiscal Year or Calendar Year)_________________________________ Staff Contact Name/Title: _________________________________________________________ Staff Email/Phone: _________________________________________________________ ACCW Delegate Name: _____________________________________________________ ACCW Delegate Email/Phone: _______________________________________________ ANNUAL DUES for 2021-2022* - PRO-RATED for 2021-22. DUE by January 30, 2022 Regular Membership Fee Full Year membership Pro-rated 2021-2022 $500 - Gold Membership** $500 $250 $200 - Commission Membership $200 $100 $150 – College/University Commission Membership $150 $75 $50 – Individual Membership $ 50 $25 *Pro-rated membership applies now until June 30, 2022, membership renewals will be due as of July 1, 2022. Pro-rated fees listed are at a 50% discount. **Gold Membership - premium level

PAYMENT
Send payment by check:

ACCW (Association of California Commissions for Women)
281 Magnolia Avenue, Vacaville, CA 95688 OR

Send payment electronically Pay via Zelle to ACCW using the email address:
[email protected]
ACCW EIN#: 61-2004081

Page 4 of 4 ends

204
Kate Harrison
Vice Mayor, District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Harrison
Subject: Adopt Resolutions Referring to the City Manager to Establish a Policy of Reducing or Waiving Park Fees for Free, Permitted Outdoor Theater, Arts Events, and Other Events Based on Objective Public Welfare Criteria and Relinquishing Council Funds to Support the San Francisco Mime Troupe’s Payment of Park Fees for Its 2022 Free Outdoor Performance Season

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Two Resolutions:

1. Establishing a policy and referring to the City Manager to create a process to reduce or waive City Park Fees for free and permitted outdoor theater, arts events, and other events as appropriate based on objective consideration of their benefits to the public welfare, including but not limited to educational content, non-profit status, and means.

2. Approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember including $500 from Vice Mayor Harrison, to the San Francisco Mime Troupe, the non- profit fiscal sponsor of 2022 Berkeley Park performances, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Vice Mayor Harrison and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

CURRENT SITUATION, EFFECTS, AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The City of Berkeley has a long tradition of supporting theater, artists and the educational and entertainment value associated with live performance and other events.

Unfortunately, the arts community has been devastated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite important investments through the Berkeley Relief Fund and other policies, smaller and less well-funded organizations are still facing hardships with respect to renewing free outdoor events in Berkeley’s parks. At the same time, Park Fees have risen dramatically since the pandemic; according to the San Francisco Mime Troupe, Parks permit fees have nearly tripled since 2019. Until 1999, the City waived Park Fees for free theater performances in Berkeley parks in recognition of their educational, entertainment, and public welfare contributions to the people of Berkeley.

Although it is critical that Berkeley recovers its costs to maintain its park and facilitate events, when appropriate, it is also critical the City recognize and facilitate the contribution of less well-off arts organizations to Berkeley’s civic and artistic culture and

Page 1 of 5 ends

205
Adopt Resolutions Referring to the City Manager to Establish a Policy of Reducing or Waiving Park Fees for Free, Permitted Outdoor Theater, Arts Events, and Other Events Based on Objective Public Welfare Criteria and Relinquishing Council Funds to Support the San Francisco Mime Troupe’s Payment of Park Fees for Its 2022 Free Outdoor Performance Season

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 8, 2022
fabric. For example, within the indoor context, the City of Berkeley has already provided millions worth of rent to help the Berkeley Repertory Theater and additional COVID-19 deferments of building permit, inspection, connection, and impact fees for arts workforce housing and workshop space. Freight and Salvage, Shotgun Players, and Aurora Theatre Company have also received city grants and assistance. It is critical that the City recognize the contributions of its outdoor theater and arts organizations as well.

It is therefore in the public interest to establish a policy and refer to the City Manager to create a process to reduce or waive City Park Fees for free and permitted outdoor theater, arts events, and other events as appropriate based on due consideration of their benefits to public welfare, non-profit status, and means.

BACKGROUND
It has come to the attention of the Council that the COVID-19 pandemic and increasing fees for Berkeley parks events have imperiled the ability for certain arts and other organizations that contribute greatly to Berkeley fabric, culture, and wellbeing to continue to provide free performances and events.

For example, the San Francisco Mime Troupe (SFMT) is currently considering whether to indefinitely suspend all future free theater (with voluntary donations) performances within Berkeley parks. SFMT is an historic democratically run, worker-owned, multi- ethnic, multi-generational, multi-cultural, gender-balanced, and 501(c)3 nonprofit theater of social justice. Their mission is to create and produce theater that presents a working- class analysis of the events that shape our society, that exposes social and economic injustice, that demands revolutionary change on behalf of working people, and to present this analysis before the broadest possible audience with artistry and humor.

Due to the pandemic, the SFMT have not performed in Berkeley since 2019 but had planned to restart performances this year.

The Troupe has a long tradition of offering free theater for audiences across San Francisco Bay Area parks City Parks, including Berkeley, from July 4th through Labor Day. Until 1999, the City waived Park Fees for free San Francisco Mime Troupe performances in Berkeley parks, including Live Oak, Cedar Rose and Willard.

Substantially increased fees since 2019 will make Berkeley performances cost prohibitive. Park Fees are established pursuant to BMC 6.46, and while the ordinance provides exemptions for an “indigent person,” it does not appear that there is such a comparable or similar waiver process for organizations. Fees were last updated as part of Resolution N.S. 69,892 in May 2021, and range from $180 to $1000 per event (not including insurance requirements) depending on the number of participants and resident status. At the same time, SFMT is not eligible for certain city grants that would help soften the blow of the increased permit fees.

The purpose of Berkeley’s park system is to provide residents of Berkeley and visitors alike with free access to recreation, peaceful relaxation, entertainment and other benefits. The public park system stands in direct contrast to private alternatives.

Page 2 of 5 ends

206
Adopt Resolutions Referring to the City Manager to Establish a Policy of Reducing or Waiving Park Fees for Free, Permitted Outdoor Theater, Arts Events, and Other Events Based on Objective Public Welfare Criteria and Relinquishing Council Funds to Support the San Francisco Mime Troupe’s Payment of Park Fees for Its 2022 Free Outdoor Performance Season

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 8, 2022
It is in the public interest to pass a resolution referring to the City Manager to create a process to reduce or waive City Park Fees for free and permitted outdoor theater, arts events, and other events as appropriate based on objective consideration of their benefits to the public welfare, including but not limited to educational content, non-profit status, and means.

It is also in the public interest for Councilmembers to relinquish office funds to the SFMT to help cover fees for their 2022 park performances. Even though the new fee reduction and waiver policy will hopefully assist organizations such as SFMT, the organization has to plan its performances and permits in advance and cannot wait for the development and adoption of such policy.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Current fees range from $180 to $700 per event. The exact financial impact cannot be determined until staff develop objective criteria for which organizations qualify for reduced or waived fees. Any reduction in fees should be considered within the context of the value of free events to the people of Berkeley and associated patronage of local Berkeley businesses and City services.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Outdoor performances can be a low-carbon activity as compared to other forms of indoor and outdoor entertainment.

CONTACT PERSON
Vice Mayor Kate Harrison, (510) 981-7140

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 1

2. Resolution 2

Page 3 of 5 ends

207
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE CITY MANAGER TO ESTABLISH A POLICY OF

REDUCING OR WAIVING PARK FEES FOR FREE AND PERMITTED OUTDOOR

THEATER, ARTS EVENTS, AND OTHER EVENTS BASED ON OBJECTIVE PUBLIC

WELFARE CRITERIA
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has a long tradition of supporting and encouraging free theater, artistic, and other events, and the educational and entertainment value associated with live performance and outdoor spaces; and WHEREAS, unfortunately, the arts community has been devastated by the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, park fees have risen substantially in recent years, threatening the viability of ongoing free and permitted outdoor theater, arts, and other events sponsored by non- profit organizations of limited means; and
WHEREAS, although it is important that Berkeley recovers its costs to maintain its parks and facilitate events, when appropriate, it is also critical the City recognize and facilitate the contribution of less well-off arts organizations to Berkeley’s civic and artistic culture and fabric; and
WHEREAS, the public park system stands in direct contrast to private alternatives with a purpose of providing residents of Berkeley and visitors alike with free and relatively low-carbon access to recreation, peaceful relaxation, entertainment and other benefits.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of City of Berkeley that it refers to the City Manager to create a process to reduce or waive City Park Fees for free, permitted outdoor theater, arts events, and other events as appropriate based on objective consideration of their benefits to the public welfare, including but not limited to educational content, non-profit status, and means.

Page 4 of 5 ends

208
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, Vice Mayor Kate Harrison has funds in her office expenditure account; and WHEREAS, a non-profit tax exempt entity, the San Francisco Mime Troupe, seeks funds in the amount of at least $500 to provide the following public services to educate and entertain Berkeley audiences through outdoor theater performances in Berkeley parks; and
WHEREAS, the provision of such services would fulfill the municipal public purpose of supporting and encouraging free theater, art, and community interaction through free educational outdoor performances open to all Berkeley residents and visitors; and
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 San Francisco Mime Troupe to fund municipal public purpose services of free educational theater in Berkeley’s public parks.

Page 5 of 5 ends

209
210
Sophie Hahn
City Council District 5
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7150 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 8, 2022
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Councilmembers Sophie Hahn and Ben Bartlett (Co-Authors), Councilmember Kate Harrison (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Budget Referral: Grant Writing Services

RECOMMENDATION
Refer $300,000 to the FY 2022-2023 budget process to expand the City’s capacity to seek and obtain grants and launch funded projects by hiring or contracting for writing and RFP/grant/program administration support.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley is an innovative City, pursuing ambitious programs and initiatives with the vigor and vision of a much larger jurisdiction. Innovation requires a significant investment of City resources and staff time. In addition, Berkeley has aging infrastructure and longstanding initiatives that require additional funding to achieve success. To support these efforts and increase revenues, the City has access to Federal, State, County, Regional, and, in some instances, private funds.

Currently, grant-writing and application responsibilities are distributed across City departments, which independently seek new grant opportunities and submit applications. While the City does receive many awards, the application process can be time consuming for Staff, who are stretched more thinly than ever due to pandemic response and staffing shortages. At the same time, with the current Federal administration’s massive new investments, State of California surpluses, and significant philanthropic initiatives by private foundations, unprecedented monies are being made available to address a wide variety of needs in our community.

In addition to grant writing, extra support can be deployed to assist with the preparation of RFPs related to grant-funded and other initiatives, and with reports and other grant and program-related requirements, to expedite implementation and administration of new projects for which funds have been received and/or allocated by the City Council.

Page 1 of 2 ends

211
Grant Writing Services Budget Referral CONSENT March 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

On October 3, 2017, Council approved a referral for the City Manager to issue a request for information (RFI) to explore grant writing services from specialized municipal grant- writing firms, and report back to Council. On May 14, 2019 the City Manager reported back to Council the results of the City’s RFI process. On July 27, 2021, the City Council directed the City Manager to move forward to establish needs and select a firm or firms to supplement the City’s grant writing capacity, and provide a budget referral in time to be considered for the November 2021 AAO update, such that a new firm or firms could be in place by January of 2022.

To date, no additional support for grant writing and grant/program launch and administration has been obtained. This item refers to the upcoming budget process funds to obtain grant writing and program launch/administration support via the hiring of an individual with grant-writing, RFP, and grant/program administration expertise, or the hiring of one or more outside consultants specializing in this work.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Budget request for $300,000, to enable the City to move forward to address these longstanding needs. Expenses to be offset by the value of additional grants successfully awarded.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
As our Nation and State recover from the COVID-19 crisis, there are a record number of grants available to cities from Federal, State, County, Regional, and private sources. An unexpected surplus in the California budget has resulted in further unprecedented opportunities to obtain funding for a wide range of City of Berkeley priorities. To access these rapidly-developing, highly competitive funds, Berkeley should supplement its ability to write timely, successful grants by bringing in professional grant writing services. Once funds have been obtained, Berkeley could also benefit from help with preparation of RFPs, reports, and other grant/program administration, to ensure funded programs can be launched expeditiously.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Sophie Hahn Council District 5 510-981-7150

Page 2 of 2 ends

212
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7170 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● E-Mail:

[email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Rigel Robinson
Subject: Support for AB 1713: Idaho Stop

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter to Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath, Senator Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks in support of Assembly Bill 1713, which would allow adult bicyclists to proceed through stop signs after yielding the right-of-way to immediate hazards.

BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 1713 would permit bicyclists 18+ to treat stop signs as yield signs, also known as an “Idaho Stop.” This bill is a revised, narrower version of AB 122, a bill that the City of Berkeley endorsed last year. AB 122 was passed by the Assembly and Senate before being vetoed by Governor Newsom. In his veto message, Newsom wrote that “the approach in AB 122 may be especially concerning for children, who may not know how to judge vehicle speeds or exercise the necessary caution to yield to traffic when appropriate.” The updated bill responds to this concern by limiting the applicability of the provisions to adults only.

Currently, California Vehicle Code requires bicyclists to abide by the same laws as motorists — that is, to come to a full stop at a stop sign, even if the street is completely empty or no vehicles are close enough to constitute an immediate hazard. However, it is much more difficult to stop and restart repeatedly on a human-powered vehicle than it is in a car. For bicyclists who may not be as athletic, or who ride older and more inefficient bikes, this requires a significant exertion of energy and may deter them from biking longer distances. Highlighting the disparate impact of mandatory stop signs on bicyclists, a 2001 UC Berkeley Physics Department study determined that on routes with frequent stops, a person operating a bike must exert five times the energy in order to maintain speed.1
The Idaho Stop law, allowing bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, has been in effect in the State of Idaho since 1982. A 2010 UC Berkeley School of Public Health Environmental Science Division study, which compared injury and fatality rates in Idaho with data from structurally similar cities in states still lacking a traffic stop exemption, 1 https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Fajans-J.-and-M.-Curry.-2001..pdf

Page 1 of 3 ends

213
Support for AB 1713 CONSENT CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

found that these conventions make our streets safer.2 Quantitative results demonstrated Idaho conditions to be 30.4 percent safer for bicyclists overall, with an immediate 14.5 percent decrease in injuries in the year following the law’s implementation. In researchers’ interviews with police officers, public officials, bicycle advocacy groups, and the general public, “these inquiries strongly supported adoption of the Idaho Law, and no entity whatsoever identified any negative safety result associated with passage of the law.”
Recognizing the safety benefits of such a law and the climate imperative to improve the convenience of bicycling in Berkeley, Council referred to the Transportation Commission in 2019 to consider deprioritizing enforcement of the Idaho Stop convention. Because the City does not have jurisdiction over state vehicle code, AB 1713 is needed to codify the traffic law exemption rather than just deprioritizing enforcement of it.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
No impact.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rigel Robinson, (510) 981-7170
Angie Chen, Legislative Assistant
Attachments:
1: Letter of support
2: Bill text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1713 2 http://denver.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2018/02/idaho-law-jasonmeggs-2010version-

2.pdf

Page 2 of 3 ends

214
Support for AB 1713 CONSENT CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 3 ends

March 8, 2022
The Honorable Tasha Boerner Horvath
Assemblymember, 76th District
State Capitol, Room 4150
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: City of Berkeley’s Support for Assembly Bill 1713 Dear Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath,
The Berkeley City Council would like to convey our full support for Assembly Bill 1713 to permit bicyclists 18+ to treat stop signs as yield signs, legalizing a common, safe, and energy-conserving maneuver.

The law currently treats bicyclists and motorists the same in this regard, despite it being much more difficult to stop and restart repeatedly on a bicycle. The additional exertion of energy required to come to frequent full stops acts as a deterrent to bicycling, in direct opposition to our climate imperative to encourage more people to bike instead of drive.

In addition, Black people and people of color are disproportionately stopped and cited by law enforcement for vehicle code infractions, including when riding a bike. AB 1713 will provide clarity to the law and prohibit law enforcement from using harmless infractions as pretext to detain and cite, while also decreasing potentially lethal interactions with law enforcement.

The Berkeley City Council supports AB 1713 and thanks you for continuing to push on this important issue.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council
CC: Senator Nancy Skinner
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks

Page 3 of 3 ends

215
216
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 8, 2022
(Continued from February 22, 2022)
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Interim Chief of Police
Subject: Update on the Implementation of Fair and Impartial Policing Task Force Recommendations

INTRODUCTION
On February 23rd, 2021 during a City Council Special Meeting, Council referred the recommendations from the Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Policing (FIP) Task Force to the Berkeley Police Department for implementation. Quarterly updates were requested by Council and the last quarterly update was provided on October 19, 2021.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This report provides a quarterly update on the implementation of the Task Force recommendations, and is one year after the original referral. The Police Department was asked to implement the recommendations provided by the FIP Task Force.

Implementation of the FIP Task Force recommendations remains a priority of the Berkeley Police Department. The Professional Standards Division Sergeants Ledoux and Lee are responsible for managing the project of implementing the recommendations.

Implementation of the recommendations has necessitated the amendment of departmental policies and establishment of new protocols. As part of the process, members of BPD have met on several occasions with Council and Mayor representatives, a Police Review Commission and now Police Accountability Board member, FIP Task Force members, and the Police Accountability Board Subcommittee on FIP recommendation implementation. During these meetings, the substance and progress on the implementation of the recommendations were discussed and BPD has been provided feedback and background on the various intentions with each respective recommendation.

Page 1 of 11 ends

217
Progress of the Implementation of FIP Recommendations ACTION CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

The following outlines the specific Task Force recommendations and the respective progress:

Implement a New Evidence-Based Traffic Enforcement Model Task Force Recommendations:
 Focusing the basis for traffic stops on safety and not just low-level offenses &
 Minimize or de-emphasize as a lowest priority, stops for low-level offenses Implementation:

Officers have been provided data regarding primary collision factors and have been directed to enforce those violations wherever they are observed. In addition to focusing on enforcement of primary collision factor violations, sworn personnel are also expected to make investigative stops related to criminal intelligence and information brought forth by the community or our investigations. BPD’s working group, which is comprised of employees working in every division of the Berkeley Police Department and the City of Berkeley Transportation Division Manager, viewed the primary collision factors and built upon that information by looking further into Berkeley specific collision data as well as the National Highway Traffic Safety administration data concerning vehicle collisions. The working group has identified a focused set of violations that should be an officer’s focus while conducting traffic enforcement to promote a safe environment for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles in Berkeley. The Working Group developed a three-prong approach that focuses on primary collision factors, community member reports/observations reported to the Berkeley Police Department and community caretaking. Community caretaking functions consider safety violations that aren’t always noted as the primary collision factor but can be a significant contributing factor in serious collisions. The Berkeley Police Department will be trained on this three-prong approach to approaching traffic stops based on traffic safety.

Status:

Implementation in progress. Training for all sworn personnel has commenced on this approach to enforcement on traffic safety violations. The Traffic Division and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration continuously collect and provide the Berkeley Police Department with data on primary collision factors and statistics on violations that impact public safety. These data provide officers with current information on what to educate the community on and what violations to focus enforcement on.

Page 2 of 11 ends

218
Progress of the Implementation of FIP Recommendations ACTION CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 3 ends

Task Force Recommendation:
 Reaffirming and clarifying that the Berkeley Police Department will use a clear, evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects.

Implementation:

The Police Department is establishing a precision based policing model that considers data and public safety. This model aims to reduce the number of stops that studies have shown had minimal impact on public safety.

Data driven-tools that enable close to real-time dashboard tracking of calls for service demands have been provided to the Community Services Bureau and Patrol Watch Commanders. The Police Department is working on providing these tools to every officer to incorporate into their daily briefings The Police department is also exploring the feasibility of a system that employs a feedback loop with information flowing both ways. The current system provides the tracking of calls for service with the goal of call analysis for patrol deployment strategies; the feedback loop would provide information back to the Community Services Bureau and provide an accountability measure so strategies can be evaluated.

Status:

Implementation in Progress – The goal is to have data-driven approaches to violence prevention programs and real time crime and call analysis for patrol deployment strategies. The Police Department continues to develop and deploy data-driven tools to enhance a precision-based policing model and approach to enforcement stops. Ensuring that we implement approaches that identify and work to reduce racial disparities will be a cornerstone to our evidence-based approaches. Berkeley Police Department will continue to only use race and ethnicity as determining factors in stops only when paired with clear, evidence- based criteria. During this quarter we successfully filled one of the two Council approved data analyst positions. This will allow continued development of the evidence-based approaches.

Task Force Recommendation:
 Reaffirming and clarifying that the Berkeley Police Department will only use race and ethnicity as determining factors in stops only when paired with clear, evidence-based criteria.

Implementation:

Penal code 13519.4 is existing California law that prohibits racial profiling. BPD Policy 401 (Fair and Impartial Policing) also prohibits racial profiling. Section 401.2 explicitly states, “Officers shall not consider race, ethnicity, national origin,

Page 3 of 11 ends

219
Progress of the Implementation of FIP Recommendations ACTION CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 4 ends

gender, age, religion, sexual orientation/identity or socio-economic status in establishing either reasonable suspicion or probable cause, or when carrying out other law enforcement activities…”
The above policies were reviewed in light of the task force recommendations and found to affirm and clarify police officer responsibilities in stops.

Status:

Recommendation implemented. Ongoing efforts include: BPD will continue to conduct ongoing training in topics such as implicit bias, racial profiling, and procedural justice concepts. BPD will hold all members to Departmental Policies, especially those strictly and clearly prohibiting racial profiling. Further, stops will be information and evidence based. BPD Traffic Bureau will regularly provide data on those primary collision factors that most often result in collisions. BPD data analyst team will continue to analyze these statistics along with crime and location-based information. BPD will work closely and regularly with our Vision Zero partners to use this information to focus enforcement efforts.

Implement Procedural Justice Reforms
Task Force Recommendation:
 Refer amendments to existing BPD policy and the creation of an Early Intervention System (EIS) related to traffic, bike and pedestrian stops.

Implementation:

The current Early Warning System was originally issued in 2004 and revised in 2008. The system mandates the monitoring of officer’s behavior and performance to include, but not limited to attendance, complaints, use of force incidents, and other factors. The Early Warning System serves as a program that identifies and address behavior or training issues before they become a disciplinary matter. Amendments are being made to our existing policy to specifically identify additional activity that should be considered when applying this policy.

Status:

Implementation in progress. Pursuant to the FIP recommendation and after meeting with the FIP task Force stakeholders, language was added to the current Early Warning System policy to include data around traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian stops as a category that supervisors will consider for early intervention if merited. The new Early Warning System policy is being reviewed by the police union and is in the meet and confer process to ensure that the policy can be properly applied to train, redirect and recognize performance issues and not conflict with disciplinary processes.

Page 4 of 11 ends

220
Progress of the Implementation of FIP Recommendations ACTION CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 5 ends

Task Force Recommendation:
 Adopt a policy to require written consent for all vehicle and residence searches and update the consent search form in alignment with best practice and community feedback.

Implementation:

A revised written consent form has been created and amendments are being made to our existing search and seizure policy to require written consent for all consent searches. Consultation with the Alameda County District Attorney was conducted to ensure that policy changes did not have a detrimental effect on charging or prosecution.

Status:

Implementation in progress. The new search and seizure policy is being reviewed by the police union and is in the meet and confer process to consider relevant officer safety concerns. Language in the policy is being drafted to address citizen rights, exigent circumstances as well as officer safety concerns.

Task Force Recommendation:
 Limit warrantless searches of individuals on supervised release status such as Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), probation, or parole.

Implementation:

On February 10, 2021, updates were completed on Policy 311. Sections 311.5 and 311.6 were modified to reflect the above limitations to warrantless searches.

The above policies were reviewed and modified in line with the task force recommendations and departmental goals to build trust and collaborate with the community to address crime and safety concerns.

Status:

Recommendation implemented. The update to Policy 311 limits the searches conducted on individuals on supervised release status.

Task Force Recommendation:
 Address Profiling by Proxy (PAB Policy Development, Dispatcher Training).

Implementation:

The Communications Center Operation Manual has been amended to address handling cases involving profiling by proxy. All dispatchers have reviewed the

Page 5 of 11 ends

221
Progress of the Implementation of FIP Recommendations ACTION CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 6 ends

amended manual and are instructed to be cognizant and screen for profiling by proxy calls.

Status:

Recommendation implemented. Berkeley Police Department will continue to educate and train dispatchers on how to identify and address biased based reporting. Officers and supervisors are also expected to screen profiling by proxy calls. The Department as a whole will continue to seek out and train on anti-bias, implicit bias, and profiling by proxy topics to strengthen our ability to identify and address biased based reporting.

Task Force Recommendation:
 Fire racist police officers identified through social media and other media screens.

Implementation:

The following existing policies dictate procedures for investigating employees in this area; these policies adhere to due process and Government Section 3300:

Policy 1029 (Employee Speech, Expression and Social Networking) provides accountability to employee personal social media posts. Section 1029.4(b) states “Speech or expression that, while not made pursuant to an official duty, is significantly link to, or related to, the Berkeley Police Department and tends to compromise or damage the mission, function, or reputation of professionalism of the Berkeley police Department or its employee.

PR 232 (Controversial Discussion), PR 235 (Acts –Statements-By employees), PR 238 (Organizational Membership), and PR 250 (enforcement of Law, Impartiality) are also policies that provide accountability for any racist behaviors.

The above policies were reviewed in light of the task force recommendations found to provide necessary authority to investigate allegations of racism.

Departmental policy clearly identifies discrimination based upon a person’s race as misconduct, and requires reporting and prompt investigating of any allegation of racism. Any employee who becomes aware of or observes any discrimination on the basis of a protected class is required to notify a supervisor by the end of their shift or within 24 hours if they are off duty.

Status:

Recommendation implemented, however the Berkeley Police Department is committed to continuing to explore additional lawful methods to identify and

Page 6 of 11 ends

222
Progress of the Implementation of FIP Recommendations ACTION CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 7 ends

address potentially racist behaviors or actions by our members. If at any time the police department becomes aware of any issues related to these concerns, the matter would be thoroughly investigated and employees will be held accountable.

Task Force Recommendation:
 Require regular analysis of BPD stop, search, and use of force data; Implementation:

The Open Data Portal (ODP) is a public facing website that gives the public access to police data and is accessible through the City’s website. This allows for open and independent analysis and review to foster police accountability and transparency.

ODP is operational and the data is updated approximately every 60 days. BPD is in the process of eliminating the 180-day time range that currently exist to allow for searches several years into the past. BPD is also in the process of expanding the call for service dataset to include all types of calls and creating a user-friendly interface for the system.

A vendor, Global Technologies Group, has been contracted to update the open data portal and work has begun.

Status:

Implementation in progress. BPD is committed to transparency and is continuously exploring different ways to provide the public with access to more police data. The anticipated completion date is prior to the summer of 2022, but is dependent on the technological needs and data analyst staffing levels.

Task Force Recommendations:
 Make resources on police-civilian encounters more publicly available such as through RAHEEM.org;
 For any individual detained, BPD officers shall provide a business card with information on the commendation and complaint process with the Police Accountability Board and the Berkeley Police Department, Internal Affairs Bureau.

Implementation:

In May of 2021, labels were printed for officers to place on the backside of their business cards containing the phone numbers to Internal Affairs and the Police Accountability Board. The label also contains a QR code to the Berkeley Police Department’s website containing information on how to file a complaint. Officers were instructed to provide business cards with the labels to all detained

Page 7 of 11 ends

223
Progress of the Implementation of FIP Recommendations ACTION CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 8 ends

individuals pending new business cards. In addition to the information on how to make a complaint, a link to the ACLU webpage containing information on police- civilian encounters has been added to the Berkeley Police webpage.

Status:

Recommendation implemented. All business cards now printed for BPD have the same information as the labels. The QR code and BPD website provide community members with resources on police-civilian encounters. These resources ensure police accountability as well as ways the community can comment on the service BPD has provided.

Refer the following recommendations summarized below to the Reimagine Public Safety process
Task Force Recommendations:
 Create a formalized feedback system to gauge community response to ongoing reforms and ensure this constructive input system is institutionalized with the Police Review Commission or its successor and includes a basic report card and quarterly neighborhood check-ins; Conduct a baseline community survey
Implementation:

BPD’s participation in work on the Reimagine Public Safety Task Force is on- going and while no formalized feedback systems are in place at this time, BPD remains responsive to answering questions, providing hands-on experience and discussing opportunities, impacts and effects of recommendations.

A community survey from the Reimagine Public Safety Task Force and National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) has been completed. This survey gauges the community’s initial assessment on public safety in Berkeley to include what they thought was top priority, and where city resources were needed for better public safety. The results of this survey have been published. The final report is pending NICJR and Reimagine Task Force review.

Status:

Implementation in progress. The Berkeley Police Department is committed to working collaboratively with the Reimagine Public Safety Task Force in accomplishing both recommendations.

Page 8 of 11 ends

224
Progress of the Implementation of FIP Recommendations ACTION CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 9 ends

Acknowledge and reaffirm the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1 that are already underway Task Force Recommendation:
 BPD released stop, arrest, calls for service and use of force data from 2012 to present to the Working Group;
Implementation:

The police department released the requested historical data in December of 2020. Approximately every 60 days BPD stop, arrest, and calls for service data are updated in the Open Data Portal.

Status:

Recommendation implemented. The police department is currently working with IT and a vendor to provide the public with access to more police data through the Open Data Portal. Building trust through transparency and allowing for individual analysis of police data is the cornerstone of the police department’s work in building community trust and engaging in collaborative problem solving.

Task Force Recommendation:
 Fund and implement a specialized care unit for mental health crises; Implementation:

The City has contracted with a consulting firm, RDA Consulting, to conduct a feasibility study for a specialized care unit. The study has concluded; refer to below supporting materials for link to the final report from RDA Consulting.

Status:

Implementation in progress. The police department will continue to collaborate with the city towards the development of a Specialized Care Unit. While the work to create a Specialized Care Unit continues, three community based contracts managed by the Health, Housing and Community Services Department have been initiated to provide interim services.

Task Force Recommendation:
 Conduct a Capacity Study of police calls and responses and use of officer time outside of case work.

Implementation:

The City’s Auditor’s report was released which analyzed Computer Aided Dispatch data. Recommendations from this analysis were provided to the Police

Page 9 of 11 ends

225
Progress of the Implementation of FIP Recommendations ACTION CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 10 ends

Department and findings were referred to the Reimagine Public Safety Task Force.

As part of our continued efforts to collect more complete and comprehensive data, we have added additional disposition codes to our CAD program. Since July 1st,2021, we have begun collecting data on our police contacts with individuals experiencing homelessness and/or mental health crisis. This both addresses the recommendation by the City’s Auditors report as well as the ongoing discussions around the need to better harness alternative and sometimes more appropriate resources to address incidents. In response to another recommendation by the City’s Auditors report, we are expanding our data sets on the Open Data Portal to encompass more call types and eliminate the 180-day time range that currently exist to allow for searches several years into the past. This allows for the public to access more police data and for the Police Department to be more transparent in order to foster trust with our community.

Status:

Implementation in progress. During this quarter we successfully filled one of the two Council approved data analyst positions. One of the analyst tasks will be to conduct an ongoing analysis of police calls and responses. The work that the analyst will conduct will contribute to the police department’s precision-based policing model as well as our personnel deployment strategies.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The Police Department will continue to work toward the full implementation of the Task Force recommendations.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Staff time and additional training time to be determined at a later date.

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Louis, Interim Chief of Police, (510) 981-5700

Page 10 of 11 ends

226
Progress of the Implementation of FIP Recommendations ACTION CALENDAR March 8, 2022

Page 11 ends

Supporting Materials:
1: Berkeley Police Policy 401
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Police/Level_3_- _General/401%20Fair_and_Impartial_Policing(1).pdf
2: Berkeley Police Policy 311
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Police/Level_3_- _General/Search_and_Seizure.pdf
3: California Legislative Information
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=13519.

4.&nodeTreePath=7.5.1.2&lawCode=PEN

4. Berkeley Police Policy 1029
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Police/Level_3_- _General/1029%20Employee_Speech__Expression_and_Social_Networking.pdf

5. Berkeley Police Regulation Chapter 2
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Police/Level_3_- _General/PR%20Ch2_08Mar17.pdf

6. Reimagine Task Force and National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) Survey
https://berkeley-rps.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Berkeley-Community- Engagement-Report-v7.pdf

7. RDA Consulting Final Report on Specialize Care Unit
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_Commissions/Berkeley- MH-SCU_Final-Recommendations_FINAL.pdf

Page 11 of 11 ends

227
228
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7000 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981-7099 E-mail: [email protected]
Office of the City Manager

INTRODUCTION
At the request of City Council, the City Manager provides regular reports on crime in Berkeley. This report includes year end crime data for 2021. Also included is 2021 collision data. This information is provided to supplement the October 19th, 2021 annual crime report presentation, which only provided data through October 1, 2021.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS

CALLS FOR SERVICE
In 2021 Berkeley Police Department received a total of 60,393 calls for service (CFS).

This closely mirrors the call volume for 2020 (60,799), as calls for service have not returned to pre-pandemic levels to date. The seven-year average total CFS number is 71,443.

CRIME DATA
Part One Crimes:

In 2021, total Part One crime in Berkeley increased by 1.9% overall from the year prior.

There were four fewer Part One Violent Crimes and 122 more Part One Property Crimes in 2021. The largest percentage increases in Part One Crimes were seen in

Page 1 of 6 ends

229
2 Arson (38.5%), Auto Theft (36.4%), and Sexual Assault (21.3%). Decreases were seen in Homicide, as there were no cases in 2021, as well as Petty Theft.

Part One Crimes Comparison
2020 2021 Change Percent
Change
Homicide 5 0 -5
-
100.0%
Sexual Assault 47 57 10 21.3%
Robbery 274 265 -9 -3.3%
Aggravated Assault 210 210 0 0.0%
Total Violent Crimes 536 532 -4 -0.7%
Burglary 797 803 6 0.8%
Theft 3933 3736 -197 -5.0%
Auto Theft 805 1098 293 36.4%
Arson 52 72 20 38.5%
Total Property Crimes 5587 5709 122 2.2%
Total Part One Crimes 6123 6241 118 1.9%

The following chart provides historical crime data for Part One Crimes from 2015 through 2021.

Year Homicide Rape Robbery Agg
Assault
Burglary Larceny Auto
Theft
Arson
2015 1 44 330 155 1090 4099 717 22
2016 2 54 361 185 805 3965 650 24
2017 1 83 364 218 843 4556 621 30
2018 1 65 353 167 829 4004 548 31
2019 0 74 369 175 771 4993 492 17
2020 5 47 274 210 797 3933 805 52
2021 0 57 265 210 803 3736 1098 72
Gun Violence and Firearm Seizure:

Total numbers of shootings continue to rise in the City of Berkeley. In 2021, there were 52 confirmed shooting incidents versus 40 in 2020. Confirmed shooting incidents include witnessed events as well as loud report calls where shell casings or other

Page 2 of 6 ends

230
3 evidence of gunfire is found. In 2021, BPD’s closure rate for shootings was 38% despite the fact that many incidents are heard only or have few witnesses or leads.

Forensic and electronic evidence, diligent and detailed investigative efforts, as well as community support sharing information are critical to developing leads and chargeable cases.

SHOOTINGS 2018 2019 2020 2021
TOTAL 20 28 40 52
Cases Closed 11 9 23 20
Cases Charged 6 6 15 15
In 2021 there were a total of 118 firearms recovered by BPD, which was an increase of

38.8%. In 2021, 33 of the firearms seized were ghost guns compared to 6 in 2020 and 8 in 2019.

FIREARM RECOVERY METHODS 2019 2020 2021
Patrol response to calls for service 33 36 51
Patrol proactive traffic stops 25 17 24
Detective follow-up investigations 29 32 43
TOTAL firearms recovered 87 85 118
Robbery:

Total robbery cases remained below pre-pandemic levels. The most notable change during the pandemic was the closing gap between pedestrian and commercial robberies.

ROBBERY CASES 2018 2019 2020 2021
Pedestrian 229 247 131 119
Commercial 108 97 117 118
Home Invasion 5 4 8 8
Bank 3 2 5 6
Carjacking 10 14 13 14
TOTAL 355 364 274 265

Page 3 of 6 ends

231
4 Hate Crimes:

In 2021, there were 42 incidents of hate crimes, up from 12 in 2020. Hate Crime reports continue to be primarily reported as crimes of intimidation (either by using slurs or by leaving graffiti) rather than crimes of violence.

HATE CRIMES 2018 2019 2020 2021
Race/Ethnicity/ National Origin 11 5 7 28
Religion 3 1 2 11
Sexual Orientation 3 2 1 3
Gender 1 0 2 0
Disability 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 18 8 12 42
Property Crimes:

In addition to the Part One Property Crimes data provided above, additional property crime totals were as follows:
2019 2020 2021
Catalytic Convertor Thefts 150 523 477
Auto Burglary 2473 1042 1021

COLLISION DATA
In 2021, total collisions increased by 199, or 33.8%, from the year prior. Fatal collisions increased significantly and there were also increases overall in both injury and non- injury collisions.

COLLISIONS 2019 2020 2021
Fatal collisions 4 2 7
Injury collisions (includes fatal collisions) 521 316 433 Non-injury collisions 408 273 355
TOTAL collisions 929 589 788
In 2021, the most common cause of collisions (primary collision factor or PCF) were unsafe speed, unsafe turn and right of way violations. In 2021, bicycles were involved in 93 of the injury collisions and pedestrians were involved in 62. The at fault party was found to be the bicyclist in 58 collisions and the pedestrian in 5 collisions. Of the 7 collision fatalities in the City of Berkeley in 2021, 5 of the fatalities were pedestrians. In

Page 4 of 6 ends

232
5 2021, 39 collisions were DUI involved compared to 46 in 2020. Of these 39 DUI collisions, 16 caused serious injuries.

Ashby Avenue and San Pablo Avenue had the largest number of collisions in 2021 followed by Ashby and Shattuck Avenue, and Ashby Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr Way. The top ten intersections where collisions occurred were:

The following provides historical data on fatal collisions in the City of Berkeley:

COLLISION INTERSECTIONS Collisions
Ashby Ave / San Pablo Ave 14
Ashby Ave / Shattuck Ave 12
Ashby Ave / MLK Jr Way 9
University Ave / 6th St 9
University Ave / Sacramento St 7
University Ave / MLK Jr Way 7
Sacramento Ave / Cedar St 7
Sacramento St / Dwight Way 6
Eastshore Hwy / Gilman St 6
Cedar St / Shattuck Ave 5
Total fatal Number of Year(s)

Page 5 of 6 ends

233
6 The BPD will continue to collect, analyze and report on crime and collision data to understand and guide needs, the effectiveness of enforcement strategies and shape future deployment and resource allocation.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental opportunities or impacts associated with the subject of this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Jen Louis, Interim Chief of Police, 510-981-5900
collisions fatalities
7 8 2021
7 7 1985 1988
6 6 none
5 6 1993
5 5 1989, 1992, 1995, 2007
4 5 1994, 2012
4 4 1986, 1990, 2004, 2009, 2018, 2019
3 3 1987, 1996, 2003, 2014, 2017
2 2
1998,2000, 2001, 2006, 2010, 2016,
2020
1 1 1984, 1991, 2002, 2005, 2013, 2015
0 0 1997,1999, 2008, 2011

Page 6 of 6 ends

234
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 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Request to Adopt a Resolution Approving Exception to the 180-Day Waiting Period to Hire a CalPERS Retired Annuitant in Accordance with Government Code Sections 7522.56 And 21224

RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving an exception to the 180-day waiting period for hiring a retired annuitant as an extra-help employee in the Department of Health, Housing & Community Services, due to their specialized skills that are necessary to perform work of a limited duration, and to prevent stoppage of public business during the Covid emergency.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The cost of this increase will be paid from general fund.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) made substantial changes to public employee pension laws in California. One of those changes requires retired annuitants to be separated from employment for at least 180 days before returning to work for an employer in the same retirement system from which they receive a pension. An exception may be made if the governing body adopts a resolution to waive the waiting period for separation. The waiver allows an employer to hire a retired annuitant to perform work of limited duration, such as the elimination of backlogs, limited term special projects, and work that is in excess of what regular staff can reasonably perform.

The Health, Housing, and Community Services (HHCS) Department holds the responsibilities of an independent local health jurisdiction (LHJ) and is responsible for addressing public health prevention and emergencies as well as protecting the physical health, mental health, and basic needs of those most vulnerable. The department is also responsible for producing, preserving, and supporting affordable housing for Berkeley residents and working with non-profit agencies to support the unhoused population. Since February 2020, the City of Berkeley has been independently responsible for addressing the COVID-19 pandemic; including implementation of Health Officer Orders, creating a new COVID-19 response unit, implementing an array of new

Page 1 of 6 ends

235
[Title of Report] ACTION CALENDAR
March 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

activities to protect the public such as testing, vaccinations, enhanced case investigation, and contact tracing, and managing outbreaks. The City has also supported the development of respite sites for housing the most vulnerable, moved people from respite sites in to permanent housing, decompressed shelters and created new shelter spaces, and enhanced outreach services, food distribution, and toilet and shower availability. While much of this work was conducted through the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), many of the responsibilities resided, and continue to reside, with HHCS. The department’s overall responsibilities were further expanded as a variety of State and Federal grants were awarded to the City to support the COVID response, nearly all of which were managed, and continue to be managed, by HHCS’s Administrative and Fiscal Team in the Office of the Director; overseen by the HHCS Deputy Director.

In January 2021, HHCS had a vacancy rate of 20%, a Director with less than a year tenure, and was engaged in an active recruitment process for a new Deputy Director due to the pending retirement of the incumbent; a long-time City of Berkeley employee.

Due to the enhanced workload brought on to the department by the pandemic, the high vacancy rate, and the need for continuity of expertise, the retiring Deputy Director stepped up to provide continued support to the department by coming back as a retired annuitant at the request of the City of Berkeley, and consistent with Government Code Sections 7522.56 and 21224. With the expanded work of the department due to the on- going, State-Wide, COVID-19 state of emergency, this function has been critical to ensuring meticulous management of specialized Federal and State healthcare funding streams deployed to protect people from COVID-19, other critical health conditions, and provide care and shelter for the unhoused population. Accordingly, it was necessary to hire the retired annuitant as extra help prior to the end of the 180-day waiting period, due to their specialized skills and to prevent stoppage of public business during the Covid emergency.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This recommendation supports the strategic plan priority project to retract and retain a talented and diverse City government workforce.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Donald E. Ellison, Interim Human Resources Director, 510-981-6807.

Page 2 of 6 ends

236
[Title of Report] ACTION CALENDAR
March 8, 2022

Page 3 ends

Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Notice of Appointment

Page 3 of 6 ends

237
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

A Resolution Approving Exception to the 180-Day Waiting Period to Hire a CalPERS Retired Annuitant in Accordance with Government Code Sections 7522.56 And 21224 WHEREAS, in compliance with Government (Gov.) Code Section 7522.56 of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law, the City Council of the City of Berkeley must provide CalPERS this certification resolution when hiring a retiree before 180 days has passed since their retirement date; and
WHEREAS, Kelly Wallace retired from the City of Berkeley, Health, Housing, and Community Services Department, from the position of Deputy Director of Health, Housing, and Community Services, effective February 2, 2021; and WHEREAS, Section 7522.56 requires that post-retirement employment commence no earlier than 180 days after the retirement date, which is August 1, 2021, without this certification; and
WHERAS, Gov. Code section 7522.56 provides that this exception to the 180-day wait period shall not apply if the retiree accepts any retirement-related incentive; and WHERAS, the City Council, the City of Berkeley, and Kelly Wallace certify that Kelly Wallace has not, and will not, receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement- related incentives; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley hereby ratifies the appointment of Kelly Wallace as an extra-help retired annuitant to perform similar duties to a Deputy Director of Health, Housing, and Community Services, for the City of Berkeley of Health, Housing, and Community Services under Government Code Section 21224, effective February 7, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the entire employment agreement, contract or appointment document between Kelly Wallace and the City of Berkeley has been reviewed by this body and is attached herein; and
WHEREAS, no matters, issues, terms or conditions related to this employment and appointment have been or will be place on a consent calendar; and WHEREAS, the employment shall be limited to 960 hours per fiscal year for all CalPERS employers; and
WHEREAS, the compensation paid to retirees cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties, divided by 173.333 to equal the hourly rate; and

Page 4 of 6 ends

238
March 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, the maximum base salary for this position is $23,783.07 per month and the hourly equivalent is $137.21, and the minimum base salary for this position is $3,177.20 per month and the hourly equivalent is $18.33; and
WHEREAS, the hourly rate paid to Kelly Wallace will be $90.07; and WHEREAS, Kelly Wallace has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Berkeley hereby certifies and ratifies the nature of the appointment of Kelly Wallace as described herein and detailed in the attached employment agreement, and that this appointment was necessary to fill a critically needed role similar to Deputy Director of Health, Housing, and Community Services, for the City of Berkeley by February 7, 2021, due to their specialized skills; to prevent stoppage of public business during the Covid emergency; and to maintain compliance with the deployment of on-going and new State and Federal Resources creative specifically to address COVID-19, including complex health care grants, Medi-Cal, Housing and Urban Development funds, and other specialized funding streams.

Page 5 of 6 ends

239

Human Resources Dept.
2180 Milvia Street  Berkeley  CA  94704  TEL: (510) 981-6800  TTY: (510) 981-6830  FAX: (510) 981-6860 WEB: www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/hr  E-MAIL: [email protected] January 28, 2021

Kelly Wallace

Subject: Offer of Employment

Dear Kelly,

It is our pleasure to confirm your offer of employment with the City of Berkeley. Below are the highlights of your employment:

Please contact Lisa Warhuus at (510) 981-5404 if you have any questions about your schedule, work location, and details of reporting to work on your first day.

We are excited to have you! If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out at any time.

Sincerely,

Sukari Dixon
Human Resources Technician

Please confirm your acceptance of this offer by signing and returning this letter.

Signature: ___________________________________________

Print Name:

Date: _______________________________________________

cc:

Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager
Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Dr. Lisa Warhuus, HHCS
Shayla Elliott, Human Resources
Employee Personnel File

Classification/Job Title Retired Annuitant
Employment Type: Temporary; Non-benefitted; Not- to
exceed 960 hours or Lifting of SIP Order
Department/Division: Health, Housing and Community
Services
Hourly Rate: $90.0007
Start Date: February 7, 2021
Employee ID Number 8379
Union Unrepresented

Page 6 of 6 ends

240

Communications

All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900

Records Online
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/recordsonline

To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:

1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”

2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting

3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)

4. Click the “Search” button

5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned

6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF

Berkeley City CouncilMarch 8, 2022

Berkeley City Council
March 8, 2022