Berkeley City Council
March 22, 2022

511

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 12 According to BPD command staff, patrol maintains a minimum of 60 sworn officers, broken into seven teams with minimums of eight or nine officers based on their beat and shift allocations (Figure 7). Teams are staffed with additional officers above the minimum level to absorb absences. It is unclear if this staffing level in patrol is appropriate, as we discuss further on page 18.

Figure 7. BPD Patrol Unit maintains a minimum staffing level of 60 sworn officers, split into 7 teams to cover 16 beats at all times of the day

Note: Each team has a minimum of two supervising sergeants. There are four lieutenants, each overseeing two patrol teams. Teams with a minimum of 8 officers cover one beat per officer, while teams with minimums of 9 officers cover two beats per officer, with an additional swing officer when they are the only working team.

Swing officers patrol the entire city or fill for absent officers.

Source: Berkeley Police Department
When teams lack sufficient staff to meet their minimums, command staff call in off-duty sworn officers to work overtime and backfill the absences.

Persistent backfilling indicates a chronic shortage of personnel in relation to the minimum staffing requirements. We did not determine whether BPD has appropriate minimum staffing or budgeted staffing levels; we only examined the process they use to determine minimum staffing in the next finding section.

512

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 13 Figure 8. Nearly 25 Percent of All Sworn Officer Overtime Was Used Filling Vacancies and Absences, FY 2020

Note: Compensatory time does not have associated personnel costs because the payroll system does not count earned compensatory time as a charge to the City. The miscellaneous category includes hours that did not have a project code assigned due to the individual being a police recruit, an administrative lag, or human error. See Appendix II for a comparison of FY 2019 and FY 2020.

Source: BPD Payroll Data

513

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 14 Vacancies contribute to BPD’s reliance on overtime.

BPD’s minimum staffing levels are untenable without overtime to backfill vacancies and absences. BPD has experienced sustained vacancies in sworn staffing positions, fluctuating from only nine at the end of FY 2015 to a high of 27 at the end of FY 2018 (Figure 9). According to BPD, patrol teams often do not meet the minimum staffing on a day-to-day basis without overtime due to vacancies and absences related to anticipated leave (e.g., vacation or family leave) or unanticipated leave (e.g., injury, training, sick leave). We found that in FY 2020, sworn officers applied overtime to backfill absences for 353 days, or 97 percent, of the entire year.

Figure 9. Sworn Officer Positions Across BPD’s Divisions Have Continuously Been Underfilled Since 2015
Note: This chart is based on year end actuals. We did not do an analysis of sworn vacancies prior to 2015 to see if this is a normal trend or a 5-year anomaly.

Source: Employment and vacancy data from the Berkeley Human Resources Department

514

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 15 According to BPD, the list of full-time patrol officers in the Patrol Unit’s timesheets have declined since 2016, when BPD updated current patrol minimum staffing levels (see Appendix IV for a sample timesheet). The number of patrol officers listed on timesheets has approached the minimum of 60 staff; for instance, in the timesheet spanning September 2021 to March 2022, six out of seven patrol teams had just one officer above the minimum.

In October 2021, BPD reported that their sworn staffing levels fluctuate at or just below 157 filled sworn positions after the City deferred 23 sworn positions in BPD as a cost saving measure in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of this writing, the City continues to hold those sworn positions vacant.

It is important to note that the number of filled positions is not the same as the number of officers available to work. For example, new hires, although counted as a filled position, are not available for solo officer duties for nearly a year. Of the 157 sworn positions filled, seven of those positions are being held by individuals in academy bringing the number of fully-fledged officers down to 150. It is also not uncommon to have officers out on leave due to illness, injury, family leave, or military leave.

According to BPD, staffing shortages impact all police operations. In response to sustained sworn vacancies in 2020, BPD suspended the Special Investigations Bureau and bike patrol assignments, and reduced the number of Traffic enforcement officers. Absences impact other divisions, as off-duty sworn officers in other BPD divisions conduct overtime patrol when not enough off-duty patrol officers are available. Additionally, BPD has instituted mandatory overtime during periods in which not enough staff volunteer for overtime. All of these factors, among others, contribute to burnout and staff turnover, which reinforces BPD’s use of overtime to backfill vacancies.

Staffing is only slated to decline, as there are 15 current sworn employees eligible to retire during the writing of this audit.

More work can be done to better understand how recruitment and retention of sworn officers impact overtime. There are other facets of staffing that deserve further attention to understand BPD’s reliance on overtime, including the overall budgeted staffing positions, staff workload, the deployment of officers, and the use of leaves of absence.

515

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 16 Compensatory time may decrease policing capacity and increase costs
When BPD officers work overtime, generally they can choose to either be paid for the overtime hours or they can earn additional paid time off (compensatory time) to be used at a later date. According to BPD, officers cannot earn compensatory for overtime that is reimbursable (i.e., work for outside entities and grants). In FY 2020, sworn officers accumulated a total of 8,319 hours of compensatory time, which accounts for approximately 831 10- hour shifts, or a full year of work (2080 hours) for 4 full time employees.

When an officer elects to receive compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay, that may decrease the policing resources available because every hour worked must be repaid by the department at time and a half—time taken away from other activities. Compensatory time comes out of existing capacity. In addition, earned compensatory time may imply additional costs to staffing because it is associated with an officer’s absence in the future that may need to be filled with overtime. Because earned compensatory time does not come out of existing budgetary allocations, BPD does not monitor its use as systematically as they do paid overtime.

Compensatory time is not costless, and has the potential to cause a chain reaction of more backfill and more compensatory time. For example, if a patrol officer works 10 hours of overtime, they could choose to earn 15 hours of compensatory time for that work, or they could choose to be compensated for their overtime work at time-and-a-half pay. When that officer takes those 15 hours of compensatory leave, another officer must work overtime to fill the vacancy. The officer might backfill in exchange for 22.5 hours of compensatory time. That 22.5 hours of leave might then be backfilled for

33.75 hours, and so on. Additionally, unused compensatory time is paid out when an officer leaves the City. BPD does have a policy limiting sworn officers’ accumulation of compensatory time to 120 hours, which should limit the amount of unfunded liability that comes with accumulated compensatory time and the potential chain reaction of backfilling and compensatory time. Our audit did not determine whether this policy is being enforced.

Staffing analytics tools and processes can factor in the costs of compensatory time, including projected salary increases and the impacts of compensatory time on future staffing. Monitoring compensatory time usage would allow supervisors to see if backfill increases over time.

According to the Berkeley Police
Association Memorandum of
Understanding, compensatory
time off may be earned in lieu of
overtime pay at the rate of one
and one-half hours for each
hour worked beyond 40 hours.

Officers can accumulate up to a
maximum of 120 compensatory
hours. Upon termination of
employment, the City must pay
out the full amount of
compensation for accumulated
but unused compensatory time.

Whether compensatory time is
earned or overtime is paid is up
to the discretion of the Police
Chief. (BPA MOU sections 19.4
and 19.1.1.2)

516

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 17 Recommendations
To manage costs associated with compensatory time and the impact of vacancies on overtime, we recommend Berkeley Police Department:

1.1 Collect and monitor data on how often compensatory time leads to additional backfill overtime and develop a plan to monitor it.

1.2 Fill vacancies deemed necessary and/or reallocate staff pending the reimagining process and a determination of appropriate staffing levels.

517

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 18 Minimum staffing levels in BPD’s Patrol
Unit could cause unnecessary overtime
if not regularly updated.

In 2016, BPD updated minimum staffing levels in the Patrol Unit to meet service demands and ensure officer safety; however, it is difficult to know whether these levels continue to reflect the City and the department’s needs.

Additionally, patrol minimum staffing levels are based on what BPD is responsible for responding to, which is subject to the reimagining process.

BPD does not have a process to regularly assess the efficacy of minimum staffing levels in their Patrol Unit. Without regularly reassessing minimum staffing levels, BPD cannot ensure that staffing reflects the changing nature of the department and community needs and expectations.

It is unclear whether minimum staffing reflects the current needs of the City and BPD.

Minimum staffing levels can be informed by a variety of factors. The Patrol Unit’s minimum staffing is informed by a study of police beats by Matrix Consulting Group that was commissioned by the City in 2014.5 The study considered factors including community and town hall meetings, population, geography, officer workload, calls for service, response time (including proactive patrol time), and industry standards/best practices. As a result of the study, BPD transitioned to the current 16-beat structure in 2016 and assigned minimum staffing accordingly (Figure 7).

5 Police Patrol Beat Evaluation Study, City Of Berkeley, Final Report: https:// www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Police/Level_3_-_General/Berkeley% 20Beat%20Structure%20Final%20Report%208-20-14(1).pdf

518

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 19 In recent years, BPD officers have encountered situations requiring increased collaboration across City departments, such as homelessness and mental health. BPD has taken measures to adapt to these needs, whether by revamping the Bike Unit, collaborating with Berkeley Mental Health, or fielding homeless-related inquiries through the Community Services Bureau.

Following a request from City Council as part of the reimagining process, we initiated an audit of calls for service and proposed recommendations on how BPD can better track calls for service related to mental health and homelessness.6 The City is currently working with the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force and consultants to identify areas of police work that can be achieved through alternative approaches.

As of the writing of this report, BPD’s Patrol Unit continues to adhere to the same staffing model from 2016, and minimum staffing remains unchanged.

Currently, it is difficult to know whether the Patrol Unit’s staffing model aligns with the evolving needs of the community and the department’s adaptation. Without a regular assessment of their staffing levels, BPD cannot determine the extent to which operational changes exceed their staffing capacity. Given limited capacity and a lack of staffing software in the Department, it is difficult for BPD to quantify the extent to which patrol teams struggle to meet minimum staffing. More work can be done to quantify how often BPD falls below minimum staffing.

BPD does not regularly assess the efficacy of their
minimum staffing model.

While minimum staffing is intended to meet the needs of the community, it should not stretch officers too thin nor lead to an excessive number of officers on duty. According to a best practice review by San Francisco’s Budget and Legislative Analyst Office, effective minimum staffing is grounded in an up-to- date assessment of community needs and staffing levels which often evolve over time.7 It is important that departments regularly assess that their model is dynamic, appropriately addresses community needs, and accounts for staffing realities.

6 Data Analysis of the City of Berkeley ’s Police Response : https:// www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Auditor/Level_3_-_General/Data% 20Analysis%20of%20the%20City%20of%20Berkeley's%20Police%20Response.pdf 7 Best Practices Related to Police Staffing and Funding Levels: https://sfbos.org/sites/ default/files/FileCenter/Documents/54867-012616%20Police%20Staffing% 20Methodology.pdf

519

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 20 According to BPD, command staff routinely assess staff capacity in order to meet patrol minimum staffing levels. However, BPD does not regularly assess the Patrol Unit’s staffing model in response to changing community needs.

While minimum staffing is an important determinant of overtime, the patrol minimum staffing levels are not documented by BPD. There is no explicit reference to minimum staffing in BPD’s list of policies, nor are they stated in BPD’s publicly accessible list of patrol beats and officers. While an appendix in BPA’s 2017-2020 MOU refers to minimum staffing, the document refers to BPD’s outdated 18 beat structure.

It is unclear whether the Patrol Unit’s minimum staffing is sufficient, and BPD does not use a standard to quantify or regularly assess the adequacy of staffing. Command staff rely on informal precedent, professional judgement, and feedback from officers to determine if staffing levels are adequate.

According to BPD, command staff especially consider safety and officer engagement as factors for considering staffing adequacy.

In their 2021 annual crime report, BPD reported that low staffing has impacted the Patrol Unit’s ability to proactively address and solve problems in the community. BPD identifies four main metrics to consider when determining patrol staffing and allocation: service levels, staffing levels, response time, and patrol time. These metrics are related and when one is impacted there are likely impacts to others. According to BPD, when they are fully staffed they are able to provide full service, reliable response times, proactive preventative patrol presence, and community engagement.

An effective staffing model includes regular assessments that are built into the department’s internal operations. Using staffing software, BPD can draw insights from small, regular reports rather than extensive staffing assessments conducted by a third party. Codifying this process into a procedure or policy helps the department proactively respond to staffing needs and promotes transparency. Additionally, internal reports can serve as tools to communicate the department’s capacity to decisionmakers and the public, align expectations with the community, and promote knowledge transfer between command staff and leadership.

520

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 21 Recommendations
To ensure staffing levels are transparent, appropriate, and can be adapted to the current needs of the community, we recommend Berkeley Police Department (BPD):

To increase transparency to decision makers and the public, we recommend Berkeley Police Department:

2.1 Establish a procedure to regularly assess minimum staffing and overall staffing needs of the department. This process should document and incorporate criteria to assess staffing levels, such as calls for service, other workload, community input, and other relevant factors. As BPD prepares for the rollout of a new software system, BPD should consider how to best align the program’s capabilities with this assessment process.

2.2 Document and define the Patrol Unit’s minimum staffing levels in a publicly assessible format.

2.3 Document the results of staffing assessments along with the assessment criteria. Incorporate results into staffing projections for budgetary decision making, including establishing a sufficient and appropriate overtime budget.

521

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 22 Officers work excessive overtime,
increasing health and safety risks.

BPD does not adhere to their overtime policies and controls. In FY 2020, 21 percent of BPD officers exceeded the 44 hour overtime limit at least once.

Excessive overtime can lead to fatigue-impaired officers, increasing risks to officers, the City, and the public. They do not have an effective system to enforce their policy and manage overtime. BPD relies on manually prepared paper records for scheduling and tracking regular and overtime hours worked. Without adequate enforcement of policies and tools to manage overtime, BPD cannot fully mitigate risks associated with officer fatigue.

Officers exceed overtime limits set by BPD.

On average, BPD officers worked 13.2 hours of overtime per week during FY 2020, and some worked significantly more. According to BPD, most overtime shifts are filled on a voluntary basis. Some amount of overtime work in policing is necessary and unavoidable, and will occur regardless of the number of officers employed. Officers may need to complete arrests at the end of their shifts, fill in to cover absences, or assist in safely facilitating public events. Police work also inevitably generates court appearances, trainings, and work on holidays (see Figure 8 for details of how BPD used overtime in FY 2020).

BPD has a policy to regulate overtime by placing limits on the total number of hours that officers can work within specific periods and requires officers have a minimum of eight hours off between shifts. In FY 2020, there were 62 occurrences of officers exceeding BPD’s weekly limit of 44 hours of overtime in a week. Twenty-one percent of BPD officers (36 officers) exceeded this limit at least once, however, one officer exceeded the limit 11 times in FY 2020 (Figure 10). Without enforcement and oversight of these limits, BPD’s policies may not be sufficient to manage the burnout and fatigue associated with overtime. For instance, an officer who works 44 hours of overtime in one week with recommended levels of sleep will only have 4 daily hours of off-duty time. As officers exceed this limit, they cut into their recovery time and increase their risk of burnout. There were two times when an officer worked more than 60 hours of overtime in a week, which is more than 100 total hours worked in a week.

BPD’s internal Policy 1015
states that BPD staff should not
work more than:
• 16 hours in one day (24
hour) period or
• 30 hours in any 2-day (48
hour) period or
• 84 hours in any 7-day (168
hour) period
Additionally, the policy
recommends a minimum of 8
hours between shifts except in
very limited circumstances.

These limitations apply to
overtime. Supervisors should
consider reasonable rest
periods and are authorized to
deny overtime or relieve any
member who has exceeded the
above guidelines. Limitations on
the number of hours worked
apply to shift changes, shift
trades, rotation, holdover,
training, general overtime and
any other work assignments.

522

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 23 Figure 10. BPD Officers Exceed BPD’s Overtime Limit of 44 Hours in a Week in FY 2020
Note: The chart represents a total of 168 sworn officers. It does not include Captains, the Police Chief, Reserve Officers, and Retired Annuitants as they do not receive overtime pay. In addition, it excludes 1 officer who worked only one shift in FY 2020.

Source: BPD Payroll Data
Additionally, we found that more officers are working longer stretches without days off. In FY 2019, nearly half of sworn officers worked a week or more with no days off at least once, and one officer worked 47 consecutive days in a row.

By FY 2020, 85 percent of officers worked a week or more with no days off at least once. BPD does not have a policy limiting the number of consecutive days officers can work. The department policy requires officers to take eight hours of rest between shifts, except in very limited circumstances, however, due to the manual nature of BPD’s staffing and time tracking we were unable to confirm that this policy is enforced.

523

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 24 Long work hours and fatigue can negatively impact officer safety, health, and performance.

While we did not perform specific analysis of the impact of overtime on BPD officers, excessive overtime can lead to fatigue-impaired officers, increasing risks to officers, the City, and the public. Police are required to be alert and use good judgment in order to respond appropriately to emergency calls. They must be able to make split second decisions and act on them with limited time and information in situations where there may be an element of danger. They are not only responsible for the safety of the public but also for other responding public safety officials (police, firefighters, paramedics). Overtime, when used in excess, can inhibit these essential skills and increase the safety risk to the public and other personnel.

Working more hours can increase fatigue, which has been found to increase injuries and accidents. Studies have found that fatigue negatively affects both police and the communities they serve.8 Fatigue increases the risk of accidents and other safety incidents, such as decreasing officer alertness, impairing decision-making ability, and slowing down reaction time. According to research, impairment after 20 hours of wakefulness equals that of an individual with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.10. Fatigue also harms work performance by weakening memory, lowering frustration tolerance, and increasing stress and burnout. Finally, fatigue can have long-term health implications for officers, increasing blood pressure, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and obesity.

We did not do an analysis of these impacts on BPD specifically as that would have required more resources than this report covered.

8 Vila et al., 2002: Improving shift schedule and work -hour policies and practices to increase police officer performance, health, and safety; and Lindsey, D., 2007: Police fatigue: An accident waiting to happen

524

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 25 BPD does not effectively track officer hours to enforce overtime limits.

Limits on overtime rely on effective monitoring and enforcement from supervisors. BPD’s overtime policy without enforcement does not control for excessive overtime. The monitoring and enforcement for these limits lies with supervisors, as Policy 1015 states, “Supervisors should give consideration to reasonable rest periods and are authorized to deny overtime or relieve to off- duty status any member who has exceeded the above guidelines.” BPD relies on manually prepared paper records for scheduling and tracking hours worked. Regular shifts and overtime hours are tracked on separate forms, with each overtime shift requiring a new form (Appendix III).

When tracing a sample of instances where officers exceeded overtime limits to paper overtime forms, there was no indication that supervisors were aware that these officers exceeded the overtime limits or why they were allowed to do so. There are legitimate reasons why supervisors might approve officers to exceed these limits, and the policy states that limitation of hours worked should be enforced absent emergency operations. We were unable to verify that any of these instances of exceeding the overtime limits were to staff for emergency operations.

Additionally, signing up for voluntary patrol overtime shifts are manual and first come, first serve. Supervisors post open overtime shifts on a corkboard in a central location in the public safety building. Officers manually write their badge number on an open shift to claim the overtime. This system does not necessarily block or limit officers from signing up for multiple spots.

According to BPD, officers are not required to seek approval from their supervisor, unless officers think it may impact or overlap their regular job duties.

525

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 26 Figure 11. Sign-ups for Patrol Overtime Shifts Are Manual and First Come, First Serve
Source: Berkeley Police Department
As a result of BPD’s manual processes, supervisors likely do not know how many hours an officer has worked leading up to a shift. This means that supervisors may select an officer for a new overtime shift who has already worked more than the supervisor thinks is safe.

Tracking all hours of work in one place is important because it can help supervisors ensure that officers are working safe amounts of hours, within the department’s limits, and that extra-duty overtime does not affect their regular duty assignments. One study by the Department of Justice states that overtime can be successfully managed through a combination of analysis, recordkeeping, management, and supervision.9 Without staffing software and digitized timekeeping, BPD policies and management may not be sufficient to manage the burnout and fatigue associated with overtime.

9 National Institute of Justice, Police Overtime: An Examination of Key Issues: https:// www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/167572.pdf

526

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 27 Recommendations
To mitigate the risks associated with excessive overtime and officer fatigue, we recommend Berkeley Police Department:

To ensure efficient and effective management of staffing and overtime, we recommend Berkeley Police Department:

3.2 Work to implement a staffing software solution that integrates overtime management and scheduling software. Develop
management reports that provide timely, accurate, and complete information on overtime usage. Develop a process for filling overtime shifts on a voluntary and mandatory basis, including supervisor approval. Build in warnings for when an individual is approaching overtime limits and an approval process for allowing individuals to exceed limits when deemed necessary according to the policy.

3.1 Update the department overtime policy to address the fact that there currently is no limit to the number of consecutive days worked and determine the appropriate limit for overtime that is enforceable with the goal of avoiding officer fatigue. The department may examine other jurisdictions’ overtime limits as possible criteria.

527

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 28 BPD has no contracts for overtime
security with outside entities.

The hours BPD officers spent conducting extra-duty, overtime security work for both public and private entities (work for outside entities) more than tripled in FY 2020. Personnel costs for providing security to outside entities also tripled from $160,000 in FY 2019 to almost $500,000 in FY 2020, amounting to 10 percent of all of BPD’s overtime personnel costs. BPD does not have written policies that define and govern this work. In addition, BPD does not have contracts with outside entities, which unnecessarily increases the City’s risks and liabilities. BPD’s process for tracking costs associated with work for outside entities is insufficient and we are unable to determine if the City is being reimbursed appropriately. Without documented policies and processes for establishing work for outside entity agreements, BPD cannot ensure their services are equitable and transparent.

Officers’ overtime work for outside entities more than
tripled in FY 2020.

The overtime hours BPD officers spent working for outside entities more than tripled in FY 2020, representing nine percent of all sworn overtime hours previously shown in Figure 8. The hours BPD officers work for outside entities contribute to the total strain overtime places on the department and individual officers. Outside entities are public and private organizations such as local businesses, schools, or private event organizers that request police services ranging from security, crowd and traffic management, to neighborhood patrol. Officers provide security in their capacity as BPD sworn officers and BPD pays them at the overtime rate, while outside entities submit reimbursements to the City. Officers worked with six major employers in FY 2020, and more than half (53 percent) of the overtime hours worked were for the Apple store (Figure 12). During this period, the 2,952 hours associated with the Apple store encompassed the equivalent of one full-time staff hours for an entire year.

A range of outside
entities have
requested BPD’s
services, including
but not limited to:

Retailers. BPD has provided
dedicated security services to
retail stores including the Apple
Store, Lululemon, and North
Face. BPD also provides patrol
and security for a merchant’s
association representing
businesses on Fourth Street.

Schools and universities.

BPD provides services to local
educational institutions
including UC Berkeley and
Berkeley High School (BHS).

According to BPD, services to
UC Berkeley are often for
football games. BPD’s
agreement with BHS supports
the cost for overtime incurred by
the full time School Resource
Officer or any other officer that
works in an overtime capacity
for BHS.

One-time events for private
companies. BPD also provides
services to companies for one-
time events. For instance, BPD
has provided security during
movie filming, security for
moves between commercial or
private residences, and crowd
management for
demonstrations against
installations of AT&T private
equipment.

528

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 29 Figure 12. BPD More than Tripled the Hours Spent Working Overtime for Outside Entities in FY 2020
Note: Fourth Street businesses includes holiday patrol.

Source: BPD Payroll Data
The employment of public officers for private security work, whether at an individual or department level, is not unique to BPD. Both the Davis Police Department10 and San Jose Police Department11 have procedures that enable sworn officers to provide private security overtime.

10 Davis Police Department, Extra -Duty and Off -Duty Employment Policy: https:// www.cityofdavis.org/home/showpublisheddocument/13243/636951554881270000 11 San Jose Police Department, Instructions for Secondary Employment: https:// www.sjpd.org/home/showpublisheddocument/350/637469312631370000

529

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 30 According to an Illinois Law Review study, outside entities are sometimes willing to pay the costs of hiring officers due to their capacity as sworn officers, including the ability to detain, search, arrest, and use force on suspects.12 In August 2019, the San Francisco Chronicle surveyed security businesses, retailers, and police officers to explore the growth in San Francisco police as private paid security, known as the 10-B program.13 They found that outside entities rely on the visibility of a uniformed officer in a patrol vehicle to deter unwanted theft. Additionally, outside entities benefit from officers’ broader connection and communications to local law enforcement agencies. Our audit did not investigate the complex reasons for the growth in requests.

The BPD has no procedures or written agreements for
working overtime with outside entities.

BPD does not have policies nor criteria that govern the approval and administration of department agreements for work for outside entities. We also did not find evidence of contracts or written agreements between BPD and outside entities on these overtime arrangements. Without written contracts or agreements regarding the role or authority of a private company, BPD and the City of Berkeley may bear the cost of potential hazards that surface from work for outside entities. Updated policies and procedures are essential for the proper transparency and accountability of government resources and for achieving efficient and effective program results.

12 Stoughton, Seth W., Moonlighting: The Private Employment of Off -Duty Officers (August 26, 2016). 2017 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1848 (2017), Available at SSRN: https:// ssrn.com/abstract=2830652 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2830652 13 San Francisco Chronicle, Businesses hiring real SF cops on OT to keep crime down, employees safe; https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/Businesses - hiring-real-SF-cops-on-OT-to-keep-14365181.php

530

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 31 In 2020, sworn officers in every BPD division provided security for outside entities, amounting to 50 percent of all sworn staff eligible for overtime on BPD’s payroll. Unlike self-employment or employment by others, work for outside entities is executed by the department and paid for by reimbursements to the City from outside entities. Nevertheless, the City and BPD’s policies on outside employment (A.R. 2.10 and Policy 1020, respectively) do not define nor address reimbursed work for outside entities pursuant to an agreement between the department and those entities. Unlike BPD, Davis Police Department has policies guiding their contracted security work for outside entities. Davis’ policies in their arrangements with outside entities include liability and worker’s compensation, application protocols, account management, time of payment, and selection of officers.

Figure 13. Apple Accounted for the Majority of BPD’s Work for Outside Entities
Source: Berkeley City Auditor
It is City practice in other areas to enter into contracts and/or execute agreements when providing or obtaining services from outside entities. For example, the City has an administrative regulation that establishes a framework for approvals, contract execution, financial recording, and billing of grants and any other agreements such as reimbursement contracts, cooperative agreements, Memorandums of Understanding, or other participation agreements that provide an award of financial assistance to support a City program or project. Adopting similar processes for work for outside entities would improve transparency and decrease risk and liability to the City.

531

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 32 A lack of written agreements and policies, together with the increase in BPD’s work for outside entities, introduce unnecessary risks and liabilities across a variety of areas. We identified the following potential risks, among others:

Liabilities. Without an indemnity agreement to clarify the role and authority of outside entities, BPD and the City of Berkeley may open itself up to additional liability. A lack of agreements also creates ambiguity as to the responsibility of an officer working on behalf of an outside entity.

While working for outside entities, officers are assigned to provide security for that entity. They do not respond to calls or perform other general police functions, yet they maintain police powers and can exercise those powers while working on behalf of the outside entity. There may also be misperception on the part of the public, the officer, or the private entity as to the scope of duties and role of the outside entity and relationship with the officer.

Conflict of interest. A lack of priorities or criteria informing BPD’s approval of contracts introduces the risk of working arrangements with a conflict of interest or divergence from City values. Without criteria, there are no formal measures against working for businesses with a history of criminal activity, or businesses involved in legal proceedings against the City.

Administrative Gaps. Without formalized procedures, BPD risks executing important administrative steps partially and inconsistently, or missing some steps altogether. A formal application provides opportunities to collect information about services needed, review and approve contracts in a uniform manner, ensure alignment with the municipal code and BPD’s stated values, and establish expectations with prospective outside entities.

No limits to hours working for outside entities. It is difficult for officers and supervisors to monitor hours spent working for outside entities without overarching guidelines or limits regarding officer’s assignments. According to BPD, the Patrol Unit prioritizes other forms of overtime above work for outside entities.

532

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 33 Fewer data to manage the workload. Without methods to track the number of requests, approvals, and contracts for working with outside entities, BPD is unable to understand trends over time and proactively manage their workload accordingly. Tracking data on outside entity requests, along with project codes in BPD’s payroll data, would provide opportunities to inform beats and staff assignments in the future.

BPD does not effectively track costs of overtime security and it is unclear if the City is charging outside entities appropriately.

BPD’s personnel costs of working for outside entities tripled from $160,000 in FY 2019 to almost $500,000 in FY 2020, amounting to 10 percent of all of BPD’s overtime personnel costs. Under BPD’s current process for tracking costs associated with work for outside entities, we cannot determine if the City is recovering the full cost for their services to outside entities.

According to BPD, they charge outside entities only for the payroll costs incurred by the officer’s work for outside entities, including benefits that are paid for overtime. The City does not recover costs associated with the use of City vehicles nor the administration of these agreements including planning, staffing, and invoicing. We also found BPD charges the businesses on Fourth street a flat fee of $5,000 during the winter holidays, even if the cost of services exceeds this amount. This arrangement pre-dates the current Fiscal Management staff, and it is unclear when or why it was established. We cannot know the full excess costs of flat fee arrangements as BPD does not identify them in their billing documents.

Without clearly understanding invoices and revenue, BPD cannot reconcile costs with their reimbursements. As a result, BPD may continually underbill for their services and not recover the full costs of officer overtime. On the other hand, BPD may overbill outside entities, which can influence perceptions about working with the City. It is difficult to track the appropriateness of reimbursements for several reasons:

BPD cannot separate out revenue. Checks are deposited into a general revenue account along with other revenues. As such the City cannot separate out specific revenues tied to work for outside entities.

533

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 34 Manual process subject to error. Data entry errors may surface as the payroll clerk manually calculates the hours worked by each individual plus the benefitted amount, as well as invoice amounts in the system. It is possible that hours do not get added to payroll, or that they get added to the wrong project code.

BPD’s billing can have errors. BPD follows a billing procedure that exists outside of the City’s accounts receivable system using spreadsheets. The department does not have quality controls to review the spreadsheets for accuracy, and the growth in requests for outside entities is outgrowing BPD’s capacity to closely monitor a growing number of the invoices to outside entities.

Additionally, revenues from outside party reimbursements are not fully credited back to BPD. Reimbursements from outside entities are deposited into the City’s General Fund, and BPD’s expenditures for overtime work with outside entities can exceed the City’s budgeted amount. According to BPD’s Fiscal Services Manager, the budgeted expenditures for work with outside entities have remained fixed at $150,000 for over a decade, despite the growth of personnel expenditures to $498,685 in FY 2020. Reimbursements for overtime work with outside entities do not replenish the overtime fund from which BPD officers were paid, and are not guaranteed to be allocated to BPD.

Without policies and documentation, BPD cannot ensure
transparent and equitable services.

BPD leadership should know how to best deploy its officer resources, but work for outside entities as it is currently operating may undermine that judgment.

The breadth and prevalence of work for outside entities in FY 2020 has essentially privatized a portion of officer overtime, and without policies to manage this growth, BPD may encounter unforeseen impacts related to equity and transparency of their services for businesses and residents alike.

Occasionally, multiple officers will provide services simultaneously for companies located in the same beat alongside the regular beat officer; this is especially true for security for various companies on Fourth street (Figure 13).

BPD does not have agreements or written procedures to prevent policing from skewing toward one specific contract or type of entity at the expense of other businesses or neighborhoods with higher service and crime response.

534

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 35 Figure 14. Work for Outside Entities in FY 2020 by Police Beats Source: BPD Beats Map on the Open Data Portal and Berkeley Police Department The lack of documentation surrounding outside entities also raises concerns around transparency and equity. As discussed previously, BPD historically provided a flat fee of $5,000 to the businesses on Fourth Street, and expenditures were higher than this fee. Without procedures, BPD may continue to use inconsistent flat fee arrangements leading the City to inadvertently charge one company less than another without criteria as to why. In addition, certain companies have dedicated contractors that coordinate their security. For instance, the firm Security Industry Specialists Inc. (SIS) handles Apple’s agreements with BPD, while smaller businesses may benefit from BPD security but lack these resources to acquire BPD’s services. Larger-income businesses can afford the additional protection afforded by sworn officers, while smaller businesses may be unable to benefit from City-sponsored security. Further, there is potential for bias or perception of bias if police working as private security encounter a dispute between an member of the public and the private entity. An officer that is providing security for a private entity may not be viewed as objective in resolving a conflict between that private entity and a member of the public. This risk is heightened by lack of regulation, documentation, and public communication.

535

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 36 While any community that wants security has a right to pay for it, it raises questions of equity of access when that extra security is provided by City- employed officers. BPD can improve equity if every business is able to access information about these services, and they provided a transparent application process for community members interested in obtaining these services. This brings up questions and considerations around BPD’s overall scope of work for outside entities given BPD’s staffing gaps, high levels of overtime, potential perceptions of bias, and the risks detailed above.

Transparency is especially important in the case of police work. Unlike most public officials—who may also be employed by outside entities—police officers retain their public authority in their capacity as sworn officers on behalf of outside entities. Since work as BPD officers is an extension of work for the City, relevant information about their work with private entities should be available internally to the City and/or the public. This practice is worthy of public discussion and evaluation.

Recommendations
To ensure work with outside entities is in full compliance with relevant laws and policies, and to increase transparency and reduce liabilities, we recommend Berkeley Police Department (BPD):

4.1 Update A.R. 2.10 and other department policies to explicitly include guidance around department agreements for work for outside entities, which is paid for by reimbursements to the City from the outside entities. Internal procedures should include appropriate criteria to identify and document the benefit to the City gained by work for outside entity agreements, and to allocate resources in a way that does not negatively impact City operations.

Additionally, BPD should document their criteria for when officers are not available or eligible for work for outside entities.

4.2 In consultation with the City Attorney, create contracts with outside entities in compliance with City policies and applicable laws.

536

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 37 To ensure the City is being appropriately reimbursed for policing services contracted out to outside entities or any other agreements (i.e., special events), we recommend Berkeley Police Department:

4.3 Develop an application for BPD’s services that is publicly available and accessible online to any interested party. Set pay uniformly according to rank and hourly rate and include a reasonable fee that covers the expenses of administering work for outside entities including workers compensation, fuel, use of equipment, and any other actual or potential costs to the City.

4.4 Reconcile invoices with the amounts received for work with outside entities at regular intervals. BPD should also implement procedures to check invoices for errors prior to billing outside entities.

4.5 Explore ways to clearly account for different funds to track revenues and expenses.

537

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 38 Recommendations and Management Response

1.1 Collect and monitor data on how often compensatory time leads to additional backfill overtime and develop a plan to monitor it.

Management Response: Agree.

Proposed Implementation Plan: BPD is currently working to implement an electronic staffing solution. The Department will assess the ability to monitor and track this information in electronic staffing in order to understand the expense and impacts of compensatory time. BPD will explore the possibility of developing a report through existing payroll and finance programs to understand the impact of compensatory time usage and practices.

Proposed Implementation Date: Estimated completion within 18 months from date of audit response.

1.2 Fill vacancies deemed necessary and/or reallocate staff pending the reimagining process and a determination of appropriate staffing levels.

Management Response: Agree.

Proposed Implementation Plan: BPD understands the impact that reduced staffing has on overtime costs and always strives to fill vacancies and operate within our budget.

Challenges in retention of existing officers, difficulty hiring new officers and many imminent retirements make it difficult to apply a timeline on implementation of this recommendation.

Recruitment efforts, prioritization of hiring and related processes and budget authority to hire will be instrumental to the department’s success.

Proposed Implementation Date: Ongoing.

We provided a draft of this report to City Management and BPD for review and comment. City Management agreed to our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Below is the BPD’s initial corrective action plan and proposed implementation date. We find their plan to address our audit recommendations reasonable. As part of the follow-up process, the Berkeley City Auditor will be actively engaged with the Police Department every six months to assess the progress they are making towards complete implementation. The department will submit a council item every 6 months with an update on the progress of their recommendations.

538

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 39 2.1
Establish a procedure to regularly assess minimum staffing and overall staffing needs of the department. This process should document and incorporate criteria to assess staffing levels, such as calls for service, other workload, community input, and other relevant factors. As BPD prepares for the rollout of a new software system, BPD should consider how to best align the program’s capabilities with this assessment process.

Management Response: BPD agrees with this recommendation in that regular assessments assist the department with the best allocation and deployment of resources. Our staffing needs may fluctuate as priorities change, but our responsibility to meet public safety demands is always paramount.

Proposed Implementation Plan: Internal evaluations will be completed annually to address constantly changing conditions, call volume, crime data and other external factors.

The reimagining public safety efforts may also necessitate changing focus and deployment strategies. BPD will explore engaging outside consultants every ten years to evaluate patrol staffing levels so as to have a useful body of data for evaluation (for example; tying staffing evaluations to census reports).

Proposed Implementation Date: Estimated completion within 18-24 months from date of audit response.

2.2 Document and define the Patrol Unit’s minimum staffing levels in a publicly assessible format.

Management Response: Agree.

Proposed Implementation Plan: BPD will update the department webpage to include information on beat structure, teams, and deployment. This will also include current beat officer assignment.

Proposed Implementation Date: Estimated completion within 6 months from date of audit response.

2.3 Document the results of staffing assessments along with the assessment criteria. Incorporate results into staffing projections for budgetary decision making, including establishing a sufficient and appropriate overtime budget.

Management Response: Agree. Our staffing needs may fluctuate as priorities change, but our responsibility to meet public safety demands is always paramount.

Proposed Implementation Plan: Internal evaluations will be completed annually to address constantly changing conditions, call volume, crime data and other external factors.

BPD will explore engaging outside consultants every ten years to also evaluate this item.

Proposed Implementation Date: Estimated completion within 18-24 months from date of audit response though this is subject to change as it is part of the overall budget process.

539

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 40 3.1
Update the department overtime policy to address the fact that there currently is no limit to the number of consecutive days worked and determine the appropriate limit for overtime that is enforceable with the goal of avoiding officer fatigue. The department may examine other jurisdictions’ overtime limits as possible criteria.

Management Response: Agree.

Proposed Implementation Plan: BPD will review existing policy and ensure that any policy updates or clarification are completed. BPD will conduct research to review fatigue mitigation programs and contact other agencies to learn what they are using successfully. A byproduct of reduced staffing can be increased or excessive overtime where minimum staffing levels or public safety needs necessitate police response. The Department will explore options to develop data collection and monitoring within the electronic staffing solution to be able to regularly assess if there is an issue.

Proposed Implementation Date: Estimated completion within 24 months from date of audit response.

3.2 Work to implement a staffing software solution that integrates overtime management and scheduling software. Develop management reports that provide timely, accurate, and complete information on overtime usage. Develop a process for filling overtime shifts on a voluntary and mandatory basis, including supervisor approval. Build in warnings for when an individual is approaching overtime limits and an approval process for allowing individuals to exceed limits when deemed necessary according to the policy.

Management Response: BPD agrees that a staffing software solution could assist with overtime management and scheduling needs.

Proposed Implementation Plan: BPD is already heavily engaged in seeking a software solution. The RFP process is completed, and the vetting process is nearing completion to select the vendor. Following completion of a contract, the steps towards implementation will begin. The Department will have to rely on Information Technology for implementation, consequently timing will depend how this project fits the PD/IT workplan.

Proposed Implementation Date: Estimated completion within 24 months from date of audit response.

540

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 41 4.1
Update A.R. 2.10 and other department policies to explicitly include guidance around department agreements for work for outside entities, which is paid for by reimbursements to the City from the outside entities. Internal procedures should include appropriate criteria to identify and document the benefit to the City gained by work for outside entity agreements, and to allocate resources in a way that does not negatively impact City operations. Additionally, BPD should document their criteria for when officers are not available or eligible for work for outside entities.

Management Response: Agree.

Proposed Implementation Plan: BPD will work with the City Manager’s Office to identify necessary adjustments to the CoB A.R.2.10, current BPD practices engaging in reimbursable service contract, and the overall administration of departmental agreements for work with outside entities.

The Department will create a webpage on the Department’s website with information explaining the process for requesting services. This would include a point of contact to discuss criteria and evaluation of service requests, including staffing impacts. Also included will be clear language explaining that public safety response will be the highest priority.

Proposed Implementation Date: Estimated completion within 12 months from date of audit response.

4.2 In consultation with the City Attorney, create contracts with outside entities in compliance with City policies and applicable laws.

Management Response: Agree.

Proposed Implementation Plan: BPD will work with the City Manager’s Office, and in consultation with the City Attorney, to determine appropriate contract(s) for reimbursable service contracts.

Proposed Implementation Date: Estimated completion within 24 months from date of audit response.

541

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 42 4.3
Develop an application for BPD’s services that is publicly available and accessible online to any interested party. Set pay uniformly according to rank and hourly rate and include a reasonable fee that covers the expenses of administering work for outside entities including workers compensation, fuel, use of equipment, and any other actual or potential costs to the City.

Management Response: Agree.

Proposed Implementation Plan: We intend to create a webpage on the Department’s website with information explaining the process for requesting services. This would include a point of contact to discuss criteria and evaluation of service requests, including staffing impacts. Also included will be clear language explaining that public safety response will be the highest priority.

Proposed Implementation Date: Estimated completion within 12-18 months from date of audit response.

4.4 BPD should reconcile invoices with the amounts received for work with outside entities at regular intervals. BPD should also implement procedures to check invoices for errors prior to billing outside entities.

Management Response: Agree.

Proposed Implementation Plan: BPD will discuss possible solutions with other city stakeholders, including the Finance Department.

Proposed Implementation Date: Estimated 12 months from date of audit completion.

4.5 Explore ways to clearly account for different funds to track revenues and expenses.

Management Response: Agree.

Proposed Implementation Plan: BPD will discuss possible solutions with other city stakeholders, including other city departments.

Proposed Implementation Date: Estimated 12 months from date of audit completion.

542

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 43 Methodology
We audited the Berkeley Police Department’s (BPD) budget and operations for fiscal years (FY) 2015 through 2020. We assessed historic funding levels going as far back as FY 1970 when data was available. We performed a risk assessment of BPD’s practices and procedures to identify potential internal control weaknesses, including fraud risks, within the context of our audit objectives. This included a review of selected policies and procedures, as well as interviews with subject matter experts and BPD staff.

To gain an understanding of BPD’s operations and internal controls and to achieve our audit objectives, we reviewed the following:
• Biennial budget reports, financial reports, and census data summarizing historic trends in BPD’s budget and staffing.
• State and federal laws governing police overtime, staffing, and work with outside entities. • Previous audit recommendations, staffing assessments, and BPD’s organization chart informing BPD’s departmental structure and practices.
• General orders and protocols detailing BPD’s limits on overtime and minimum staffing. • Existing agreements for BPD’s police services including grants, mutual aid, special events, and outside entities.
• Written procedures and common forms used by BPD supervisors to monitor and approve overtime.
• National media on police budgeting and reimagining policing. • Professional literature on effective management of overtime and staffing in police operations. • Other audits and police practices in comparison cities related to police budgeting, staffing and overtime.

We also conducted interviews with:
• BPD police officers in the Operations and Support Services departments spanning the ranks of police officer, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, and chief. • Berkeley Police Association President and Vice President. • BPD administrative staff including the Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager and the Department’s payroll clerks.
• City leadership including the Manager of the Budget Office, the Berkeley City Attorney, and City Councilmembers.
• Peer auditors in the City of San Jose that conducted an audit on police staffing.

Methodology and Statement of Compliance

543

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 44 We analyzed:
• The City’s financial system payroll data for BPD from FY 2019 to FY 2020. • BPD budget and expenditures for each year from FY 2015 to FY 2021; BPD budgets for FY 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010.
• BPD’s record of invoices for work with outside entities.

Data Reliability
We assessed the reliability of payroll data by reviewing it for completeness, appropriateness, and consistency.

We determined it is sufficient and reliable for the purposes of our work. The data captures that date of the hours, the staff member, authorized and actual position title, and hour code. We noted a limitation in the data in that the position title associated with individuals is their current title and does not necessarily reflect the title at the time the hours were earned. Additionally, the data does not capture adjustments made to correct labor distributions and project charges. These limitations do not significantly impact our use of the data.

Independence
Payroll Audit is a Division of the City Auditor’s Office. Payroll Audit Division performs citywide payroll functions and is a module leader for the payroll/personnel module used to record payroll costs. BPD is solely responsible for identifying the payroll codes applicable to their staff’s time reported on timesheets and overtime forms and for providing sufficient documentation to support those hours for payroll processing.

Payroll Audit is not responsible for verifying the employee’s time or the use of budget codes by the department. Payroll limits its review to ensuring that BPD payroll clerks provide the appropriate and sufficient documentation for the reported time.

To reduce the threat to our independence, we limited our work to exclude areas overseen by our office. We also selected data from closed payroll periods that was in read only status and we traced select data back to source documents to verify that the data is reliable.

We consulted with representatives from the Government Accountability Office to discuss the engagement and the safeguards we put in place. They determined that with the safeguards mentioned above we had reduced the identified threats to our independence to an acceptable level to proceed with the audit.

Statement of Compliance
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

544

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 45 City Funding
General Fund. The General Fund is the chief operating fund in the City. It accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund.

Parking Meter Fund. The Parking Meter Fund is one of the City’s major enterprise funds. It accounts for the collection of coins from the City’s parking meters and for the purchasing, leasing, installing, repairing, maintaining, operating, removing, and policing of the meters.

State Funding
State funding to BPD derives from a combination of grant funding and revenue from state ballot measures.

Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) Grant. This program focuses on reducing the number of alcohol related calls for service to BFD and reducing the availability of alcohol to underage persons. It includes a partnership with UC Berkeley to work with student groups in organized events involving alcohol, including “operation trapdoor” to identify students using fake IDs, and conducting patrol on house parties.

State Public Safety Sales Tax Proposition 172. Ballot measure approved in 1993, imposed a state sales tax to be used for local public safety activities. As of FY20-21, it formed 0.25 percent of the total sales tax rate in Alameda County. The state distributes Proposition 172 revenues to each county based on its proportionate share of statewide taxable sales.

Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS). The State Controller’s Office allocates the Citizens' Option for Public Safety funds to law enforcement agencies according to the relative population for each county and city.

In FY 2021, Berkeley was projected to be allocated $186,209 COPS funding. The allocations may be slightly different from the projections made by the State Controller's Office due to rounding.

Asset Forfeiture Fund. Asset forfeiture is the process by which legal ownership of an asset is transferred to BPD. According to the Health and Safety Code Section 11495, the funds received by the law enforcement agencies are deposited into an account maintained by the controller, county auditor, or city treasurer. From there, they are distributed to law enforcement agencies at their request. Sixty-five percent of State asset forfeiture proceeds are distributed to state and/or local law enforcement agencies that participated in the seizure of the assets. Fifteen percent of those funds must be deposited in a special fund maintained by a council made up of local government entities. These funds are restricted to be used for the sole purpose of funding programs designed to combat drug abuse and divert gang activity (Health and Safety Code 11489). In FY 2019, Berkeley PD received $127,629.88 in state asset forfeiture funds from Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano County. There were no reported state asset forfeiture funds received by Berkeley PD in FY 2020.

Appendix I. BPD Funding Streams

545

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 46 Mutual Aid from State Agencies. Mutual aid costs are paid for by the state for instances when the state becomes involved. Otherwise, the cost of mutual aid is the responsibility of each agency participating. Five state agencies have specific responsibilities to support local law enforcement during emergency situations:

California Highway Patrol, State Military Department, Department of Justice, Department of Corrections, and the Officer of the California State Police.

Federal Funding
Federal funding for BPD derives exclusively from grants. BPD has received funding from the following grants:

Alameda County Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Grant. JAG-funded projects address crime by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of criminal justice systems, processes, and procedures. BPD receives funding from the JAG as a member of a consortium with the Alameda County Sheriff’s office and other cities of Alameda County. As part of the JAG Consortium, BPD used funds to supplement overtime and benefits for sworn and non-sworn personnel engaged in targeted crime suppression activities.

Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP). The goal of the STEP program is to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in traffic crashes using “best practice” strategies. The grant funds strategies related to traffic enforcement including but not limited to: DUI checkpoints, DUI saturation patrols, warrant service operations, stakeout operations, educational presentations, court stings. There is also a media element to enhance deterrence.

Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Avoid the 21 Campaign. The grant activities target those who drink too much and get behind the wheel. DUI/Driver’s License Checkpoints are a key component of the grant, being highly visible, highly publicized events. Officers staff DUI/Driver License Checkpoints, multi-agency DUI Task Force deployments, and local DUI saturation patrols for each partnering agency.

546

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 47 Appendix II. Reasons for Overtime: Hours and Expenditures

Source: BPD Payroll Data

547

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 48 Source: BPD Payroll Data

548

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 49 Appendix III. Extraordinary Duty Form

549

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 50 Source: Berkeley Police Department

550

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 51 Source: Berkeley Police Department
Appendix IV . Sample BPD Patrol Timesheet

551

Mission Statement
Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government.

Audit Team
Erin Mullin, Senior Auditor
Alejandra Barrio Gorski, Auditor I

City Auditor
Jenny Wong

Office of the City Auditor
Phone: (510) 981-6750
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.cityofberkeley.info/auditor

Copies of our audit reports are available at
www.cityofberkeley.info/Auditor/Home/Audit_Reports.aspx

552
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7120 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin
Subject: Support for AB-2053 (Social Housing Act)

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter in support of Assembly Bill 2053 to the state legislature.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 2053 is an updated version of Assembly Bill 387 (2021) by Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San Jose). The bill would establish the California Housing Authority, a new agency to develop and operate mixed-income social housing throughout the state. The bill defines social housing as publicly backed, self-sustaining housing that accommodates a mix of household income ranges. Social housing is protected from being sold to a private for-profit entity for the duration of its useful life, and residents are granted the same protections as tenants in private property, if not more. Dwelling units would be provided both for leasehold ownership and as rental housing.

Because social housing is internally cross-subsidized by higher income households (including rents at market rate), it would avoid the problems of concentrated poverty, disinvestment, and lack of operating subsidies that has afflicted public housing throughout the United States in the past. This model is already working successfully elsewhere in the United States, including Montgomery County, Maryland under the supervision of the Housing Opportunity Commission (HOC)1, and Sacramento’s CADA agency.2
On November 9, 2021, the Berkeley City Council unanimously passed a resolution recognizing housing as a human right, as well as committing to a study of social housing models in Berkeley, which is currently pending future funding. The City Council has recognized that housing security and fair housing opportunity is a core mandate of the public sector, and that it can learn from other countries with successful public sector housing development models, such as Vienna and Singapore. 1 https://www.hocmc.org/news-archive/775-hoc-breaks-ground-at-900-thayer-in-silver-spring.html 2 https://www.cadanet.org/resources-agendas/fast-facts

553
[Title of Report] CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120
Attachments:
1: Letter

554
The Honorable Alex Lee
State Capitol – Room 2170
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0025
Assembly member Lee:

The City Council of the City of Berkeley is proud to support Assembly Bill 2053, the Social Housing Act. We believe that a state housing agency developing publicly-owned, mixed-income housing with a skilled and trained workforce and maintained by diverse communities of residents offers a promising path toward housing abundance and economic justice.

On November 9, 2021, the Berkeley City Council unanimously passed a resolution recognizing housing as a human right, as well as committing to a study of social housing models in Berkeley.

The City Council has recognized that housing security and fair housing opportunity is a core mandate of the public sector, and that it can learn from other countries with successful public sector housing development models, such as Vienna and Singapore. By establishing a statewide Housing Authority to produce and preserve social housing, your bill could have transformative impacts with regards to expanding housing opportunity and providing sustainable community autonomy for Berkeley residents and residents-to-be.

California currently ranks 49th out of all 50 states in new homes built per capita, and roughly one-fifth of the population bears an extraordinary rent burden, paying over half of their income in rent. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, over 800,000 households in the state would have stayed above the poverty line in 2019 if housing costs had remained constant at 2013 levels. While progress is incremental, even minor improvements represent real material gains for our most vulnerable residents. Berkeley and other cities are making substantive efforts to increase housing supply, but we are well aware that neither the private market nor publicly subsidies alone can build us out of a housing shortage that was decades in the making. It will take every available strategy on the table, and the City of Berkeley is heartened by your bold and innovative proposal.

With gratitude,
The Berkeley City Council
2180 Milvia St
Berkeley, CA 94704

555
556
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7120 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin, Councilmember Wengraf (co-sponsor), Mayor Arreguín (co-sponsor), Councilmember Robinson (co-sponsor) Subject: Support for AB-2336

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter of support for Assembly Bill 2336: Speed Safety System Pilot Program.

BACKGROUND
The California Vehicle Code currently does not permit the use of cameras for enforcement of speeding laws. Assembly Bill 550 (Chiu, 2021) would have established a pilot program for speeding cameras in several cities including Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, and Los Angeles. It failed to pass through the Assembly Appropriations Committee, despite being widely supported by local governments and street safety advocates.

This bill is a revived version of AB-550.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120

ATTACHMENTS

1. Letter

557
The Honorable Laura Friedman
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0043
Assembly Member Friedman:

The City Council of the City of Berkeley is proud to support your bill, AB-2336, to establish a pilot program for speeding cameras. Speeding cameras are used for traffic enforcement successfully in jurisdictions throughout the country to hold irresponsible motorists accountable for putting lives at risk, reducing dangerous speeding and potentially saving countless lives.

Without basic tools for accountability, the public sector cannot meaningfully uphold the social contract that is supposed to preserve life and limb on our public infrastructure. We also respectfully request the inclusion of the City of Berkeley in the pilot program authorized in the bill.

In 2021, there were eight traffic fatalities in the City of Berkeley, a 34% increase from the previous year. Five of the eight were pedestrians. It was the deadliest year on Berkeley’s streets since 1984. Each death is a devastating loss for the slain person’s loved ones, local community, and society at large. Moreover, each death represents a failure of public policy to enact common sense restrictions on motor vehicles. Your bill is a much-needed step in the right direction.

Thank you very much for your tireless dedication to safe streets and transportation justice.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council
2180 Milvia St
Berkeley, CA 94704

558
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-[XXXX] ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-[XXXX] E-Mail: [e-mail address]

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin (Author), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Support for AB-2713

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter of Support for Assembly Bill 2713: Rent caps

BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 1482 (Chiu, 2019) caps gross rent increases to 5% per year plus the annual change in Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for All Items (CPI-U), or 10%, whichever is lower. However, it lacks a statewide enforcement mechanism and puts the onus on tenants to seek legal counsel to protect their rights.

AB-2713 would make any lease provision that violates AB-1482 rent caps legally unenforceable. Additionally, it would narrowly define the “intent to occupy” provision for a “just cause” tenancy termination to be a “good faith intention to occupy” a residential unit, prohibiting the use of this provision if the owner or a relative of the owner inhabits another unit on the property, or if there are vacant units on the property. Additionally, the owner must provide written notice to the tenant 180 days prior if they intend to withdraw the property from the rental market.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120
Attachments:
1: Letter

559
The Honorable Buffy Wicks
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Wicks:

The Berkeley City Council is proud to support your bill, AB-2713, to strengthen just cause eviction protections and caps on annual rent increases. As you know, rental prices in the Bay Area continue to skyrocket amid a statewide housing shortage, and lower-income residents and communities of color remain at highest risk of displacement. Evictions and displacement have well-documented impacts on individual health and safety, as well as widespread detriments to racial justice and equity.

Despite the statewide moratorium on rental evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, owner move-in evictions under the so-called Ellis Act have remained a disturbing problem for communities throughout the state. Furthermore, in spite of Berkeley’s strong rent control laws, the statewide cap on annual rent increases pursuant to AB-1482 offers little by way of enforcement, putting the burden on tenants to enforce the law to protect their rights. The City of Berkeley does not have the resources to provide sufficient legal assistance to every rental household, inclusive of those whose units are exempt from local rent control under the Costa- Hawkins Act, in order to enforce AB-1482.

Your bill offers fair and common-sense solutions to the difficult problem of balancing constitutional property rights with tenant stability and the serious humanitarian needs that stability entails. Narrowly curtailing a property owners’ “intent to occupy” provision for just cause termination, and requiring 180 days’ written notice prior to removing a unit from the rental market, increase stability for tenants without imposing an onerous burden on law-abiding property owners.

Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council
2180 Milvia St
Berkeley, CA 94704

560

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Terry Taplin
Subject: Budget Referral: West Berkeley Transportation Plan

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council refer $300,000 to the FY23-24 budget process for the hiring of a consultant to conduct a study and draft a comprehensive plan for transportation in West Berkeley through 2050.

FISCAL IMPACTS
An estimated $300,000 for the hiring of a consultant to study West Berkeley transportation patterns and craft the West Berkeley Transportation Plan.

BACKGROUND
Out of all the unique areas in the City of Berkeley, it is arguable that none have undergone more changes in the past century than the residential, commercial, and industrial sector of West Berkeley, which encompasses the City west of Sacramento Street. What is now known as West Berkeley was home to the native Ohlone people for thousands of years, who lived on or near the West Berkeley Shellmound. Following the European colonization of North America and the Bay Area, Berkeley was eventually incorporated in 1878 and West Berkeley became a quickly growing industrial and residential area. This growth, encouraged by the proximity of the waterfront, the Central Pacific Railroad, and the University of California, led to West Berkeley’s development into one of the Bay Area’s primary industrial areas during the first half of the twentieth century.

Initiated in 1985 and adopted in 1993, the West Berkeley Plan sought to reexamine and reinforce West Berkeley’s traditionally diverse use of light-industrial, commercial, and residential zoning in a way that would bring more economic life back to West Berkeley and plan for the area’s development through 2005.1 Though written nearly three decades ago, the Transportation section of the West Berkeley Plan raises many of the same concerns and goals that the City is still grappling with today. 1https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Redevelopment_Agency/West_Berkeley_Plan_(The).as px

561
The Transportation section of the West Berkeley Plan highlighted West Berkeley’s historically poor public transportation service and large amount of free parking, while seeking to plan for a West Berkeley with the reduced use of single-occupant automobiles, protection of local residential streets from through-traffic, reduced congestion, improved public transportation, and an overall improved environment for pedestrians and cyclists.2 All of these and more are issues for West Berkeley transportation in 2022. Automobile use is still much higher than is necessary to meet Berkeley’s climate and Vision Zero goals. Bus service has been reduced as AC Transit suspended Line 80, which serviced West Berkeley along Sixth Street, following pandemic-related budget cuts.

Encompassing almost the entirety of the Equity Priority Area under the Vision Zero Action Plan, West Berkeley is also the most dangerous part of all of Berkeley for pedestrians.3 Decades after the West Berkeley Plan, it is clear that the City Council must reexamine the state of transportation in West Berkeley and plan for a more accessible and sustainable future.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
As the City of Berkeley undergoes a Housing Element process to plan for the addition of a minimum of 8,943 new homes by 2031, West Berkeley corridors of San Pablo Avenue and University Avenue are among the Priority Development Areas (PDAs) targeted for infill housing in early plans.4 While the growth in West Berkeley’s population in the next decade will bring a welcome burst of new life and community to the City as a whole, the continued poor condition of transportation in West Berkeley as the population grows will only encourage these thousands of new residents to continue their reliance on cars and threaten Berkeley’s climate and Vision Zero goals. Transportation planning in West Berkeley must be updated in order to finally address the deficiencies of transportation that the area has faced for decades, while also planning for the future of West Berkeley so that new residents will move to a historic district that allows them to give up their car, feel safe as pedestrians and cyclists, and be connected to the broader Bay Area with a world-class public transportation system.

To achieve this vision, no possibilities should be left off the table. Berkeley must draw on old ideas from the West Berkeley Plan like removing Ashby Avenue from the State Highway system, working closely with AC Transit for the expansion of low-emission bus services, institute charges for parking, expanding bicycle parking, and improved traffic control devices. Furthermore, the City can draw from its strong community of cyclists, urbanists, and the new generation of planners who are already clamoring for more ambitious ideas such as bus-only lanes, the wider use of protected bike lanes, redesigning the directions that cars can currently travel on streets, and even the full pedestrianization of some streets.
2 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Home/West_Berkeley_-_Transportation.aspx 3https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Public_Works/Level_3_- _Transportation/Berkeley_Vision_Zero_Action_Plan_Approved_03102020.pdf 4 https://www.berkeleyside.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Item-1-Pres-Planning-1.pdf

562

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
By planning for a West Berkeley that is less reliant on the use of private automobiles through the strengthening of the area’s network of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, the expansion of public transportation service, and the placing of limitations on car traffic, a West Berkeley Transportation Plan stands to aide Berkeley in its climate goals in incalculable ways.

CONTACT
Terry Taplin, Councilmember, District 2, (510) 981-7120

563
564
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 1 CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2021
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Author), Sophie Hahn, Terry Taplin, and Mayor Jesse Arreguin (Co-Sponsors)
Subject: Budget Referral: Berkeley Reparations – Funding for a Consultant to Facilitate Community Process to Design and Implement a Local Reparations Plan

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Budget Process, an allocation of $350,000 to fund a Consultant to develop policy recommendations for reparations in Berkeley. These recommendations will address the economic injury and intergenerational trauma experienced by Berkeley’s descendants of slavery and the ongoing harm caused to all African Americans by systems that uphold the legacy of segregation. The Consultant will design a process to develop short, medium, and long-term recommendations for reparation policies in Berkeley designed to promote the creation of generational wealth and boost economic mobility, and opportunity in Berkeley’s African American community.

1. Inform. The Consultant should hold a series of educational events, truth-telling symposiums, sessions, and community gatherings on Berkeley’s history. The Consultant should engage a myriad of Berkeley stakeholders, including residents who have experienced harm with economists and historians to provide context.

Subject matter experts will employ financial and historical data to illuminate the generational wealth gap, describe barriers to economic mobility, and detail the systemic racism against Berkeley’s African American community.

2. Interact. The Consultant should aim to foster an interactive dialogue centered on the community’s historical experiences and legacy of racism. These group settings should be between persons of diverse vantage points and opinions. The Consultant’s facilitation of these emotive conversations should aspire to enable learning and deep listening, connection, and ultimately trust, healing, and the desire to repair the community.

3. Recommend. Draw from the community dialogues to issue short, medium, and long-term recommendations, for reparations policies. The policy recommendations should focus on creating significant, sustainable progress towards repairing the damage caused by public and private systemic racism; and mitigate racial disparities in wealth, education, employment, homeownership, health, criminal justice, and more. The recommendations should include a portfolio of policies aligned under the following framework:
i. Reckoning
ii. Acknowledgment

565
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 2 iii. Accountability
iv. Redress
FRAMEWORK DEFINITIONS1
Reckoning
The reparations process requires a reckoning with the truth. Participants share statistical data that accurately illustrates the history being examined.

This initial part of the framework might take the form of educational presentations from diverse speakers. Reckoning allows all Berkeley residents to understand the harm that has been caused in their City: not only what happened, but how it happened, and why it happened. Reckoning creates an opportunity for people to express their subjective, individual experiences with racial exclusion and abuse from all vantage points and perspectives.

Reckoning can take place on a number of topics, including but not limited to:
● Redlining
● Social Integration
● Food Deserts
● Healthcare iniquities
● Environmental Racism
● Policing
● Drug War and Cannabis
● Wealth Preservation
● Lack of Opportunity for Wealth Creation
● Housing
By localizing such topics, the audience within the City of Berkeley can better understand the issues close to home.

Truth is integral to the reparations process because it presents a common understanding of the history of African Americans in Berkeley.

Acknowledgment
Acknowledgement names the harm that has been surfaced in a public way by an official body. Acknowledgement may include an official declaration, a public apology that includes Acknowledgement of facts, or ways to commemorate those who have been harmed, such as cultural sites, monuments, or museums.

Accountability
Accountability shifts the conversation toward the future and demonstrates ownership and willingness to take responsibility for harmful actions.

Accountability includes making a commitment to non-repetition and considers who must be at the table to hold the institution accountable to providing redress in an effective way.
1 Florant, A., 2022. Liberation Ventures. [online] Liberation Ventures. Available at: <https://www.liberationventures.org> [Accessed 9 February 2022].

566
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 3 Redress
Redress includes acts of restitution and compensation to those who have been harmed to create better outcomes in areas that may include but are not limited to wealth creation, cash payments, housing, healthcare, and education.

BACKGROUND
In 1868 General Sherman issued Special Field Orders No. 15. This Civil War-era order declared that each newly freed Black family would, at last, be compensated for being used to enrich the United States with generations of coerced labor. The order promised “not more than forty acres of tillable ground”, and became known as “40 acres and a mule”. This phrase stands as both a symbol of America’s broken promise and a quantifiable, economic deficit owed to foundational Black Americans. The value of that land today is more than $6.4 trillion2.

From 1619 to 1865, more than 4,000,000 Africans and their descendants were enslaved in what became the United States. Constitutionally and statutorily sanctioned by the United States government, the institution of slavery constituted an immoral and inhumane deprivation of Africans’ life, liberty, citizenship rights, cultural heritage, and denial of compensation. Following the abolition of slavery, federal, state, and local laws and practices have sustained systems of oppression and exclusion that disadvantage African American persons.

In the 1890’s, Callie House, a African American woman started the one of the first organizations to advocate for Reparations3.

These segregationist policies and practices are full-spectrum. The spectrum includes Jim Crow, voting restrictions, redlining, denial of remedies in civil court, inability to join labor unions, employment discrimination, criminal justice abuse, mass incarceration, denial of access to capital by lenders, denial of federal land grants, and housing loan guarantees, concentrated exposure to pollution, and inequitable access to education.

These government-sanctioned conditions have perpetuated the economic, educational, social, and health hardships into modern times. In 2016, the net worth of a typical White family ($171,000) was nearly ten times greater than that of a Black family ($17,150).4 The racial homeownership gap is tied to the both lineage and racial wealth gap and the trend of rising economic inequality more generally. Since the Great Recession, the gap between Black and White homeownership rates in the United States has increased to its highest level in 50 years -- from 28.1 percentage points in 2010 to 30.1 percentage 2 NEUMANN, J. and MATSUE LOEFFELHOLZ, T., 2022. 40 Acres and a Mule Would Be at Least $6.4 Trillion Today—What the U.S. Really Owes Black America - YES! Magazine. [online] YES! Magazine. Available at:
<https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/make-right/2015/05/14/infographic-40-acres-and-a-mule-would-be-at-least-64-trillion-today> [Accessed 12 February 2022].
3Curry, A., 2022. Callie Guy House (ca. 1861-1928) •. [online] Blackpast.org. Available at: <https://www.blackpast.org/african- american-history/callie-house-c-1861-1928/> [Accessed 4 March 2022]. 4Shambaugh, J. and McIntosh, K., 2022. Examining the Black-white wealth gap. [online] Brookings. Available at:
<https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/> [Accessed 18 January 2022].

567
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 4 points in 2017.5 The gap in the rate between Black and White families is wider today than it was when it was legal to refuse to sell someone a home because of the color of their skin.

The unemployment rate is also historically about twice as high for Black people as for White people amid even the best economic conditions.6 In addition, the wage gap between these groups was significantly wider in 2019 than at the start of the century.

Even among those who attain advanced degrees, Black people were paid 82.4 cents for every dollar earned by their White peers.7
If the racial wealth divide is left unaddressed, the median Black household wealth will reach zero dollars ($0.00) by 20538. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has likely accelerated the evaporation of Black wealth.

Black people have been disproportionately forced to reside in, adjacent to, or near toxic and polluted sites that negatively impact their health and property value.9 This group is also more likely to reside in neighborhoods with food deserts--areas that lack access to foods that provide for a nutritionally adequate diet of whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh meat, and high-quality dairy.10
In addition to poor food and housing access, Black people historically and currently receive inadequate and often detrimental health The state of health iniquity in America is evidenced by the disproportionate morbidities and mortality rates, due to discriminatory and biased treatment by medical professionals, discriminatory medical practices, and the generational trauma of systemic racism.11 Currently, Black Americans face higher COVID-19 hospitalization and infection rates than any other racial group because of systemic racism. The compounding effect of existing inequities put Black communities at greater risk of infection and death than their counterparts. For example, Black people are more likely to have other preexisting conditions that put them at risk, 5 Choi, J., 2022. Breaking Down the Black-White Homeownership Gap. [online] Urban Institute. Available at:
<https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/breaking-down-black-white-homeownership-gap> [Accessed 28 February 2022]. 6Smialek, J. and Tankersley, J., 2022. Black Workers, Already Lagging, Face Big Economic Risks (Published 2020). [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/business/economy/black-workers-inequality-economic-risks.html> [Accessed 19 January 2022].
7 Gould, E., 2022. State of Working America Wages 2019: A story of slow, uneven, and unequal wage growth over the last 40 years. [online] Economic Policy Institute. Available at: <https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/#table-3> [Accessed 21 December 2021].
8Collins, C., Hoxie, J., Asante-Muhammad, D. and Nieves, E., 2017. Report: The Road to Zero Wealth - Institute for Policy Studies. [online] Institute for Policy Studies. Available at: <https://ips-dc.org/report-the-road-to-zero-wealth/> [Accessed 1 February 2022]. 9Newkirk II, V., 2022. Environmental Racism Is Real, According to Trump's EPA. [online] The Atlantic. Available at:
<https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/the-trump-administration-finds-that-environmental-racism-is-real/554315/> [Accessed 13 December 2021].
10 Barker, C., Francois, A., Goodman, R. and Hussain, E., 2022. [online] Digitalcommons.nyls.edu. Available at:
<https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=racial_justice_project> [Accessed 10 November 2021]. 11Taylor, J., 2022. Racism, Inequality, and Health Care for African Americans. [online] The Century Foundation. Available at:
<https://tcf.org/content/report/racism-inequality-health-care-african-americans/?session=1> [Accessed 4 January 2022].

568
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 5 have less access to affordable and quality health care, work in more vulnerable sectors, and/or rely on public transit as their main form of transportation.12 In addition to experiencing significant economic and health disparities, Black people are also disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system. In 2018, Black people represented 33% of the sentenced prison population, nearly triple their 12% share of the U.S. adult population.13 Black male offenders receive sentences on average 19.1 percent longer than White male offenders guilty of the same offense14. According to a 2017 Police Violence Report, Black people were also more likely to be killed by police, more likely to be unarmed, and less likely to be threatening someone when killed.15 Many police reforms have been instituted here in Berkeley, but inequities persist. BPD police statistics show Black stops are exactly 50% of the total 608 stops at 304, with White stops at 143 for 23.52% of all stops. When adjusted to take into account the low number of Black people residing in Berkeley, Black stops are about 42.7 per 1,000 of their population, where White stops are about 2.9 per 1,000, a disparity of 14.5 to 1.16 Racism and discrimination have not ended with the abolition of slavery and instead, have shifted and transformed through institutions, policies, and practices of federal, state, and local governments. The legacy of slavery remains with us today. To address the fundamental injustice, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the subsequent racial and economic discrimination against Black people, the Council should adopt a resolution that supports reparations for the Black community.

An early leader to prominently call for the United States to make reparations to African Americans was Randall Robinson, who authored The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks. In his bestselling book, Robinson challenges the nation to provide compensation to African Americans as a way to repair the intergenerational wounds that slavery has created. He posits that because slavery was so instrumental to America, it is still deeply ingrained into the present-day American economy. Randall cites the history of Wall Street and how it became the center of the slave trade from 1711 to 1762. The slave trade was a foundational element of the New York Stock Exchange, which banks and insurance companies actively participated in. As a result, major financial institutions–such as Wells Fargo and J.P Morgan Chase–grew exponentially.

As Randall reflected in his book, Americans do not fully understand the roots of the 12MENASCE HOROWITZ, J., 2022. Views on why Black Americans face higher COVID-19 hospitalization rates vary by party, race and ethnicity. [online] Pew Research Center. Available at: <https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/26/views-on-why-black- americans-face-higher-covid-19-hospitalization-rates-vary-by-party-race-and-ethnicity/> [Accessed 7 January 2022]. 13GRAMLICH, J., 2022. Black imprisonment rate in the U.S. has fallen by a third since 2006. [online] Pew Research Center.

Available at: <https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/> [Accessed 14 January 2022].
14 Schmitt, G., Reedt, L. and Blackwell, K., 2012. Demographic Differences in Sentencing: An Update to the 2012 Booker Report. [online] Ussc.gov. Available at: <https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research- publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf> [Accessed 23 February 2022]. 15Sinyangwe, S., 2022. 2021 Police Violence Report. [online] Policeviolencereport.org. Available at:
<https://policeviolencereport.org/> [Accessed 28 February 2022]. 16City of Berkeley, 2022. Berkeley PD's Stop Data Now on City's Open Data Portal - City of Berkeley, CA. [online] Cityofberkeley.info. Available at:
<https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Police/Home/Berkeley_PD_s_Stop_Data_Now_on_City_s_Open_Data_Portal.aspx> [Accessed 19 November 2021].

569
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 6 existing American economy17. The complete truth about slavery being a critical component of the economy is often hidden in American education. In order to fully address the reparations needed, the psychological implications of slavery are just as important to understand as the economic implications, which leads us back to the call for America to make reparations to African Americans.

To go forward with reparations, the process of truth sharing and some form of reconciliation should first be undertaken. Truth and Reconciliation as a model originated in the context of South Africa. The Truth process there brought together victims and perpetrators in a setting of open and honest dialogue. Reconciliation was a safe forum to air grievances and enter into the public record, as a form of both collective catharsis and, ultimately, accountability18.

The goal for Truth, in a Berkeley context, is to establish a common understanding of the history of Black Americans in Berkeley. This can be accomplished through educational presentations localized for the Berkeley community.

The process of Reconciliation in Berkeley entails using a panel of experts to help format and begin the framework for community dialogue. This community dialogue will be done through workshops to bring about community policy on reparations. It is important that the dialogue go beyond the City of Berkeley and promote reconciliation and repair for the harm done to Black Americans in other communities through the United States. In other words, the hope is that the dialogue and actions taken in Berkeley join the national conversation on Reparations, and serve as a model for other jurisdictions who wish to repair their communities.

Reparations in Action
The United States of America
● Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
○ Recognition of aboriginal land rights in Alaska
○ 1971, Given Around $1 billion + 44 million acres of land 19 ● Tuskegee victims of syphilis experiments
○ 1974 - A $10 million out-of-court settlement was reached between the U.S. government and Tuskegee victims, Black men who had been unwitting subjects of a study of untreated syphilis20, and who did not receive available treatments21 ● Japanese Internment
17 Robinson, Randall. The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks. Plume, 2001. 18 Truth and Reconciliation Commission - Department of Justice, 2020. Truth and Reconciliation Commission. [online] Justice.gov.za. Available at: <https://www.justice.gov.za/trc/> [Accessed 7 February 2022]. 19," citing Cooley, R.A. 1983. "Evolution of Alaska land policy." in Morehouse, T. A. (editor). Alaskan Resources Development:

Issues of the 1980s. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 13-49 20 Newkirk, Vann R. II (June 17, 2016). "A Generation of Bad Blood". The Atlantic. 21 Baker, Shamim M.; Brawley, Otis W.; Marks, Leonard S. (June 2005). "Effects of untreated syphilis in the negro male, 1932 to 1972: a closure comes to the Tuskegee study, 2004"

570
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 7 ○ The U.S. government disbursed $1.6 billion to 82,219 Japanese-Americans who had been interned.
○ The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 mandated education for the public on the injustices Japanese-Americans faced22
● Rosewood Massacre 23
○ The state of Florida approved $2.1 million for the living survivors of a 1923 racial pogrom that resulted in multiple deaths and the decimation of the Black community in the town of Rosewood in 199424
● JPMorgan Chase Profiteering from the Slave Trade
○ In 2005, Banking corporation JPMorgan Chase issues an apology for their historical ties to the slave trade. The corporation set up a $5 million scholarship fund for Black students to attend college. The scholarship program, called Smart Start Louisiana, was likened to reparations by several commentators, including Rev. Jesse Jackson
● State of North Carolina Eugenics Program Survivors
○ In 2014, the state of North Carolina set aside $10 million for reparations payments to living survivors of the state’s eugenics program, which forcibly sterilized approximately 7,600 people25
● US Government Settlement with 17 Native American Tribes ○ In 2016, the U.S. government reached a settlement of $492 million with 17 Native American tribes to resolve lawsuits alleging the federal government mismanaged tribal land, resources, and money26
● State of California Eugenics Program Survivors.
○ In 2021, the California legislature enacted a law requesting $7.5 million of the budget be put towards providing reparations to survivors of the state's former eugenics law, by which over 20,000 institutionalized women were forcibly sterilized27
● St. Petersburg, Florida
○ In 2021, the City Council of St. Petersburg approved the creation of a reparations program and the implementation of an equity officer in response to a study that identified structural racism in the state. The program will establish affordable housing, educational opportunities, and other means of economic development that would contribute to an equal environment for Black residents28
22 Yoshida, H., 2022. Redress and Reparations for Japanese American Incarceration | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans. [online] The National WWII Museum | New Orleans. Available at: <https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/redress-and- reparations-japanese-american-incarceration> [Accessed 9 February 2022]. 23Glenza, J., 2022. Rosewood massacre a harrowing tale of racism and the road toward reparations. [online] the Guardian.

Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/03/rosewood-florida-massacre-racial-violence-reparations> [Accessed 7 January 2022].
24 "Rosewood Massacre: A Harrowing Tale of Racism and the Road toward Reparations" by Jessica Glenza, The Guardian, January 3, 2016.
25 "North Carolina Set To Compensate Forced Sterilization Victims" by Scott Neuman, NPR, July 25, 2013; "Families of NC Eugenics Victims No Longer Alive Still Have Shot at Compensation" by Anne Blythe, News & Observer (Raleigh, N.C.), March 17, 2017.
26 “U.S. Government To Pay $492 Million To 17 American Indian Tribes” by Rebecca Hersher, NPR, September 27, 2016. 27 California passes landmark law to provide reparations to survivors of state-sponsored forced sterilization. (2021, July 13).

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
28 Wright, C. (2021, December). St. Petersburg City Council approves 'reparations' to address structural racism. Tampa Bay Times

571
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 8 ● Evanston, Illinois
○ Evanston created a reparations program in which victims of historical segregation were provided grants of up to $25,000 to help purchase or mortgage a house29.

Globally
● Rwanda
○ Rwanda. Following the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the government created a fund to provide financial compensation, as well as support for education, agriculture, and healthcare.30
● The National Unity and Reconciliation Commission was established in Rwanda in 1999 and it was an approach that involved several elements:
● peace education
● leadership academy,
● Seminars
● national summits
● research 31
● Germany
○ In acknowledgment of The Holocaust, Germany’s reparation program consists of financial compensation to the Jewish community, care for refugees in Israel, and sponsors ongoing education and remembrance programs32.
● South Africa
○ South Africa financially compensated those affected by the apartheid by promoting Black land ownership and permitting Black residents to participate in land economics and invest in national property33.

CURRENT SITUATION
Federal, state, and local policymakers have developed reparation proposals that aim to address the harms perpetuated by the institution of slavery and subsequent systems of oppression that have brutalized and disadvantaged Black people. 29Adams, C., 2022. Evanston is the first U.S. city to issue slavery reparations. Experts say it's a noble start. [online] nbcnews.com.

Available at: <https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/evanston-s-reparations-plan-noble-start-complicated-process-experts-say- n1262096> [Accessed 15 January 2022].
30Des Forges, A., 2022. Rwanda: Justice After Genocide—20 Years On. [online] Human Rights Watch. Available at:
<https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/28/rwanda-justice-after-genocide-20-years> [Accessed 28 February 2022]. 31Department of Public Information, 2014. The Justice and Reconciliation Process in Rwanda. [online] un.org. Available at:
<https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/assets/pdf/Backgrounder%20Justice%202014.pdf> [Accessed 28 February 2022]. 32Vigdor, N., 2021. Germany Sets Aside an Additional $767 Million for Holocaust Survivors, Officials Say. [online] Nytimes.com.

Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/world/europe/holocaust-settlement-germany.html> [Accessed 15 December 2021].
33The Irish Times, 2003. South Africa to pay reparations to victims of apartheid. [online] The Irish Times. Available at:
<https://www.irishtimes.com/news/south-africa-to-pay-reparations-to-victims-of-apartheid-1.472227> [Accessed 4 November 2021].

572
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 9 H.R.40, introduced by Congressperson Sheila Jackson Lee, calls for the creation of a commission to study and develop reparation proposals for African Americans on a federal level.34 Specifically, the commission will recommend appropriate remedies based on their research into how slavery from the Trans-Atlantic and domestic “trades,” along with the de jure and de facto discrimination faced by the African American community from the end of the Civil War to the present, has impacted their livelihoods.

While originally introduced in 1989 by former Congressperson John Conyers, the idea is now becoming a mainstream conversation. In May 2019, Berkeley City Council adopted a resolution in support of H.R. 40.

In 2019, Yvette Carnell and Antonio Moore, founders of the ADOS movement were instrumental in helping garner over 100 co-sponsors for HR-40, back in 2019, that the bill never had before.

At the state level, California Assemblymember Shirley Weber introduced AB 3121 in February 2020. AB 3121 established a 9-member taskforce that began meeting in 2021 to study and develop reparations proposals.35 The bill requires the task force to identify, compile, and synthesize the collection of evidentiary documentation of the institution of slavery that existed within the United States. With this analysis, the task force will recommend the form of compensation that should be awarded, the methods through which it should be awarded, and who should be eligible for this compensation. In addition, the bill would state that any authorized state-level reparations are not to be considered as a replacement for any reparations enacted at the federal level. Recently, Dr. Shirley Weber testified that her intent for the California Reparations Task Force was meant for Descendants of American Slavery. Callie House, the Black Woman who led one of the 1st organizations to campaign for Reparations back in the 1890's.

On a local level, Asheville City Council in North Carolina recently and unanimously passed a resolution that supports community reparations for the Black community in the City of Asheville.36 The resolution marks a move that officially recognizes the injustices of centuries and attempts to right the wrongs by formally apologizing to Black residents for the City's role in slavery, discriminatory housing practices, and other racist policies throughout its history. It also directs the City Manager to establish a process within the next year to develop recommendations to boost economic mobility in the Black community. In addition, it sought to establish a new commission composed of businesses, local groups, and elected officials who will be empowered to make recommendations for reparations.
34Jackson Lee, S., 2019. H.R.40 — 116th Congress (2019-2020). [online] https://www.congress.gov/. Available at:
<https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-
bill/40/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr40%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1> [Accessed 4 October 2022]. 35Weber, S., 2020. Bill Text - AB-3121 Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans.. [online] Leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Available at: <https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB3121> [Accessed 3 September 2021].
36Davis, N., 2020. Asheville reparations resolution is designed to provide Black community access to the opportunity to build wealth - The City of Asheville. [online] The City of Asheville. Available at: <https://www.ashevillenc.gov/news/asheville-reparations- resolution-is-designed-to-help-black-community-access-to-the-opportunity-to-build-wealth/> [Accessed 15 January 2022].

573
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 10 In Durham, North Carolina, the City’s Racial Equity Task Force created a plan with concrete goals and measures for the City to adopt, including a plan for Durham to work in conjunction with other local governments across the country to push for a national reparations response.37 In defining this aim, the task force wrote that any federal program must acknowledge who benefited from slavery, restitute the descendants of those who were enslaved, and offer closure by partnering with them to understand what fair compensation looks like.

While federal and state reparation proposals are moving through the legislatures, it is time that municipalities also address the injustices, brutality, racism, and discrimination that the Black community has faced in the past and the present. Berkeley City Council must join the conversation and take responsibility to adopt programs, policies, and practices that effectively bridge the generational wealth gap and boost economic mobility and opportunity in the Black community. The Council can take a step towards dismantling systemic oppression by creating a process for developing short, medium, and long-term solutions.

OUTREACH, OVERVIEW, AND RESULTS
Liberation Ventures, a leading national organization working on reparations, was consulted and supports the above framework for Berkeley reparations. Local organizations like Berkeley NAACP, McGee Avenue Baptist Church, Black Women Organized for Political Action (“BWOPA”), Intercity Services, Ebenezer Baptist Church, the Center for Food, Faith & Justice have reviewed and supported this proposal. Local Black leaders like Pastor Ambrose Carrol, former Oakland Mayor and Berkeley resident Elihu Harris, Planning Commissioner Chip John More, Brandon Floyd, and Mansour Id- Deen have also expressed support for this legislation after reviewing this proposal. We have performed additional outreach and wait for feedback and support Berkeley Juneteenth, St. Paul A.M.E. Church, and individuals like Alderman Robin Rue Simmons from Evanston, Illinois.

ACTIONS/ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Evanston City Council in Illinois approved a resolution to create a Reparations Committee, which would invest in housing assistance and relief initiatives as well as establish economic development programs and opportunities for Evanston's Black community. In addition, the resolution instituted a process for depositing into a Reparations Fund up to $10 million in City tax revenues collected from the sale of recreational marijuana. The Council, or the commission that would be established through this resolution’s passage, could consider using Evanston’s method of funding reparations.
37Durham Racial Equity Task Force, 2020. Report of the Durham Racial Equity Task Force: An Urgent and Loving Call to Action. [online] Durhamnc.gov. Available at: <https://durhamnc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/32853/FINAL-REPORT-Durham-Racial-Equity- Task-Force-72220> [Accessed 14 November 2021].

574
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 11 RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
An expert Consultant will allow the City to develop policies and invest in programs that boost opportunities for the Black community. It is time that cities and local governments join state and federal policymakers in addressing the injustices, brutality, racism, and discrimination that the Black community continues to face.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Staff time to develop the structure, powers, and implementation process of the reparations commission, and create short, medium, and long-term recommendations that would boost opportunity for Berkeley’s Black community.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Ben Bartlett [email protected] Commissioner James Chang [email protected]
Shakira Khonje 510-981-7130
Kailen Grottel-Brown 510-981-7131
Hillary Phan 510-981-7135

575
576
Councilmember Sophie Hahn
City of Berkeley, District 5
1 CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Councilmember Sophie Hahn
and Councilmember Rigel Robinson (Co-Authors)
Subject: Supporting Ranked Choice Voting -- Opposing AB 2808 (O’Donnell)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution opposing AB 2808 (O’Donnell), which would ban rank choice voting in California, including in those charter cities where the system is already in use. Send a letter to the bill author stating opposition. Send a copy of the Resolution to Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, State Senator Nancy Skinner, and Governor Gavin Newsom.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Minimal.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
If passed, AB 2808 (O’Donnell) would ban ranked choice voting in California and would roll back voter enacted ranked choice elections, including in those charter cities like the City of Berkeley where the system is already in use. AB 2808 would deprive each local jurisdiction the authority to determine the best voting method for that jurisdiction.1

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley has been utilizing ranked choice voting (RCV) since 2010. In Bay Area jurisdictions that conduct RCV, ranked choice voting has eliminated costly runoff elections, given more wins to women and people of color, and increased voter turnout.

What’s more, ranked choice voting has led to greater voter participation. In 2017, four cities introduced RCV elections, and all cities had higher turnout than in prior elections. Voters using RCV have been more satisfied with candidates’ conduct. According to exit polls, approximately eighty-four percent of voters who participated in ranked choice voting said the new RCV- formatted ballot was easy to complete.2
1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2808 2 https://www.fairvote.org/the_facts_of_ranked_choice_voting_voters_like_it_high_turnouts_are_trending

577
2 The Berkeley City Council has taken action to support and strengthen the use of RCV. In 2019, Council unanimously voted in support of SB 212, which would have authorized more jurisdictions the ability to adopt RCV. Despite passing the State Legislature, the bill was ultimately vetoed by the Governor.

Voters who use ranked choice voting system overwhelmingly vote in favor of expanding the system.3

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Ranked Choice Voting has the potential to reduce need for run off elections, and associated environmental impacts of additional printing, mailing, and campaign related activities.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
If passed, AB 2808 would undo Berkeley’s voter adopted ranked choice voting system.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
N/A

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Sophie Hahn, (510) 981-7150
Attachments:
1: Bill Text AB 2808 (O’Donnell):
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2808 2: Resolution in opposition to AB 2808 (O’Donnell)
3: Letter of opposition
3 https://www.fairvote.org/the_facts_of_ranked_choice_voting_voters_like_it_high_turnouts_are_trending

578
3 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2021–2022 REGULAR SESSION

ASSEMBLY BILL
NO. 2808
Introduced by Assembly Member
O’Donnell
February 18, 2022
An act to add Section 18 to the Elections Code, relating to elections.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2808, as introduced, O’Donnell. Elections: ranked choice voting.

Existing law specifies various procedures for conducting statewide and local elections.

This bill would prohibit the use of ranked choice voting, a method of voting that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, in state and local elections.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: no Local Program: no

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

579
4 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Ranked choice voting can lead to inherently undemocratic outcomes like the winners of elections failing to receive a plurality of the vote. (b) Ranked choice voting is fundamentally more complicated than currently available alternatives and this complexity can lead to mistakes that can further disenfranchise voters.
(c) Ranked choice voting can lead to elections that are more expensive given the additional computer systems or manpower required to tabulate the ranked votes. (d) Many of the purported benefits of ranked choice voting, including more diverse fields of candidates and fewer negative campaign advertisements, have not been realized in the jurisdictions that have used this election method. (e) Ranked choice voting does not lead to outcomes that reflect the ideals of our democracy and could harm the ability of voters to express their vote.

SEC. 2. Section 18 is added to the Elections Code, to read:

18. (a) State and local elections shall not be conducted using ranked choice voting. (b) For purposes of this section, “ranked choice voting” means a method of voting that allows voters to rank candidates for office in order of preference.

SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 2 of this act addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 2 of this act applies to all cities, including charter cities.

580
5 RESOLUTION NO. -N.S
RESOLUTION OPPOSING AB 2808 (O’DONNELL)
WHEREAS in 2004, City of Berkeley became the first jurisdiction in Alameda County to adopt Ranked Choice Voting, which went into effect in 2010. This is a system that allows voters to rank the candidates on their ballot in order of preference and initiates an instant run-off election if no single candidate reaches over 50% of the vote, thereby eliminating the need for voters to return to the polls for a second runoff election; and
WHEREAS in Alameda County, the cities of San Leandro and Oakland have successfully used Ranked Choice Voting for local elections for over a decade and the city of Albany will use Ranked Choice Voting later this year; and
WHEREAS in addition to preventing costly run-off elections and eliminating low-turnout and less diverse primary elections, Ranked Choice Voting has led to more positive and substantive campaigning and less mudslinging in a number of races, with candidates recognizing the need to appeal to the broader electorate for support;
WHEREAS compared to winner-take-all systems, Ranked Choice Voting encourages more diversity in candidates and voters, and generally has resulted in an increase in election victories by candidates of color where it has been adopted; and
WHEREAS Assembly Bill 2808 (O’Donnell) would prohibit the use of Ranked Choice Voting in state and local elections, including in those charter cities where the system is already in use; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley hereby affirms its support of Ranked Choice Voting, for selecting local elected officials; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley formally opposes AB 2808 (O’Donnell) and calls on members of the Legislature, including representatives of Alameda County where Ranked Choice Voting is widely used, to vote against this bill.

581
6 The Honorable Patrick O’Donnell
Member of the Assembly
Capitol Office,
1021 O Street, Suite 4510
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 2808 – Ranked Choice Voting Repeal – OPPOSE
Dear Assemblymember O’Donnell,
The City of Berkeley strongly opposes Assembly Bill (AB) 2808, , which would prohibit the use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in state and local elections, including charter cities like Berkeley.

In multiple cities, including Berkeley, ranked choice voting has led to greater voter participation and ensured that candidates are elected with majority support. The City of Berkeley amended its City Charter in 2004 to permit the use of RCV with the support of more than 70% of voters, and has been successfully using this system since 2010. In the Bay Area specifically, RCV has eliminated costly runoff elections, given more wins to women and people of color, and increased voter turnout. Exit polling has found that voters understand RCV and prefer RCV to the election system it replaced. RCV has also been adopted by dozens of other cities across the nation that find similar benefits with this election system.

We strongly oppose any attempt to repeal RCV in Berkeley through state legislation or to deprive other local governments the option of adopting this system in the future. For all these reasons, we must oppose AB 2808.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council
CC:

Honorable Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, Chair, Assembly Elections Committee

582
Susan Wengraf
Councilmember District 6
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Wengraf (Author), Councilmember Harrison (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Hahn (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Support for AB 1755 (Levine)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution in Support of AB-1755: Homeowners Insurance: Home Hardening (Levine). AB-1755 will require, beginning in 2025, an insurance provider licensed in California to issue an insurance policy to a homeowner that has taken science-based actions to harden their property from wildfire risk. This legislation would also create the Wildfire Protection Grant Program under the Department of Insurance that would administer grants to residential property owners of up to $10,000 to help pay for costs associated with home hardening and wildfire mitigation improvements. Send copies of the Resolution to Assembly Member Levine, Assembly Member Wicks, Senator Skinner, Governor Newsom and Insurance Commissioner Lara.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None

BACKGROUND
California’s wildfires have resulted in loss of life and catastrophic damage to communities and the environment. As Californians try to protect themselves from future loss, they are facing insurance companies who are cancelling policies or are increasing deductibles and premiums to the point where the policy is unaffordable or insufficient.

Residents in Berkeley's VHFHZ have experienced non-renewal of insurance policies on a scale never seen before.

AB-1775 resolves the often-arbitrary practice of insurance policy non-renewal or cancellation of a homeowner who may live in an area considered at risk to wildfire.

Continued drought conditions, rising global temperatures and other impacts of the climate crisis are quickly turning most of California into a high-risk wildfire zone. Without legislation, Californians could find their homes uninsurable.

583
Support for AB 1755 (Levine) CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022

AB-1755 would require insurance carriers to issue home insurance policies to homeowners who have hardened their home against fire, regardless of the home’s location. The bill would also create the Wildfire Protection Grant Program to help homeowners pay for costs associated with wildfire mitigation improvements, up to $10,000 per home. AB-1755 would be effective January 1, 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
AB-1755 encourages homeowners in fire prone areas to increase their wildfire mitigation efforts in order to be eligible to be insured. Home hardening is one strategy to help protect property from the spread of wildfire. A key source of air pollution, wildfires release large quantities of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter into the atmosphere. Resulting air pollution can cause a range of health issues, including respiratory and cardiovascular problems. Efforts to lower the risk of out of control wildfires align with Berkeley’s environmental sustainability goals.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Wengraf Council District 6 510-981-7160
Attachments:
1: Resolution

2. AB-1755

584
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CITY OF BERKELEY SUPPORTS AB-1755 (LEVINE)
WHEREAS, California’s wildfires have resulted in loss of life and catastrophic damage to communities and the environment; and
WHEREAS, As Californians try to protect themselves from future loss, they are facing insurance companies who are cancelling policies or are increasing deductibles and premiums to the point where the policy is unaffordable or insufficient; and WHEREAS, Residents in Berkeley's VHFHZ have experienced non-renewal of insurance policies on a scale never seen before; and
WHEREAS, AB-1775 resolves the often-arbitrary practice of insurance policy non- renewal or cancellation of a homeowner who may live in an area considered at risk to wildfire; and
WHEREAS, Continued drought conditions, rising global temperatures and other impacts of the climate crisis are quickly turning most of California into a high-risk wildfire zone; and
WHEREAS, Without legislation, Californians could find their homes uninsurable.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it unanimously supports AB-1755.

585
Support for AB 1755 (Levine) CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2021–2022 REGULAR SESSION

ASSEMBLY BILL
NO. 1755
Introduced by Assembly Member Levine
February 01, 2022
An act to add Sections 675.2 and 2033 to the Insurance Code, relating to property insurance.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1755, as introduced, Levine. Homeowners’ insurance: home hardening.

Existing law creates the Department of Insurance to regulate the business of insurance. Existing law generally regulates classes of insurance, including homeowners’ insurance. Existing law prohibits an insurer, for one year after the declaration of a state of emergency, from canceling or refusing to renew a residential property insurance policy solely because the property is in an area in which a wildfire occurred.

586
Support for AB 1755 (Levine) CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022

This bill would require an admitted insurer licensed to issue homeowners’ insurance policies to issue a policy to a homeowner who has hardened their home against fire, regardless of the home’s location, on and after January 1, 2025, and would require an insurer to make conforming changes to its internet website and print materials on or before July 1, 2025. The bill would create the Wildfire Protection Grant Program, under which the department would be required to award grants of up to $10,000 each to help homeowners pay for costs associated with wildfire mitigation improvements.

The bill would require the department to promulgate regulations to define home hardening for required issuance of homeowners’ insurance policies and to administer the Wildfire Protection Grant Program.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS
FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Section 675.2 is added to the Insurance Code, to read:
675.2.
(a) On and after January 1, 2025, an admitted insurer licensed to issue homeowners’ insurance policies shall issue a policy to a homeowner who has hardened their home against fire, regardless of the home’s location. The insurer shall make conforming changes to its internet website and print materials on or before July 1, 2025.
(b) On or before January 1, 2024, the department shall promulgate regulations to define home hardening for purposes of subdivision (a).

SEC. 2.

Section 2033 is added to the Insurance Code, to read:
2033.
(a) The Wildfire Protection Grant Program is hereby created to help homeowners pay for costs associated with wildfire mitigation improvements.
(b) The department shall award grants of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) each to homeowners under the Wildfire Protection Grant Program. (c) The department shall promulgate regulations to administer the Wildfire Protection Grant Program.

587
588
Susan Wengraf
Councilmember District 6

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Wengraf (Author), Councilmember Taplin (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Hahn (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Support for AB-1594 Firearms: Civil Suits

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution in support of AB-1594 (Assembly Member Ting) which would allow gun manufacturers to be sued for creating a public nuisance if their failure to follow federal, state or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices.

Send the Resolution to Assembly Members Ting, Gipson, Ward and Wicks along with Senator Skinner and Governor Newsom.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None

BACKGROUND
AB1594 authorizes private citizens harmed by illegal gun use to sue manufacturers, distributors and sellers of firearms. The bill is a direct response to the Texas scheme to insulate its abortion ban through a law authorizing private citizen suits against essentially anyone who helps a woman seek access to abortion.

Governor Newsom stated “if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.” The bill is still in its very early stages, but as it stands in its current form, AB1594 proposes adding the following language to the California Civil Code: “A gun industry member shall have created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined in Section 3480, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices.” AB1594 will effectively permit lawsuits against members of the gun industry who failed to follow firearm laws, thereby creating and/or maintaining a public nuisance.

589
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“the Act”), passed in 2005, generally protects members of the gun industry from being sued for damages a person experiences as a result of the misuse of firearms. However, the law does not protect against lawsuits brought as a result of a violation of state law.

As such, any member of the gun industry who breaks California laws will not be shielded by the Act and can be sued under AB1594 if their illegal act involving a firearm caused damages to an individual.

Gun violence is a public health crisis in the United States. A leading cause of premature death in the U.S.1, Americans account for just 4% of the world’s population but 35% of global firearm suicides2. On average, at least 200 Americans are non-fatally injured with a firearm each day. The majority of these injuries are gun assaults3. Gun homicides and assaults disproportionately impact historically underserved communities of color. Black Americans are 10 times more likely than white Americans to be murdered with a gun4.

The City of Berkeley has a history of promoting gun safety. In early 2004, the Berkeley Police Department provided 1,100 free firearm safety kits to local residents through a partnership with Project ChildSafe5. The City Council supported Governor Newsom’s “Safety for All” 2016 Ballot Initiative which included a series of gun reform measures6.

Council adopted a Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance, adding BMC Chapter 13.697, in November 2018, and in October 2021, adopted a Ghost Gun Ordinance8 in order to eliminate non-serialized, untraceable firearms in the City of Berkeley.

AB-1594 aligns with Berkeley’s gun safety goals by encouraging gun manufacturers to follow federal, state or local laws and to engage in fair business practices. If they don’t, and someone is injured or killed by their gun, they can be sued for creating a public nuisance.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No direct impact on environmental sustainability.
1 https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/gun-violence
2 Mohsen Naghavi, et al., “Global Mortality from Firearms, 1990–2016,” JAMA 320, no. 8 (2018): 792– 814.
3 Based on three most recent years of complete data (2013, 2014, and 2016). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, last accessed June 25, 2020, hcupnet.ahrq.gov.
4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), “Fatal Injury Reports,” last accessed June 24, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars.

Calculations were based on five years of the most recently available data: 2014 to 2018. 5 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/police/newsandpress/2004files/ChildSafe%20Gun%20Locks.html 6 Safety for all
7 Safe Storage Ordinance
8 Ghost Gun Ordinance

590

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Wengraf Council District 6 510-981-7160
Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: AB-1594

591
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

THE CITY OF BERKELEY SUPPORTS AB-1594
WHEREAS, Gun violence is a public health crisis and a leading cause of premature death in the United States; and
WHEREAS, Americans account for just 4% of the world’s population but 35% of global firearm suicides: and
WHEREAS, Gun homicides and assaults disproportionately impact historically underserved communities of color. Black Americans are 10 times more likely than white Americans to be murdered with a gun; and
WHEREAS, The City of Berkeley has a history of striving for gun safety legislation to protect its residents, including adopting a Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance in 2018 and a Ghost Gun Ordinance in 2021; and
WHEREAS, AB-1594 would further gun safety by allowing gun manufacturers to be sued for creating a public nuisance if their failure to follow federal, state or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it strongly supports AB-1594.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council appreciates the work of Assembly Members Ting, Gipson, Ward, Berman, Bloom, Levine and Quirk, and Senators Newman and Wiener for authoring AB-1594 and their efforts in reducing gun violence.

592
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2021–2022 REGULAR SESSION

ASSEMBLY BILL
NO. 1594
Introduced by Assembly Members Ting, Gipson, and Ward
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Berman, Bloom, Levine, and Quirk) (Coauthors: Senators Newman and Wiener)
January 03, 2022
An act to add Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 3450) to Division 4 of the Civil Code, relating to firearms.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1594, as introduced, Ting. Firearms: civil suits.

Existing law defines a public nuisance and provides that a public nuisance may be remedied by an indictment or information, a civil action, or abatement. Existing law also regulates the manufacture, sale, and marketing of firearms.

This bill would specify that a gun industry member has created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: no Local Program: no

593

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS
FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 3450) is added to Division 4 of the Civil Code, to read:

PART 2.5. Civil Suits Relating to Firearms
3450. A gun industry member shall have created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined in Section 3480, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices.

594
Susan Wengraf
Councilmember District 6
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Wengraf (Author), Councilmember Hahn (Author), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), Mayor Arreguin (Co-Sponsor) Subject: 2022 Virtual Holocaust Remembrance Day Program: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds from General Funds and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including $500 each from Councilmember Wengraf and Councilmember Hahn to support the City’s Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day program with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund. The relinquishment of funds from Councilmember Wengraf’s, Hahn’s, Bartlett’s, and Mayor Arreguin’s discretionary Council Office Budgets and all other Councilmembers who would like to contribute, allows the City of Berkeley to invite the community to the City’s 19th Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day virtual program, created by the community with City Council support. In light of the vulnerability of many of the attendees, and the continuing threat of the COVID pandemic, this year’s program will be held virtually on April 28, 2022.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No General Fund impact: up to $500 is available from contributing Councilmember’s Council Office Budget discretionary accounts.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley’s Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day program has been supported by the City Council since it was initiated by former Councilmember Kriss Worthington in 2002. The event has occurred annually, except in the year 2020 when the pandemic hit without enough time to pivot to a virtual program. Berkeley’s Holocaust Remembrance Day has become a treasured event for both Holocaust Survivors, family members and the Bay Area community as the only secular, city- sponsored program in the region. The community program invites attendees to honor those who perished in the Holocaust and those you survived. With rising hate incidents and hate crimes in our region and nation-wide, it is critical that we hear the stories of survivors of the Holocaust and re-affirm our resolve to never forget.

We are asking for The Mayor and Councilmember’s generous support to continue the legacy of the City of Berkeley’s Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day in 2022.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

595
[Title of Report] CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022

No impact

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Wengraf Council District 6 510-981-7160
Attachment: 1. Resolution

596
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT

TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE WHEREAS, Councilmember Wengraf and Councilmember Hahn have surplus funds in their office expenditure accounts and will contribute $500 each, and invite the Mayor and other Councilmembers to join them in contributing; and WHEREAS, a California nonprofit tax-exempt corporation, The Jewish Community Center, serves as the fiscal sponsor of the Holocaust Remembrance Day program and will receive funds in an amount up to $500 per contributing Councilmember’s discretionary account; and
WHEREAS, the provision of such services would fulfill the municipal public purpose of providing a community program supporting Holocaust survivors, community recognition and education about the Holocaust and unity among Berkeley residents. The grants will provide funds to produce the virtual event.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budget, up to $500 per office, shall be granted to the Jewish Community Center to fund the City of Berkeley’s virtual 19 th Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day program on April 28, 2022.

597
598

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Rigel Robinson (Author) & Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Budget Referral: Telegraph-Channing Garage Elevator Repairs

RECOMMENDATION
Refer $3.6M to the June 2022 budget process for urgent repairs to the Telegraph- Channing Garage elevators. Additionally, refer to the City Manager to pursue all available funding opportunities for this project, including American Rescue Plan Act funds.

BACKGROUND
The Telegraph-Channing Mall is a City-owned property in the heart of the Telegraph district, with commercial space, garage parking, public restrooms, and two elevator shafts. The garage’s elevators are past their useful life, have experienced periodic water intrusion, and are generating almost daily requests for service to address their unsatisfactory performance. The required renovations include interior and exterior upgrades, mechanical equipment and electrical system overhauls, and sealing of the elevator shaft from water intrusion.

The City’s Public Works Department has completed 50% design and developed a project cost estimate of $3.6M. However, the project continues to be on hold until funding becomes available, meaning that the unreliable elevators will continue to impact the commercial tenants and the visitors who park in the garage.

The Friends of the Berkeley Public Library, operator of the Channing Bookstore in the garage, has expressed particular concern about the condition of the elevators.

Community members and volunteers regularly bring book donations to the store and are forced to carry heavy boxes of donations down stairs or ramps when the elevators are out of service.

The current state of the elevators is an ADA issue and a liability for the City. Access to the garage is compromised, especially for seniors and disabled people, and there is the potential for people to get stuck in the elevators when they break down. This has occurred on at least one occasion. Therefore, this is an urgent situation that must be addressed by the City as soon as fiscally possible.

599
Budget Referral: Telegraph-Channing Garage Elevator Repairs CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$3.6M for design and construction, accounting for escalating costs and existing supply chain issues. Potential funding sources include the General Fund and American Rescue Plan Act funds, given that the Off Street Parking Lot Fund is not a viable funding source due to the decline in parking revenue. Council should also take into consideration the current costs of frequent service requests borne by the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rigel Robinson, (510) 981-7170
Angie Chen, Legislative Assistant

600
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 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Eleanor Hollander, Economic Development Manager Subject: Berkeley Economic Dashboards Update

INTRODUCTION
The Office of Economic Development (OED) is pleased to present the Citywide Economic Dashboard update for December 2021 (Attachment 1), and the updated Commercial District Dashboards (Attachment 2).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In the past five years, Berkeley has experienced economic growth and pandemic impacts comparable with that of the Bay Area region. By a variety of indicators, Berkeley’s economy was on track for continued healthy performance in the beginning of 2020. Due to the rapidly spreading COVID-19 virus, on March 17, 2020, the City of Berkeley, along with the health officers of six Bay Area counties issued health orders for residents to stay at home (“Shelter-in-Place”) and for all but a few essential businesses to cease operations. In the past two years, the acute phase of the pandemic has receeded; all businesses are permitted to operate, and the use of effective treatments and vaccines to prevent disease have become widespread and available to all those over age 5.

In 2020, the halting of economic activity had widespread impacts on the Berkeley economy, resulting in significant revenue reductions and job losses in sectors like performing arts, hospitality, and retail, while others, including healthcare and biotechnology, saw new investment and opportunities for growth. 2021 has seen these trends continue, as well as the fruits of a number of recovery efforts and government relief packages come to bear. This dashboard includes the latest citywide data available through the fourth quarter of 2021, with much of it collected through on-the-ground fieldwork.

Key findings include:
 Pandemic recovery brought thousands back to work. After nearly tripling between Dec. 2019 and Dec. 2020, the countywide unemployment rate dropped from 7.6% in Dec. 2020 to 4.3% in Dec. 2021. Most of the employment increases happened in Berkeley sectors like tourism & hospitality (especially lodging, food

601
Berkeley Economic Dashboards Update ACTION CALENDAR
March 22, 2022

& beverage, and arts & cultural industries); and personal & professional service industries (e.g. gyms and fitness studios, salons, employment services). The Berkeley-specific unemployment rate (3.6%) is 0.7% lower than that of Alameda Country.
 Growth opportunities abound in Berkeley’s “innovation sector”. More than 400 Berkeley-based tech, biotech, R&D and other STEM industry businesses were either able to adapt to having a remote workforce or continued work in medical, life science, and health manufacturing facilities, with many returning to work in-person or in a hybrid format. In 2021, Berkeley startups raised more than $1.4 billion through venture, angel-backed financing and convertible securities and 10 Berkeley companies received nearly $9 million in federal and state grants for Research & Development (R&D). More than a third (35%) of Berkeley innovation companies develop software and close to a third (31%) develop health-focused solutions through biotechnology & healthcare technologies. The latter industries continued to witness tremendous global investment in 2021, including Caribou Biosciences’ initial public offering (IPO) on the NASDAQ stock exchange, which raised proceeds of approximately $350 million. Clean technologies which advance solutions to support environmental sustainability and address climate change also grew in 2021: they comprise 13% of Berkeley’s innovation sector, 25% more than in 2020.
 Office vacancy rates in Berkeley increased but remained lower than in neighboring cities. Overall office availability in Berkeley more than doubled from Q4 2020 (5.3%) to Q4 2021 (11.1%). For context, the East Bay office market area availability average during this same period was 17.3%. Though demand for office space has lessened due to the pandemic, Berkeley’s inventory continues to remain low; asking office rents in the City average $3.49 per square foot, which is up by approximately $0.04 cents per square foot from the same period last year. The only other East Bay city with an availability rate lower than Berkeley is Alameda (8.2%).
 Average citywide ground floor commercial vacancy rates increased, slightly exceeding levels associated with normal market churn. Based on field data collected in September-November 2021, the citywide ground floor commercial vacancy rate had increased to 8.3%, an increase of 1.4% since Q3 2020 and 2.9% since Q3 2019. The Downtown Berkeley and San Pablo districts have experienced the largest increases in their vacancy rates since 2020, with increases of 5.8% and 3.1%, respectively. Vacancy rates decreased in many of Berkeley’s other commercial districts, as all food, personal service, and retail operations returned to traditional ‘in-person’ service. Among Berkeley’s commercial districts, the largest year-over-year decreases in vacancy rates were in the Telegraph, Neighborhood Commercial (C-N), and Solano districts (4.6%,

4.1%, and 2.3% respectively). Downtown Berkeley, Telegraph, and the Elmwood

602
Berkeley Economic Dashboards Update ACTION CALENDAR
March 22, 2022

have the highest vacancy rates overall (all above 10%), likely due to their dependence on foot traffic associated with UC Berkeley students, who were, in large part, learning remotely throughout the year.
 Occupancy by office and other-non retail service businesses, as a share of total ground floor square footage, continues to decline. As personal services are still feeling the effects of the pandemic and many workplaces have permanently switched to hybrid or remote work, the share of ground floor spaces occupied by office-based businesses, personal services industries, and other non-retail uses have declined. Between Q3 2020 and Q3 2021, “Office and Non- Retail uses” (which includes service businesses) as a percentage of total commercial square footage declined, from 16.5% to 12.5%. The percentage of ground floor commercial square footage occupied by Retail and Food & Beverage services between 2020 and 2021 remained relatively constant, at 37% and 12%, respectively. Retail’s share of ground floor occupancy is significantly lower than in 2016, when it occupied 42% of total ground floor commercial space.  The City of Berkeley’s sales tax revenue shows a slow but steady recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Berkeley’s total annual sales tax revenues increased by 5.0% from the four quarters from Q4 2020 to Q3 2021. For context, Alameda County (including all 14 cities) reported an annual sales tax increase of

12.5% over the same period and the State of California witnessed a 17.6% increase. In the second quarter of 2021, (April to June) the Retail and Food & Beverage subsectors were the largest contributors to the city’s sales tax revenue at 51.1% and 24.8% respectively. Overall, in Q2 2021, sales tax collection increases were present in every sector in Berkeley, due to the roll out of the COVID-19 vaccine to the general public, corresponding business reopenings, and the return to full capacity operations.
 Housing costs in Berkeley remain high for buyers and renters, consistent with the Bay Area region overall. As of Q4 2021, Berkeley’s median home sale price ($1.42M) was higher than its neighboring communities, (save for Piedmont at $1.90M), and driven by an increased demand for larger homes with accessible outdoor space and limited inventory. As of Ocotber 2021, Berkeley’s median rental price for all sizes and types of units had increased by 3.1% from the same period last year to a median of $3,196 per month. Berkeley’s median rental home prices for studio apartments (including rent-controlled units) have remained relatively stable at $1,591 per month (a $50 increase from the same period in 2020).
 The City of Berkeley continues to use a wide range of approaches to support local economic recovery. From cash grants to communications on the impacts of the latest health orders to holiday marketing support, the City continues to deploy all the tools in its toolkit to support businesses and enable

603
Berkeley Economic Dashboards Update ACTION CALENDAR
March 22, 2022

sustaible economic recovery from the acute phase of the pandemic. Highlights included the distribution of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) relief funds to the arts and hospitality industries, increased technical assistance for the low-interest resiliency loan fund established in 2020, creating a path to permanence for parklets and outdoor commerce, and the #DiscoveredinBerkeley and #BerkeleyHolidays marketing campaigns, among a variety of other targeted business outreach, communications, and technical assistance.

BACKGROUND
Since 2015, OED has consistently released two companion publications, the Citywide Economic Dashboard and Commercial District Dashboards, which analyze a wide variety of economic trends and indicators in Berkeley. Attached to this report is the updated version of the Citywide Economic Dashboard and Commercial District Dashboard for December 2021 (Attachments 1 and 2). These dashboards are designed to make current economic and community data and information more accessible to Council, City staff, and community stakeholders. Providing this information also allows investors to evaluate potential markets and provides vital information for policy-makers to better direct different social and economic programs. The reports provide updated information through Q4 2021. OED staff will continue to update these dashboards on an annual basis, as staffing allows, and has posted the most recent version on the City’s website at: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/oed/reports/.

To produce these publications, OED staff compiled and analyzed a wide variety of data sources including the Monthly Labor Force Data (Labor Market Information, California Employment Development Department), WARN notices provided to the Alameda County Workforce Development Board, commercial real estate data (Newmark Cornish & Carey), housing market data (Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, MLS, RentCafe, Redfin) and sales tax data (MUNIServices). Staff also analyzed data from City databases including business licenses, building permits and planning permits, and City publications such as rent board reports and the housing pipeline report. Information on Berkeley startups and other innovation companies was obtained from Pitchbook, Crunchbase, LinkedIn, the U.S. Small Business Administration, tech industry news sources, and direct communications with businesses or the Berkeley Startup Cluster’s partners including UC Berkeley, the Berkeley Lab, and Berkeley’s startup incubators and accelerators such as SkyDeck and Cyclotron Road. Finally, in the third and fourth quarters of 2021 OED staff updated its field occupancy survey of ground floor commercial spaces in Berkeley commercial districts (Attachment 2).

These publications support the City’s Strategic Plan, advancing our goal to be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily-accessible service and information to the community.

604
Berkeley Economic Dashboards Update ACTION CALENDAR
March 22, 2022

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Many of the City’s environmental sustainability goals are inextricably tied to the overall health of the City’s economy. Staff believes that the continued pursuit of sustainable economic goals, represents a strength and source of resilience for Berkeley.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
OED staff will, as directed by Council through previous and future referral items, partner with other City departments and community partners to implement programs and policies that foster a dynamic, sustainable, and locally-based economy, and assist in economic recovery throughout 2022 and beyond.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Actions that facilitate increased economic activity will increase revenues related to sales tax and property tax, and thus have a positive fiscal impact on the city.

CONTACT PERSON
Eleanor Hollander, Economic Development Manager, (510) 981-7536 Elizabeth Redman Cleveland, Chief Strategist, Sustainable Growth (510) 981-7532 Attachments:
1: Citywide Economic Dashboard
2: Commercial District Dashboards

605
2021 Economic Dashboard
Office of Economic Development
1

606
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Table of Contents

CITYWIDE ECONOMIC DASHBOARD
EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITY 3-7 • Activity by Industry Sector
• Top 25 Employers
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY 8-12
• Office Trends & Transactions
• Commercial Trends & Transactions
• Commercial Districts & Vacancy Rates
• Sales Tax Revenues
DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING 13-14 • Construction & Pipeline
• Housing Costs
COVID-19 RECOVERY 15-20 • Business & Arts Support
• Loans and Relief Grants
• Local Shopping & Marketing Campaign

607
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Percent change in employment by sector
(Nov. 2020 – Nov. 2021)
Employment Activity
by industry sector - employment
Between December 2020 and December 2021, the total number of jobs located in the East Bay increased by 38,900 or 3.6%. The sectors with the highest percent growth in employment are those that were closed for several months during the early months of the pandemic or that had to operate at reduced service levels, such as: Arts, Entertainment & Recreation; Leisure & Hospitality; and
Accommodation & Food Services.

The Alameda County unemployment rate fell to 4.3% in December 2021 after reaching 7.6% a year prior, though it still hasn’t returned to the pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 2.6% (December 2019).

Berkeley’s unemployment rate is even lower, at 3.6%, with a labor force of 59,900.

Source: Alameda County Workforce Development Board,
Labor Market Information (LMI-EDD) for East Bay.

East Bay Industry Sector % Change
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 31%
Leisure & Hospitality 16%
Accommodation & Food Services 14%
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 12%
Administrative & Support & Waste Services 5%
Transportation & Warehousing 4%
Health Care & Social Assistance 3%
Mining and Logging 0%
Manufacturing -1%
Retail Trade -1%
Wholesale Trade -1%
Construction -1%
Government -2%
Job Recovery Amidst the Pandemic
Source: State of California Employment Development Department (EDD)

608
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Employment Activity
by industry sector - employment
Top 25 Berkeley Employers
Of Berkeley’s top 25 Berkeley
employers, 4 are in the Education
sector, including UC Berkeley which is
one of the city’s main economic
engines. 5 are in the Healthcare
sector, reflecting the various large
medical employers in the city. There
are also a few large private sector
corporations operating out of
Berkeley, notably Bayer, which
recently executed a new $33M long-
term development agreement with
the city. Bayer plans to add 1,000
new jobs to the city over the term of
the agreement. The top Berkeley
employers operate in a variety of
different sectors (12), reflecting
Berkeley’s diverse sources of
economic prosperity.

Source: State of California Employment Development Department (EDD) The entrance to Bayer’s Berkeley campus
Credit: Berkeleyside
University of California, Berkeley
Credit: University of California, Berkeley
Company Sector
Ansys, Inc Software
Bayer Corp Life Sciences
Berkeley Bowl Produce Food & Beverage
Berkeley Cement Inc Contractor
Berkeley Unified School District Education
Callisto Publishing Media
City of Berkeley Government
Foresight Mental Health Healthcare
Genji Pacific LLC Food & Beverage
Insperity Peo Services L P Business Services
Kaiser Permanente Medical Group Inc Healthcare
Lifelong Medical Care Healthcare
Meyer Sound Laboratories, Inc Manufacturing
OC Jones & Sons Contractor
Peralta Community College District Education
Safeway Inc Food & Beverage
Siemens Corporation Manufacturing
Sutter Bay Hospitals Healthcare
Sutter Bay Medical Foundation Healthcare
Target Corporation Retail
The Wright Institute Education
U.S. Postal Service Government
University of California Education
Whole Foods Market California Inc Retail
YMCA of the Central Bay Area Recreation

609
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Employment Activity
by industry sector - hospitality
Tourism & Lodging
Food & Beverage Services
In 2021, Berkeley hospitality industries adapted to comply with evolving COVID-19 health orders. New hotels opened and many tourism businesses reemerged, albeit with modifications.

The rooftop at the new Aiden by Best Western Hotel on University Avenue Credit: Kelly Sullivan, Berkeleyside - #DiscoveredinBerkeley Outdoor commerce and dining installations like the one at Imm Thai Street Food in Downtown have become widespread since COVID limited indoor dining opportunities. Credit: Kelly Sullivan, Berkeleyside - #DiscoveredinBerkeley The Lobby of the Graduate Hotel on Durant Avenue
Credit: Kelly Sullivan, Berkeleyside - #DiscoveredinBerkeley As people began traveling again, Leisure and
hospitality companies began hiring. Jobs in these
industries in Alameda County increased by 15,800 in
2021. New hotels like the Aiden by Best Western on
University Ave. and Residence Inn by Marriott in
Downtown Berkeley show a positive step towards
recovery and prospects for Berkeley’s tourism
industry to eventually exceed pre-pandemic levels.

Source: State of California Employment Development Department (EDD) Accommodation and food service jobs in Alameda County went up by 12,400 in 2021. As people got vaccinated and restaurants re-opened for indoor dining, one of the sectors hardest hit by the pandemic started to bounce back. Adaptations made at the start of the pandemic, such as the construction of parklets to accommodate outdoor dining, have remained, giving restaurants the potential to ultimately serve more customers and contribute to lively, vibrant streets.

610
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Employment Activity
by industry sector – startups & innovation businesses
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2013 2015 2017 2019 2021
# of Berkeley startups*
22%
13%
3%5%
11%
9%3%
35%
Innovation Companies by
Industry Category
BioTech CleanTech
Education Food & Beverage
Hardware Healthcare
Other Software
Source: OED, Berkeley Start Up Cluster
Source: City of Berkeley Office of Economic Development (OED), UC Berkeley IPIRA *Companies defined as startups are for-profit
businesses that sell innovative technology products
or services OR substantively use innovative
technologies to develop and manufacture their
products or provide their services AND are
developing repeatable and scalable business
models that aren’t yet profitable.

Of more than 400 Berkeley innovation
companies citywide, Software is the
largest component (35%). BioTech and
Healthcare comprise nearly a third
(31%) and CleanTech is also a growing
component (representing 13% of the
total in 2021, up from 9% in 2020.)
In 2021, 66 Berkeley innovation
companies raised $1.4 billion of
funding through venture capital, angel-
backed financing, and convertible
securities. They also brought in federal
and state research & development
(R&D) grants worth $9 million.

611
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Employment Activity
by industry sector – startups & innovation businesses
4%
7% 1%
87%
2%
Innovation Company by Growth Stage
Consulting Company
Established Company
Incubator/Accelerator
Startup/Emerging Growth Company
Subsidiary Company
Berkeley SkyDeck
Bakar BioEnguinity Hub
Activate Berkeley at Cyclotron Road
Berkeley Innovation Sector
2021 Highlights
• Caribou Biosciences raised
~$350M through an IPO on the
NASDAQ
• MeliBio was listed in Time
Magazine’s 100 Best Inventions of
2021
• Upside Foods opened a new
facility to scale their production of
cultured meat
The vas
t majority (nearly 87%) of Berkeley
innovation companies are relatively early stage, of
the type you can find in the city’s many coworking
spaces, accelerators and incubators. The others are
either established (i.e. publicly traded, profitable or in the STEM industry for a number of years),
consulting businesses, or other innovation
ecosystem-supporting accelerators or incubators
like SkyDeck or Activate. These spaces, in
conjunction with UC Berkeley and the Berkeley
Lab’s numerous innovation & entrepreneurship
resources continue to make Berkeley a global
startup hub.

612
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Commercial Activity
Office trends & transactions
Q4 2021 Office Market, Berkeley Indicators
Total Inventory 3,428,875 SF
Under Construction 0 SF
Availability Rate 11.1%
Qtr Gross Absorption 30,342 SF
Qtr Net Absorption -73,008 SF
YTD Net Absorption -150,930 SF
Average Asking Rent $3.49 / SF
Source: Newmark Cornish & Carey, 4Q21 Greater Oakland Office Market Report Office Availability, East Bay Cities
Q4 2019 – Q4 2021
Source: Newmark Cornish & Carey, 4Q21 Greater Oakland Office Market Report New Developments for R&D
Bakar Labs (2630 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA) in the
Bakar BioEnginuity Hub on UC Berkeley’s campus is
the newest QB3 incubator, with space for 80 life
science companies. QB3 is the University of
California’s hub for innovation and entrepreneurship
in life science. Bakar Labs opened in late 2021 and
hosts entrepreneurs tackling the world’s most
important challenges in the site previously occupied
by the Berkeley Art Museum & Pacific Film Archive
(BAMPFA). theLAB Berkeley by SteelWave
(2222-45 5
th St & 2229-33 4th St)
is a newly refurbished space
established to be a magnet for the
innovative technology and life
sciences sectors. Spread across 3
buildings, theLAB offers laboratory
and office spaces in a modern space
fostering collaboration.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
4Q19 1Q20 2Q20 3Q20 4Q20 1Q21 2Q21 3Q21 4Q21
Alameda Berkeley Emeryville Oakland Richmond

613
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Commercial Activity
Commercial trends & transactions

12.2%

13.0%

13.3% 12.5% 12.1%

12.3%

41.7% 40.6%

38.4% 37.7% 37.0% 37.4%

14.6%

13.5% 16.4%

18.4%

16.5%

12.5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
% of Sq Ft Occupied
Citywide Commercial Inventory by
Select Categories & Square Footage, 2016-2021
Food & Beverage Services Retail Office/ Other Non-Retail Source: OED, Q3 2021
Feeling the Effects of the Pandemic
In the last year, Retail and Food & Beverage industries slightly increased their footprint in Berkeley, based on commercial occupancy by square foot. Different local
and federal COVID relief programs for these industries, as well as the City’s outdoor commerce and dining
permits, likely contributed to these industries’ real
estate holdings remaining relatively constant
throughout the pandemic.

On the other hand, occupancy rates for Office/Other
Non-Retail businesses (which includes service
businesses) have decreased by 4%. Personal services
businesses are still feeling the effects of the pandemic, and many office-based businesses have given up their
office or switched to a hybrid workplace model.

614
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Commercial Activity
Commercial trends & transactions
A December 2021 Bay Area Council survey of Bay Area Employers found that the majority of workers no longer come into the workplace every day, and 28% don’t come into a workplace at all. Even once the pandemic is over, most employers don’t expect employees to come in every day: 44% expect employees to come in 3 days per week. The survey results highlight a trend towards remote work that will extend beyond the pandemic period and impact how Berkeley and Bay Area office spaces are used and organized.

Source: Bay Area Council Employer Network Poll - December 2021 Source: Bay Area Council Employer Network Poll - December 2021

615
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Commercial Activity
Commercial districts & vacancy rates
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Downtown
Elmwood
North Shattuck
San Pablo
Solano
South Berkeley
Telegraph
University
C-N
West Berkeley
Citywide
Ground Floor Commercial Occupancy By Category,
2021 Q3
Vacant
Arts, Entertainment &
Recreation
Trade Services
Office / Other Non-Retail
Business & Professional
Services
Personal Services
Public & Nonprofit Entities
Food & Beverage Services
Retail
District 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Downtown 4.7% 4.6% 3.1% 5.1% 9.9% 15.7%
Elmwood 1.5% 5.4% 7.3% 7.3% 10.9% 10.9%
North Shattuck 2.6% 0.4% 1.7% 0.7% 4.3% 4.3%
San Pablo 5.9% 5.5% 4.9% 4.6% 4.8% 7.9%
Solano 7.5% 4.8% 4.1% 2.6% 6.7% 4.4%
South Berkeley 8.2% 9.6% 9.7% 7.6% 10.1% 8.8%
Telegraph 5.1% 7.1% 7.9% 4.4% 17.2% 12.6%
University 14.2% 12.0% 11.0% 7.8% 11.0% 9.1%
Neighborhood
Commercial (C-N) 7.3% 3.2%
West Berkeley 8.8% 1.9% 3.7% 5.8% 3.7% 4.7%
Citywide Avg. 6.5% 4.6% 5.0% 5.4% 6.9% 8.3%
Vacancy Rates by District, Calculated by Square Footage, 2016-2021 Citywide, the ground floor commercial vacancy rate has increased to 8.3%*, an increase of 1.4% since Q3 2020. Downtown Berkeley and the Telegraph districts have experienced the largest increases in vacancy during the pandemic.

Source: Berkeley OED
Source: Berkeley OED*Typical commercial district storefront vacancy rates range from 4-8% due to natural market churn. The high vacancy rate in Q3 2021 can be attributed to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic with many businesses not renewing their leases facing economic downturn.

616
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Commercial Activity
Sales tax revenues – recovering amidst the pandemic
Total Annual Sales Tax Revenue - Past 4 Quarters Q4 2019- Q3 2020 Q4 2020- Q3 2021 Change City of Berkeley $16,355,379 $17,179,289 5.0%
Alameda County (total including cities) $328,424,125 $369,540,764 12.5% State of California $7,050,811,392 $8,332,085,544 17.6% $4,121,480
$3,910,342 $3,909,194 $4,068,236
$2,628,526
$3,095,449
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Total City of Berkeley Q2 Sales Tax RevenuesBerkeley Sales Tax Revenues (Q2) by Business Category In Q2 2021, the Retail subsector was the largest contributor to the city’s sales tax revenue (51.1%), with Food & Beverage second (24.8%). As vaccines became available to the greater public in early 2021, most of the sectors impacted by the pandemic showed signs of recovery, with an increase in sales tax collection in Q2 2021 (up 26% vs Q2 2020) compared to the decrease in Q2 2020 (-42% vs Q2 2019). The increase in Q2 sales tax collection was largely due to significant increases in the Food and Beverage sector (up 24.0% vs Q2 2020), Retail (up 28.6%), and select sub-categories in the Personal Services sector, i.e. Automotive Repair and Salons (up 50.0%).

Source: MuniServices, Quarter 2 (Apr-June) Collections 2016 to 2021 Source: MuniServices, Quarter 2 (Apr-June) 2016 to 2021, Nominal Values $-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
$2,000,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Business & Professional Services Food & Beverage Services Other Non-Retail Personal Services Retail

617
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Development & Housing
Construction & pipeline
Housing Development Pipeline
Pipeline Project Highlights
Hub Berkeley at the corner of
Center St and Oxford St is a
proposed 17 story, 283-unit
project with 10,164 sq. ft. of
ground-floor retail/restaurant
spaces. It would have 63 parking
spaces as well as 316 bike
parking spaces.
2065 Kittredge St is a 189-unit
proposal for off-campus
student housing. It would
include a 42-space
underground parking garage,
114 bike parking spaces, and
nearly 10,000 sq. ft. indoor
amenity area for residents.

Berkeley Multi-Family Residential Developments, 2021
From 2015 to 2020, permits for 2,943 housing units have been issued. Data from 2021 is not yet available, but when permits from 2021, 2022, and 2023 are factored in, Berkeley will “far exceed” the state mandated goal for total units permitted for 2015 to 2023.

Source: Berkeleyside and City of Berkeley, Project Descriptions, 2021 Source: Map Red Oak Realty, updated January 2022, Text, SF Chronicle, February 15, 2022

618
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Development & Housing
Rental costs & sale prices
Median Sale Price, Single-Family Homes, Dec 2021
Alameda $1,197,500
Albany $1,225,250
Berkeley $1,417,500
El Cerrito $1,240,000
El Sobrante $705,000
Emeryville $670,000
Oakland $800,000
Richmond $675,000
Piedmont $1,907,500
San Leandro $825,000
Source: Redfin
$800
$900
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
$1,300
$1,400
$1,500
$1,600
$1,700
$900,000
$1,000,000
$1,100,000
$1,200,000
$1,300,000
$1,400,000
$1,500,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Housing Prices in Berkeley, 2016-2021
Median Sale Price, Single Family Homes Median Rents, Studio Apartment Sources: Redfin, and City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board Berkeley’s single family home values increased 3.5% from Dec. 2020 -2021, with a 27.5% increase in sales volume over the same period. 88 single family homes were sold in Berkeley in Dec. 2021 alone, with an average of 17 days on the market. Since the pandemic began, (March 2020) the median price of single family homes in Berkeley hit an all time high ($1,610,000) in October of 2021.

For rentals, between Oct. 2020 and Oct. 2021 Berkeley’s market rate rents for all units increased by 3.1%, to $3,196.

Home sales and rental prices increase
and sales volume stays high
Source: Redfin, and RentCafe.com

619
15

620
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Business & Arts Support
Small business revolving loan fund & resiliency loan program Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Portfolio Total Loans Active Loans Number of RLF Loans 45 8
RLF $ Loaned $2,778,417 $795,000
Total Non-RLF $ Leveraged $7,453,083 $2,303,486
Private Sector Jobs Created 204 50
Private Sector Jobs Saved 100 76
COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program (RLP) Portfolio Active Loans Number of RLP Loans 11
RLP $ Loaned $520,000
Supporting Berkeley’s existing small businesses
RLF recipient Kitchen on Fire
launched new products such
as REBOUT Wellness
Beverages, and continues to
safely offer in-person
cooking classes.

RLF recipient East Bay Media
Center continues to hold
hybrid film festivals and online
youth camps.

Current RLF Borrowers Include:

Source: Berkeley OED, January 2022

621
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Business & Arts Support
Arts & Culture Relief Grants
Berkeley Art Works Projects (BAWP)
The Berkeley Art Works Projects grant program provided economic opportunities for Berkeley artists struggling during an economically challenging time, and enhanced Berkeley's cultural and economic vitality with public art projects for the community. Grants ranged from the micro ($500) to $10,000 for larger projects. The program challenged grantees to respond to one of the following themes through their project: Public health & wellbeing, Economic recovery & resilience, Community connection & belonging. To date, the Berkeley Art Works Projects grant program has provided close to $200,000 in funding for 32 artists, performers, and community members to create temporary public art projects throughout Berkeley that bolster collective resilience and recovery from the effects of COVID-19. These projects began to be installed throughout the city in 2021 and will continue through 2022.

View a map of BAWP projects here:
https://www.berkeleyartworksprojects.org/map
Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants Program
The Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (BARG) for Organizations & Festivals were funded through a one-time allocation by Berkeley City Council of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars to support the recovery of Berkeley’s arts sector. The fund provided one-time grants to all qualifying Berkeley-based nonprofit and fiscally sponsored arts organizations and festivals. BARG grant funding will be used to mitigate an arts organization’s economic loss from COVID-19, implement COVID- 19 prevention tactics, and procure consulting and marketing services to bolster the organization financially for future sustainability. 74 grant awards ranging from $3,000 to $33,000, with an average grant award amount of $20,734 per organization, are set to be disbursed in February of 2022.

622
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Business & Arts Support
#DiscoveredinBerkeley business marketing campaign
The Discovered in Berkeley marketing campaign highlighted local businesses supporting environmental sustainability, social equity, local production, and artistic creativity. Companies offering more humane methods of food production, original design (with haircare, jewelry, furniture & more), and craft food & beverages (for outdoor and personal consumption) featured prominently.

Throughout 2021:
• More than 2,750 users visited DiscoveredinBerkeley.com (87% were new visitors) • Instagram @DiscoveredinBerkeley achieved 650+ followers (and the uses of #DiscoveredinBerkeley exceeded 3,300) • 8 Berkeleyside articles generated 12,800+ page views and more than 1,000 clicks to local businesses’ & other featured websites • 21 Berkeleyside banner ads generated 609k+ impressions and more than 780 “clicks”

623
CITY OF BERKELEY | OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 2021 Business & Arts Support
#BerkeleyHolidays Gift Guide and marketing campaign
• The Berkeley Chamber held its 3rd Annual Holiday Gift Fair at the UC Theatre featuring 30 merchants with gifts including baked goods, clothing, jewelry, books, calendars, masks, blankets, wine, coffee, spices, and more. It drew more than 300 attendees.

Facebook event advertising reached 7,000+ people, with 277 event responses.
• The online
BerkeleyHolidays.com Gift Guide was updated to
include more photos and increase gift search functionality. 38 businesses, including 20 woman-owned businesses and 8 BIPOC or black-owned businesses, participated.
• #berkeleyholidays has bee
n used in more than 1,800 posts on
Instagram
• More than 1,400 unique viewers saw Berkeleyside’s Discovered in Berkeley article featuring Gift Fair vendors and the banner ads for those businesses generated nearly 80 “clicks”.
• More than 300 users visited discoveredinberkeley.comin the month following the holiday gift story’s publication in Berkeleyside.

The site linked prominently to berkeleyholidays.com throughout the winter holiday period.

624
Office of Economic Development (OED)
See the OED website for past Economic Dashboards and other economic reports:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/oed/reports/
Contact OED for more information:
[email protected] 20

625
City of Berkeley | Office of Economic Development | 510.981.7530 Downtown: 2021 Snapshot
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Downtown Citywide
Ground Floor Commercial Business Mix
(by Square Footage), 2021 Q3
Vacant
Arts, Entertainment &
Recreation
Trade Services
Office / Other Non-Retail
Business & Professional
Services
Personal Services
Public & Nonprofit Entities
Food & Beverage Services
Retail
Downtown Berkeley serves as the City’s core commercial district, meeting the daily needs of residents, students, workers, and visitors. The district benefits from a significant concentration of arts and entertainment uses, which occupy
Source: MuniServicesSource: Berkeley OED

17.8% of total ground floor
commercial space in the district
compared to 5.6% citywide. As of
Q3 2021, the vacancy rate in
Downtown is 15.7%, which has
more than tripled since late 2019
(5.1%). Sales tax revenue
generated in 2021 by Food &
Beverage services dropped to
$580,079 from $934,966 in 2020
(-38%) but Retail sales tax
collected increased by $34,223
(+6%).

4.7% 4.6%

3.1%

5.1%

9.9%

15.7%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Ground Floor Commercial Vacancy Rate (by
Square Footage), 2016-2021
$-
$200,000.00
$400,000.00
$600,000.00
$800,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,400,000.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Sales Tax Revenue by Sector, 2016-2021
Business & Professional Services Food & Beverage
Other Non-Retail Personal Services
Retail
Source: Berkeley OED

626
City of Berkeley | Office of Economic Development | 510.981.7530 $-
$50,000.00
$100,000.00
$150,000.00
$200,000.00
$250,000.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Sales Tax Revenue by Sector, 2016-2021
Business & Professional Services Food & Beverage
Other Non-Retail Personal Services
Retail
Elmwood: 2021 Snapshot
The Elmwood is a compact three block commercial district along College Avenue near the Berkeley-Oakland border and the neighboring Rockridge shopping district. The Elmwood district is characterized by a high concentration (22.7%) of Food & Beverage services and Personal Services (11.5%), and is a walkable, neighborhood-serving commercial district. As of Q3 2021, the district’s vacancy rate by square footage is 10.91%, which is Source: MuniServicesSource: Berkeley OED
close to no change from 2020
Q4 (10.95%). Sales tax
collected from the Food and
Beverage sector in the
Elmwood decreased by
$33,157, from 2020 to 2021,
and by $13,315 for Retail, as
indoor capacity for retail
shopping was limited, and
indoor dining was still
restricted due to the
pandemic.

1.5%

5.4%

10.4%

7.3%

10.9% 10.9%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Ground Floor Commercial Vacancy Rate (by
Square Footage), 2016-2021
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Elmwood Citywide
Business Mix (by Square Footage), 2021 Q3
Vacant
Arts, Entertainment &
Recreation
Trade Services
Office / Other Non-Retail
Business & Professional
Services
Personal Services
Public & Nonprofit Entities
Food & Beverage Services
Retail

627
City of Berkeley | Office of Economic Development | 510.981.7530 North Shattuck: 2021 Snapshot
North Shattuck is one of Berkeley’s oldest commercial districts, located just north of Downtown. The district is characterized by a high concentration of well-known, long-standing, and celebrated restaurants, including Chez Panisse and the Cheeseboard. North Shattuck is both a walkable, neighborhood-serving commercial district as well as a global destination for food and dining. As of Q3 2021, the district’s vacancy rate by square footage is 4.29%, which is close to no change from the rate of 4.32% in 2020 Q4.

Source: MuniServicesSource: Berkeley OED
Sales tax collected from the Food
and Beverage sector in North
Shattuck decreased by $137,925,
from 2020 to 2021, and by $56,071
for Retail, as indoor capacity for
retail shopping was limited, and
indoor dining was restricted due to
the pandemic.

2.6%

0.4%

1.7%

0.7%

4.3% 4.3%
0%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
4%
4%
5%
5%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Ground Floor Commercial Vacancy Rate (by
Square Footage), 2016-2021
$-
$100,000.00
$200,000.00
$300,000.00
$400,000.00
$500,000.00
$600,000.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Sales Tax Revenue by Sector, 2016-2021
Business & Professional Services Food & Beverage
Other Non-Retail Personal Services
Retail
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
North Shattuck Citywide
Business Mix (by Square Footage), 2021 Q3
Vacant
Arts, Entertainment &
Recreation
Trade Services
Office / Other Non-Retail
Business & Professional
Services
Personal Services
Public & Nonprofit Entities
Food & Beverage Services
Retail
Source: Berkeley OED

628
City of Berkeley | Office of Economic Development | 510.981.7530 San Pablo: 2021 Snapshot
$-
$200,000.00
$400,000.00
$600,000.00
$800,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,200,000.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Sales Tax Revenue by Sector, 2016-2021
Business & Professional Services Food & Beverage
Other Non-Retail Personal Services
Retail
San Pablo Avenue is Berkeley’s largest commercial corridor, running the entire north-south length of the City. San Pablo is characterized by a high concentration of Trade Services (15.9%), including over 50 automobile Source: MuniServicesSource: Berkeley OED
services. San Pablo functions more as a
regional destination for specific uses
rather than a walkable, neighborhood-
serving commercial district; as such, it
features smaller percentages of Food &
Beverage Services (7.4%) and Personal
Services (9.6%). In Q3 2021, the district’s
vacancy rate by square footage was 7.9%,
up from 4.9% in Q4 2020 and also up
from the average rate of 5.2% over the 5
years before 2021. Retail Sales tax
revenue collected in 2021 has increased
by $56,445 since 2020, and continues to
be the largest source of tax revenue for
the area.

5.9% 5.5%

4.9% 4.6% 4.9%

7.9%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Ground Floor Commercial Vacancy Rates (by
Square Footage), 2016-2021
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
San Pablo Citywide
Business Mix (by Square Footage), 2021 Q3
Vacant
Arts, Entertainment &
Recreation
Trade Services
Office / Other Non-Retail
Business & Professional
Services
Personal Services
Public & Nonprofit
Entities
Food & Beverage Services
Retail
Source: Berkeley OED

629
City of Berkeley | Office of Economic Development | 510.981.7530 Solano: 2021 Snapshot
Solano is a small commercial district in North Berkeley, with a total of 147 commercial spaces and approximately 274,800 square feet of commercial space. It shares a border with Albany and is situated next to a large Source: Berkeley OED
elementary school and an active
neighborhood of single-family
homes. Solano has a large key
asset (the former Oaks Theatre)
that was due to be occupied by a
climbing gym in late 2021 and
should be open soon. The
district’s vacancy rate by square
footage is 4.0%, a 2.7% decrease
from Q3 2021 (6.7%).

Sales tax collected from the Food and Beverage sector along Solano Avenue decreased by $15,554, from 2020 to 2021, and by $8,932.18 for Retail, as indoor capacity for retail shopping was limited, and indoor dining was restricted due to the pandemic.

7.5%

4.8%

4.1%

2.6%

6.7%

4.0%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Ground Floor Commercial Vacancy Rate (by
Square Footage), 2016-2021
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Solano Citywide
Business Mix (by Square Footage), 2021 Q3
Vacant
Arts, Entertainment &
Recreation
Trade Services
Office / Other Non-Retail
Business & Professional
Services
Personal Services
Public & Nonprofit Entities
Food & Beverage Services
Retail
$-
$50,000.00
$100,000.00
$150,000.00
$200,000.00
$250,000.00
$300,000.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Sales Tax Revenue by Sector, 2016-2021
Business & Professional Services Food & Beverage
Personal Services Retail
Source: MuniServices
Source: Berkeley OED

630
City of Berkeley | Office of Economic Development | 510.981.7530 South Berkeley: 2021 Snapshot
South Berkeley is a large district stretching over an area known for its cultural diversity and includes the Lorin District, the Sacramento corridor, and the South Shattuck area. South Berkeley includes several car dealerships, which accrue
Source: Berkeley OED
significant retail sales tax
revenue for the City. The area
also features a high
concentration of Personal
Services businesses (21.6% vs.

7.8% citywide) but is under-
served by Food & Beverage
services, which account for only

5.8% of ground floor
commercial space, as compared
to 12.3% citywide. As of Q3
2021, the district’s vacancy rate
by square footage was 8.8%, a

1.3% decrease from 2020.

8.2%

9.6%

10.5%

7.6%

10.1%

8.8%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Ground Floor Commercial Vacancy Rate (by Square
Footage), 2016-2021
$-
$200,000.00
$400,000.00
$600,000.00
$800,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,200,000.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Sales Tax Revenue by Sector, 2016-2021
Business & Professional Services Food & Beverage
Other Non-Retail Personal Services
Retail
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
South Berkeley Citywide
Business Mix (by Square Footage), 2021 Q3
Vacant
Arts, Entertainment &
Recreation
Trade Services
Office / Other Non-Retail
Business & Professional
Services
Personal Services
Public & Nonprofit Entities
Food & Beverage Services
Retail
Source: MuniServices
Source: Berkeley OED

631
City of Berkeley | Office of Economic Development | 510.981.7530 Telegraph: 2021 Snapshot
The Telegraph district has undergone significant change with respect to its ground floor inventory over the past several years. Food & Beverage services have shown a dramatic increase since 2012, with 31.0% of Food & Beverage services accounting for ground floor commercial space in the district, as compared to 12.3%
Source: Berkeley OED
Citywide. As of Q3 2021, the
district’s ground floor
commercial vacancy rate of

12.6% has decreased from
2020’s record high of 17.2%. This
can be attributed to new ground
floor leases and developments
along Telegraph Avenue in 2021
that will continue into 2022,
including the large Enclave
Building at Telegraph and Haste
that currently contains student
housing and is offering many
new ground floor commercial
spaces.

5.1%

7.1% 7.9%

4.4%

17.2%

12.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Ground Floor Commercial Vacancy Rate (by
Square Footage), 2016-2021
$-
$200,000.00
$400,000.00
$600,000.00
$800,000.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Sales Tax Revenue by Sector, 2016-2021
Business & Professional Services Food & Beverage
Other Non-Retail Personal Services
Retail
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Telegraph Citywide
Business Mix (by Square Footage), 2021 Q3
Vacant
Arts, Entertainment &
Recreation
Trade Services
Office / Other Non-Retail
Business & Professional
Services
Personal Services
Public & Nonprofit Entities
Food & Beverage Services
Retail
Source: MuniServices
Source: Berkeley OED

632
City of Berkeley | Office of Economic Development | 510.981.7530 University: 2021 Snapshot
University Avenue, from Martin Luther King Jr Way to the waterfront, spans many of the City’s neighborhoods and serves as the gateway to the UC Berkeley Campus. From 2016 to 2020, Food & Beverage Services has generated the most sales tax revenue for the district. In 2021, Retail sales tax eclipsed funds
Source: Berkeley OED
from Food & Beverage.

Retail sales tax collected
in 2021 increased by
$116,785.63 from 2020,
passing pre-pandemic
levels. The 2021 vacancy
rate decreased by 1.9%
from 2020 to 9.1%.

14.2%

12.0%

11.0%

7.8%

11.0%

9.1%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Ground Floor Commercial Vacancy Rate (by
Square Footage), 2016-2021 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
University Citywide
Business Mix (by Square Footage), 2021 Q3
Vacant
Arts, Entertainment &
Recreation
Trade Services
Office / Other Non-Retail
Business & Professional
Services
Personal Services
Public & Nonprofit Entities
Food & Beverage Services
Retail
$-
$200,000.00
$400,000.00
$600,000.00
$800,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,400,000.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Sales Tax Revenue by Sector, 2016-2021
Business & Professional Services Food & Beverage Services Other Non-Retail Personal Services
Retail
Source: MuniServices
Source: Berkeley OED

633
City of Berkeley | Office of Economic Development | 510.981.7530 West Berkeley: 2021 Snapshot
West Berkeley represents all commercial spaces west of San Pablo Avenue, including 4th Street and the Gilman Corridor. There are a number of major, large-floor-plate retailers, and a dense cluster of home supplies and construction businesses. There is also a higher percentage of non-retail commercial uses, including manufacturing and warehousing. Retail accounts for 50.7% of ground floor
commercial space in the district, as
compared to 37.4% citywide. West
Berkeley also has a smaller percentage
of square footage devoted to Food and
Beverage (5.9%) businesses than the
citywide rate of 12.3%. The commercial
vacancy rate in Q3 of 2021 is 4.7%, an
increase from 2020’s 3.7%. Sales tax
revenue has increased in this area
everywhere except Food & Beverage
and Personal Services for an overall
Sales tax revenue increase of $71,501
(+1.1%).

Source: Berkeley OED

8.8%

1.9%

4.1%

5.4%

3.7%

4.7%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Ground Floor Commercial Vacancy Rate (by
Square Footage), 2016-2021
$-
$1,000,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$3,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$5,000,000.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Sales Tax Revenue by Sector, 2016-2021
Business & Professional Services Food & Beverage
Other Non-Retail Personal Services
Retail
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
West Berkeley Citywide
Business Mix (by Square Footage), 2021 Q3
Vacant
Arts, Entertainment &
Recreation
Trade Services
Office / Other Non-Retail
Business & Professional
Services
Personal Services
Public & Nonprofit Entities
Food & Beverage Services
Retail
Source: MuniServices
Source: Berkeley OED

634
City of Berkeley | Office of Economic Development | 510.981.7530 Neighborhood (C-N): 2021 Snapshot
Across Berkeley there are 11 smaller commercial pockets, zoned as “C-N” or “Neighborhood Commercial.” These areas are not more than one or two block collections of commercial enterprises that are distributed throughout Berkeley (see map).

Source: Berkeley OED
The first field data
from the C-N
areas was
collected during
the COVID-19
Pandemic of 2020
to track the
impact of shelter-
in-place orders on
neighborhood-
serving retail and
service
businesses.

Taken together, the “C-N” areas
represent nearly 190
commercial spaces, and
approximately 300,000 square
feet of commercial space. The
C-N areas collectively generate

3.5% of the city’s total sales tax.

They also include a few large
Arts, Entertainment and
Recreation facilities (23.1% by
square footage) and Public and
Non-Profit entities (25.8%
compared to 3.3% citywide).

These areas include commercial
nodes at the following
intersections:
• Claremont and Prince
• Claremont and Tunnel
• College and Alcatraz
• Gilman and Curtis
• Hearst and Euclid
• Hopkins and El Dorado
• Hopkins and Monterey
• Martin Luther King Jr Way
(MLK)
and Dwight
• MLK and Hearst
• MLK and Rose
• MLK and Virginia
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
C-N Citywide
Business Mix (by Square Footage), 2021 Q3
Vacant
Trade Services
Retail
Public & Nonprofit Entities
Personal Services
Office / Other Non-Retail
Food & Beverage Services
Business & Professional
Services
Arts, Entertainment &
Recreation7.3%

3.2%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
2020 2021
Ground Floor
Commercial Vacancy
Rate (by Square
Footage), 2020-2021
$-
$50,000.00
$100,000.00
$150,000.00
$200,000.00
$250,000.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Sales Tax Revenue by Sector, 2016-2021
Business & Professional Services Food & Beverage
Other Non-Retail Personal Services
Retail Source: MuniServices
Source: Berkeley OED

635
636

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

PUBLIC HEARING
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Referral Response: Research and Development (R&D) Definition

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt the first reading of a Zoning Ordinance amendment that modifies the land use definition of Research and Development (R&D) [Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Division 5: Glossary – Defined Terms 23.502.020].

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On March 20, 2020 the City Council adopted a referral from Mayor Arreguin and Councilmember Wengraf to update the definition of R&D in the Zoning Ordinance (Title 23 of the Berkeley Municipal Code). The current definition is:

Research and Development
A Research and Development facility is an establishment comprised of laboratory or other non-office space, which is engaged in one or more of the following activities: industrial, biological or scientific research; product design; development and testing; and limited manufacturing necessary for the production of prototypes.

The March 2020 referral observed that the current definition does not adequately reflect present-day business activities. For example, the current definition prohibits R&D establishments from including office space and requires the inclusion of a laboratory.

The referral requested that the new definition reflect evolving business practices and provide flexibility for R&D establishments to occupy spaces that meet their business needs.

Modifications to the R&D definition supports the City’s Strategic Plan goal of fostering a dynamic, sustainable, and locally-based economy.

637

Referral Response: Research and Development Definition PUBLIC HEARING March 22, 2022

Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission discussed this referral on December 16, 2020 and June 2, 2021, and held a public hearing on October 6, 2021. Planning Commission focused not only on the substance of the definition but also on its formatting, aiming to present the words in a clear and logical manner. Below is the definition that Planning Commission recommended for City Council’s consideration:

Research and Development
An establishment engaged in the following activities:
 Industrial, biological, or scientific research; and
 Product or process
o Design, or
o Development, or
o Prototyping, or
o Testing.

This may include labs, offices, warehousing, and light manufacturing functions as part of the overall Research and Development use.

Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, Planning & Development staff were informed that unordered, bulleted lists are not acceptable formatting for the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC). As such, the Planning Commission’s recommended definition is represented below in paragraph format for City Council consideration:

Research and Development
An establishment engaged in the following activities: 1) industrial, biological or scientific research; and 2) product or process design, development, prototyping, or testing. This may include labs, offices, warehousing, and light manufacturing functions as part of the overall Research and Development use.

The recommended definition addresses the referral—accommodating innovation in the R&D business sector—while maintaining consistency with Berkeley’s regulatory practices. In addition, the Planning Commission recommendation included the following four elements that were developed in the course of their deliberations. Discussions took into consideration research and analysis presented in staff reports (which covered Berkeley’s existing R&D regulations, R&D definitions adopted by other Bay Area jurisdictions, and consistency with the West Berkeley Plan), presentations and material provided by Berkeley’s Office of Economic Development, and input from the public.  Clearly state the required and acceptable land use activities of an R&D land use.

An R&D land use is characterized by a continuum of activities - research, development, prototyping, and testing. It is this continuum of activities that necessitates the need for an R&D land use, since an establishment conducting

638

Referral Response: Research and Development Definition PUBLIC HEARING March 22, 2022

research without development or development without research could be permitted with existing “stand-alone” land uses in the BMC. The proposed definition provides a list of required land use activities, making it clear that an R&D land use must include on-going production that results in the design, development, prototyping, or testing of a product, prototype, or process. The proposed definition reflects the interrelated functions of an R&D establishment while creating a distinction between businesses with R&D land uses and stand-alone labs, offices, or light manufacturing land uses.  Remove prohibition on any office space.

The current definition of R&D prohibits office space. This is problematic because modern businesses with R&D land uses conduct research both in laboratory settings—which may include clean rooms, hoods, work benches, and machinery— as well as within office space, which may include desks and small-scale computer equipment. As referenced, the current definition intentionally prohibited office space in order to avoid office land uses from encroaching on limited industrial space in West Berkeley. The full prohibition of office space is problematic and inconsistent with the allowance of ancillary1 office space and with the multi-faceted activities required of an R&D firm. The proposed definition allows for office space to be part of a business with an R&D land use. This is consistent with current business practices and R&D regulations in other cities.
 Address Planning Commission’s concerns about software development firms.

Planning Commission, sensitive to the unique physical needs of R&D establishments, wanted to ensure that office-based software firms would not compete for space and/or drive up land costs for R&D establishments. The referral requested the addition of “technological” research to emphasize the need for computer-intensive activities associated with businesses that use the R&D land use category. The proposed definition achieves this goal by allowing industrial, biological or scientific research and design, development, prototyping and testing in laboratories and offices. This modification would allow for technological research that utilizes custom and proprietary software, but directs R&D businesses that are purely office-based to locate in other commercial districts where lower impact office uses are allowed. This solution reserves limited industrial space for R&D facilities where larger experimental space may be needed for the purposes of research, design, and prototyping or where activities generate noise, odor or vibrations. 1 BMC Definition: Use, Ancillary - A use that is both dependent on and commonly associated with the principal permitted use of a lot and/or building and that does not result in different or greater impacts than the principal use.

639

Referral Response: Research and Development Definition PUBLIC HEARING March 22, 2022

 Do not encroach on protected space in the West Berkeley Plan Area.

During the Planning Commission meeting on December 16, 2020, several concerns were raised regarding the possible encroachment of R&D facilities on space designated for protected manufacturing uses. Planning Commission’s recommended amendments do not remove or modify existing protections for the conversion of protected space. Since the adoption of the protected space conversion provisions in 2011, no more than 30,000 square feet of protected space has been converted for the purposes of R&D. That relatively small volume of converted space is an indication that the existing regulations for the conversion of protected space are robust and achieving their intended effect. Planning Commission’s recommended definition will not alter how R&D land uses are regulated relative to protected space.

The draft Zoning Ordinance amendments update the R&D definition to provide clarity and reflect existing practices within the sector and regulatory practices in other cities.

The definition also provides more flexibility to existing and prospective operations in Berkeley. In addition, the amendments to the R&D definition are consistent with the West Berkeley Plan as they do not imbalance the economic mix of the Plan Area, and they advance the goal of supporting the growth of an evolving industry that is creating local jobs.

BACKGROUND
The current definition for R&D was created as a result of the 2007-2011 West Berkeley Project.2 As part of this project, the Planning Commission developed amendments to address various challenges industries experienced in the West Berkeley Plan area.3 This project resulted in new land use definitions (including R&D and Arts and Crafts), the revision of protected use regulations, and other amendments that eased regulatory obstacles related to industrial business growth and opportunity in West Berkeley.

Planning Commission discussed this referral three times between December 2020 and October 2021. Staff support of the Commission’s development of a recommendation included analysis of related definitions and regulations in the BMC, a survey of how other jurisdictions regulate R&D land uses (including Emeryville, Richmond, San Leandro and Oakland), an overview of the West Berkeley Plan, and a thorough analysis of emerging business sectors in Berkeley—with a particular focus on economic development in West Berkeley—provided by the Office of Economic Development.

As noted above, the Zoning Ordinance currently includes protections of manufacturing space in Berkeley as outlined in BMC23.206.050 [Protected Uses]. This Section of the 2 West Berkeley Project
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/WBP_Archive.aspx
3 West Berkeley Plan (1993)
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Redevelopment_Agency/West_Berkeley_Plan_(The).asp x

640

Referral Response: Research and Development Definition PUBLIC HEARING March 22, 2022

BMC ensures that existing manufacturing spaces be maintained for a manufacturing land use or be replaced (at an alternate location within the zoning district) if a change of use occurs. The proposed R&D definition does not weaken these protections in the BMC.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Modifications to the R&D definition will not substantially change the primary activities of a business with an R&D land use classification or exacerbate detrimental impacts related to noise, vibration, odors, and the like within the mixed-use West Berkeley context. Existing performance standards and standard Use Permit conditions of approval would remain in place.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The existing R&D definition is more restrictive compared to neighboring jurisdictions that permit this type of use. The proposed modifications to the definition of R&D reflect existing practices within the sector and regulatory practices in other cities. The definition also provides more flexibility to existing and prospective operations in Berkeley. The changes in the R&D definition are consistent with the West Berkeley Plan as they do not imbalance the economic mix of the Plan Area and advance the goal of supporting the growth of an evolving industry that is creating local jobs.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Planning Commission considered multiple iterations of the R&D definition and also considered expanding the referral response to include updates to additional definitions, changes to levels of discretion and permitting thresholds, and modifications to regulations regarding protected spaces in West Berkeley and the West Berkeley Plan in general. Ultimately Planning Commission made a limited recommendation regarding the definition at this time. Council could take no action and continue to utilize the existing R&D definition, with no modifications.

CONTACT PERSON
Katrina Lapira, Assistant Planner, Planning & Development Department, 510-981-7488 Alene Pearson, Principal Planner, Planning & Development Department, 510-981-7489 Attachments:
1: Draft Ordinance
2: Council Referral from March 20, 2020
3: October 6, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Final Minutes 4: Public Hearing Notice

641

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 23.502 TO MODIFY THE RESEARCH

AND DEVELOPMENT LAND USE DEFINITION
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.502.020 R.8 is amended to read as follows:

23.502.020 R.8

8. Research and Development An establishment engaged in the following activities: 1) industrial, biological or scientific research; and 2) product or process design, development, prototyping, or testing. This may include labs, offices, warehousing, and light manufacturing functions as part of the overall Research and Development use.

Section 2. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

642

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 10, 2020
1 TO: Honorable Members of the City Council
FROM: Mayor Arreguín and Councilmember Wengraf
SUBJECT: Referral: Update the definition of “Research and Development”

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the Planning Commission to update the definition of “Research and Development.”

BACKGROUND
In the 21st century, Research and Development has evolved to take on many new forms, such that it can be performed in spaces that may, at first glance, appear to be an office or light industrial environment rather than a traditional “laboratory” with, for example, benches and sinks.

The Planning Commission is encouraged to update the definition of “Research and Development”1 to reflect evolving business practices and consider language such as:

Research and Development: An establishment comprised of laboratory or other associated and ancillary space, engaged in one or more of the following activities: industrial, technological, biological or scientific research; product design; associated software development; development and testing; and limited fabrication and/or manufacturing necessary for the production and assemblage of prototypical products.”

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No environmental impact.

CONTACT
Mayor Jesse Arreguín
[email protected] | 510-981-7100
1 BMC — 23F.04.010 Definitions

ATTACHMENT 2Page 7 of 14
643

644
Planning Commission

FINAL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 6, 2021
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m.

Location: Virtual meeting via Zoom

1. ROLL CALL:

Commissioners Present: Barnali Ghosh, Robb Kapla, Elisa Mikiten, Chip Moore, Christina Oatfield, Alfred Twu, Jeff Vincent (arrived 7:40), and Brad Wiblin.

Commissioners Absent: Savlan Hauser.

Staff Present: Secretary Alene Pearson, Katrina Lapira, Samantha Updegrave, and Eleanor Holander.

2. ORDER OF AGENDA: No changes.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: 0

4. PLANNING STAFF REPORT:
• City Council
o September 14 – BZO presentation and deliberation
o September 28 – BZO first reading adopted
▪ Takes effect December 1, 2021
o October 12 – Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance and second reading of the BZO • Objective Standards – ZORP Phase II
o Proposing December 15 subcommittee meeting
Information Items:
• September 28 – City Council: Item 32 Baseline Zoning Ordinance (BZO) Zoning Ordinance Revision Project – BZO Document (Link)
•
Communications:
• BART Communications
Late Communications: See agenda for links.
• Supplemental Packet One
• Supplemental Packet Two
ATTACHMENT 3

645

• Supplemental Packet Three

5. CHAIR REPORT:
• None

6. COMMITTEE REPORT: Reports by Commission committees or liaisons. In addition to the items below, additional matters may be reported at the meeting.

• None.

7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Motion/Second/Carried (Wiblin/Moore) to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from

Ayes: Kapla, Mikiten, Moore, Oatfield, Twu, and Wiblin. Noes: None. Abstain: Ghosh. Absent:

Hauser and Vincent. (6-0-1-2)

8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND OTHER PLANNING:
• Planning Commission
o October 20
▪ Bayer Development Agreement (Public Hearing)
o November 3
▪ BART Development Zoning Standards and EIR (Public Hearing) ▪ Tentative Tract Map (Public Hearing)
▪ 2022 Planning Commission Meetings Calendar
o November 17
▪ Housing Element EIR Scoping Meeting
▪ Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements (Public Hearing) o December 1 – Several items
o December 15 ZORP Subcommittee meeting (HOLD)

AGENDA ITEMS

9. Public Hearing: Business Support Zoning Amendment Referrals – Research and Development (R&D) Definition
Staff provided background information on the referral and shared the proposed R&D definition. After staff’s presentation, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received comments, discussed the proposed amendments, and made a recommendation for the consideration of City Council.

646

Motion/Second/Carried ( Kapla/Vincent) to recommend that the City Council adopt the following land use definition for Research and Development.

Ayes: Ghosh, Kapla, Mikiten, Moore, Twu, Vincent, and Wiblin. Noes: Oatfield. Abstain: None.

Absent: Hauser. (7-1-0-1)

Motion/Second/Carried (Vincent/Wiblin) close the public hearing on the Business Support Zoning Amendment Referrals – Research and Development (R&D) Definition at 9:11pm

Ayes: Ghosh, Kapla, Mikiten, Moore, Oatfield, Twu, Vincent, and Wiblin. Noes: None. Abstain:

None. Absent: Hauser. (8-0-0-1)

Public Comments: 2

10. Action: Gentrification and Displacement Referral
Planning Commission re-established a subcommittee to address the Gentrification and Displacement referral.

Motion/Second/Carried (Kapla/Vincent) to appoint Commissioners Moore, Hauser, and Kapla (alternate) to the Gentrification and Displacement subcommittee.

Ayes: Ghosh, Hauser, Kapla, Mikiten, Moore, Oatfield, Twu, Vincent, and Wiblin. Noes: None.

Abstain: None. Absent: Hauser. (8-0-0-1)

647

Public Comments: 5
Motion/Second/Carried ( Vincent/Mikiten) to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:27pm.

Ayes: Ghosh, Kapla, Mikiten, Moore, Oatfield, Twu, Vincent, and Wiblin. Noes: None. Abstain:

None. Absent: Hauser. (8-0-0-1)

Members in the public in attendance: 27
Public Speakers: 7
Length of the meeting: 2hr 25minutes

_________________________
Alene Pearson

648
Attachment 4

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
AMENDMENTS TO BMC CHAPTER 23.502 -- UPDATING THE RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT (R&D) DEFINITION AND CORRESPONDING REFERENCES IN THE

ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council will consider amendments to the Research and Development land use definition in response to the Planning Commission recommendation and City Council referral to clarify provisions of the definition and to accommodate innovation in the R&D business sector, consistent with regulation in other jurisdictions. The amendments would apply in the Manufacturing Districts. This action is considered exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) 15378(a) and 15060(c)(2), environmental review is not required because the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment does not meet the definition of a Project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a), nor does it constitute an activity covered by CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because passage of amendments do not constitute a direct physical impact on the environment, nor would it result in an indirect, reasonably foreseeable physical impact on the environment. The proposed amendment does not include any provisions that would exempt or otherwise reduce environmental review required under CEQA for individual development projects.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. The hearing will be held via videoconference pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) and the state declared emergency.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at www.CityofBerkeley.info as of March 10, 2022. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology.

Written comments should be mailed directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or emailed to [email protected] in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

For further information, please contact Alene Pearson, Principal Planner, Planning and Development Department at (510) 981-7489, or by e-mail at [email protected].

Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.

Published: March 11, 2022 – The Berkeley Voice
City Clerk shall publish a notice at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing with the date, hour, and place of the public hearing for annual levy and collection of assessments in accordance with Streets and Highway Code Sections 22625, 22626, 22552, and 22553 and Section 6061 of the Government Code. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

649
Attachment 4
I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on March 10, 2022. __________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

650

Terry Taplin
Councilmember District 2
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7120 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTAL

AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 3

Meeting Date: January 25, 2022

Item Number: 27

Item Description: Resolution Accepting the Surveillance Technology Report for Automatic License Plate Readers, GPS Trackers, Body Worn Cameras, and the Street Level Imagery Project Pursuant to Chapter 2.99 of the Berkeley Municipal Code

Submitted by: Councilmember Taplin

The District 2 office submits the following amendments to the District 4 office’s supplemental for consideration:

1. Amend Section 1302.3(c)(1): replace subsection with affirmation that “existing laws prohibiting trespassing and unlawful search and seizure shall be followed.”

2. Amend Section 1302.3(c)(2): append reference to existing BPD policies prohibiting harassment and intimidation, and pertinent disciplinary actions, including but not limited to General Order P-26.

3. Strike Section 1302.3(c)(6). This would prohibit the use of parking enforcement ALPR data in criminal investigations, even if parked vehicles are in a crime scene under investigation, thus endangering public safety by hindering investigatory capacity.

4. Strike Section 1302.3(c)(7). Parking Enforcement Officers (PEOs) should be able to match ALPR data to other databases where information on suspended or revoked licenses and open arrest warrants may be stored. Stolen vehicles are not the only public safety purpose in which PEOs may be of assistance.

5. Amend Section 1302.4: specify that only authorized staff may access CLETS data pursuant to the California Department of Justice’s CLETS Policies, Practices, and Procedures Section 1.9.3 and Section 1.9.4.

651

Surveillance Use Policy – Automatic License Plate Readers 1302.1 PURPOSE
This Surveillance Use Policy is legally-enforceable pursuant to BMC 2.99.

The policy of the Berkeley Police Department is to utilize ALPR technology to capture and store digital license plate data and images for Parking Enforcement Operations and Parking Occupancy Analysis while recognizing the established privacy rights of the public.
1302.2 DEFINITIONS
“Alleged Parking Violation” means an alleged violation of time limits in parking areas designated by state and local law, or a violation of time limits and/or non-permit parking in the City’s RPP zones.
“ALPR Read Image” means images of license plates, vehicles, wheels or any other incidentally captured image.
“ALPR Read” means computer-readable data captured by an ALPR Reader, including ALPR Read Image and associated ALPR Read Metadata. ALPR Reads are transient means to create potential government records, to include Parking Occupancy Analysis data and Enforced Citations, and therefore shall not be considered a government record itself pursuant to Government Code § 34090.6.
“ALPR Hit” means an Alleged Parking Violation or State Stolen or Wanted System alert resulting from computer generated analysis of ALPR Reads by the Genetec ALPR System resulting in an apparent:
(1) match between an ALPR Read and ALPR Read Metadata stored in the Genetec ALPR System, to include the State Stolen or Wanted System; or (2) incongruence between an ALPR Read and permit information stored in the Passport Parking Management System.
“ALPR Read Metadata” means any image-based or other metadata, including but not limited to, global positioning system coordinates, block face information, tire position information, digitized license plates in alphanumeric characters, and timestamps. “Automated License Plate Reader” or “ALPR” means one or more Genetec AutoVu mobile cameras affixed to Parking Enforcement Scooters and combined with computer software and algorithms to read and convert images of license plates, the characters they contain, and associated ALPR Read Metadata related to Parking Enforcement Operations or Parking Occupancy Analysis into computer-readable data. “Deploy” or “Deployment” means any operation or use of ALPR Readers affixed to Parking Enforcement Scooters.

652

“Enforced ALPR Hit” means an Alleged Parking Violation confirmed by a Parking Enforcement Officer that results in the transmission of associated ALPR Read Image and ALPR Read Metadata to the Passport Parking Management System for storage in a database as a government record for the purpose of citation processing. “Genetec ALPR System” means the computerized Genetec server and database that stores and pushes ALPR Read Metadata generated by ALPR Readers. “Residential Parking Permits” or “RPP” means an annual, visitor, merchant or in-home care parking permit, typically represented by a vehicle’s license plate, and associated with the City’s Residential Parking Permit program across designated zones. “Parking Enforcement Scooter” means the GO-4 three-wheeled parking enforcement vehicle.
“Parking Enforcement Officers” means employees of the City who work weekly rotations on Parking Enforcement Operations beats throughout the City and are properly trained to operate ALPRs and access the Genetec ALPR System.
“Parking Enforcement Operations” means Parking Enforcement Officer enforcement of parking regulations associated with local ordinances, the California Vehicle Code, and State Stolen or Wanted System enforcement through Parking Enforcement Scooter- based automated (ALPR) and non-automated means.
“Personally Identifiable Information” or “PII” means information:
(1) that directly identifies an individual (e.g., name, address, vehicle registration number, or other identifying number or code, telephone number, email address, etc.) or (2) by which the City or other agency intends to identify specific individuals in conjunction with other data elements, i.e., indirect identification. “Parking Occupancy Analysis” means ongoing computational or algorithmic analyses performed by Passport Parking Management System or the City of Berkeley on ALPR Read Metadata regarding the occupancy of total parking spaces across commercial districts as part of goBerkeley, the City's data-driven, demand-responsive parking management program. ALPR Read Metadata data associated with Parking Occupancy Analysis shall not include any license plate or other PII information. “Parking Permit Application” means an application submitted to the City for RPP or other permit that may include but is not limited to PII such as names, address, photo identification, vehicle registration (license plate and vehicle identification number), phone number and email address.
“Passport Automatic Occupancy Data Collection System” means the server and database whereby the Passport Parking Management System vendor, on behalf of the City, downloads, stores and transfers Parking Occupancy Analysis ALPR Read

653

Metadata stripped of any and all PII before being transferred to the goBerkeley program.
“Passport Parking Management System” means the servers and databases maintained by Passport Labs Incorporated, containing the database of the license plate numbers and other PII associated with Parking Permit Applications and Residential Parking Permits, and including historic parking citation data, to include Enforced Hits. “PocketPEO” means a mobile device providing handheld ticket issuance and ALPR data reference capabilities.
“State Stolen or Wanted System” means information from the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System's (CLETS) Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Stolen Vehicle System (SVS) database providing data regarding stolen vehicles., and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database of and wanted vehicles.
1302.3 AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED USES
Use of an ALPR is restricted to the purposes outlined below.

All data and images gathered by the ALPR are for official use by the Berkeley Police Department for Parking Enforcement Operations and may be retroactively queried in limited circumstances only as specified by this policy.

In addition, ALPR data may be used by the Finance, Information Technology (IT), Customer Service, and Public Works Departments only as specified herein this policy, and consistent with Parking Enforcement Operations and Parking Occupancy Analysis.

Since such data may contain confidential information, it is notData that is considered confidential under recent state Supreme Court rulings is not open to public review, except as specified.

Berkeley Police Department members or other Departments shall not use, or allow others to use the equipment or database records for any unauthorized purpose (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53).

Anyone who engages in an impermissible use of the Genetec ALPR system or associated scan files or hot lists may be subject to administrative sanctions, up to and including termination, pursuant to and consistent with the relevant collective bargaining agreements and Department policies.
(a) An ALPR shall only be Deployed and used for Parking Enforcement Operations, and Parking Occupancy Analysis.
(b) ALPR data strictly obtained from Parking Enforcement Operations retained pursuant to this use policy, including data and metadata associated with ALPR Reads and Hits, Formatted: Not Highlight

654

may be used to support a specific criminal investigation only pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant.
(c) The following uses of the Genetec ALPR System are specifically prohibited:
(1) Invasion of Privacy

Except when done pursuant to a court order, subpoena, or a search warrant, iIt is a violation of this Policy to utilize the ALPR to record license plates except those of vehicles that are exposed to public view (e.g., vehicles on a public road or street, or that are on private property but whose license plate(s) are visible from a public road, street, or a place to which members of the public have access, such as the parking lot of a shop or other business establishment).Existing laws prohibiting trespassing and unlawful search and seizure shall be followed.
(2) Harassment or Intimidation
It is a violation of this Policy to use the Genetec ALPR system to harass and/or intimidate any individual or group, pursuant to BPD General Order P-26. (3) Use Based on a Protected Characteristic.

It is a violation of this Policy to use the ALPRs or associated scan files or hot lists solely because of a person's, or group's race, gender, religion, political affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or other classification protected by state and federal law.
(4) Personal Use

It is a violation of this Policy to use the Genetec ALPR System or associated ALPR Read data or the State Stolen or Wanted System hot lists for any personal purpose. (5) First Amendment Rights

It is a violation of this Policy to use ALPRs or associated scan files or hot lists for the purpose or known effect of infringing upon First Amendment rights. (6) Criminal Enforcement
It is a violation of this Policy to use or Deploy ALPRs to scan or canvass license plates in connection with any crime scene, patrol operation, or investigation. (7) Use of Hot Lists
It is a violation of this Policy to use the Genetec ALPR System in conjunction with any hot list other than the State Stolen or Wanted System.
1302.4 DATA COLLECTION AND RETENTION

655

The Investigations Division Captain, or their designee, is responsible for ensuring proper collection and retention of ALPR data. Technical support and assistance shall be provided by the City of Berkeley's IT department and associated Genetec ALPR system providers/vendors as identified below.

IT's role will be limited to providing initial infrastructure set-up and accessing or viewing individual records or reports (potentially including PII or CLETS information as authorized by the Chief of Police), limited to the purposes of testing the accuracy of the equipment. Genetec ALPR System data provided to Parking Control Officers may also contain confidential CLETS information and is not open to public review.

ALPR information gathered and retained by the Berkeley Police Department may only be used and shared with prosecutors or other law enforcement agencies pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant and as limited by this policy. (a) ALPR Read Images
ALPR Read Images and Metadata resulting from ALPR Reads stored locally on Parking Control Officer Vehicle laptops and PocketPEO shall be purged at least nightly.

In no case shall ALPR Read Images resulting from ALPR Reads be transmitted to or stored in the Genetec ALPR System.
(b) ALPR Reads Not Resulting in ALPR Hits
All ALPR Read Metadata from ALPR Reads transmitted and stored in the Genetec ALPR System shall be purged within five (5) days consistent with the City’s 72- Hour Rule (BMC Section 14.36.050).

In no case shall ALPR Read Metadata in the form of license plate data or other PII be transmitted to or stored in the Passport Automatic Occupancy Data Collection System. (c) ALPR Hits
All ALPR Read Images, Metadata, and Hits resulting from ALPR Reads stored locally on Parking Control Officer Vehicle laptops and PocketPEO shall be purged at least nightly.

In no case shall data associated with ALPR Hits be transmitted to or stored in the Genetec ALPR System, nor shall license plate data or other PII included as part of ALPR Read Metadata be transmitted to or stored by the City for Parking Occupancy Analysis (goBerkeley), to include the Passport Automatic Occupancy Data Collection System or as City Department records.
(d) Unenforced ALPR Hits
All erroneous and unenforced ALPR Hit data and Read Metadata shall be purged locally at least nightly.
(e) Enforced ALPR Hits

656

Only ALPR Read Images and Metadata associated with Enforced ALPR Hits shall be downloaded to the Passport Parking Management servers with a minimum retention period of one year (Government Code § 34090.6) and in accordance with the established records retention schedule. Thereafter, ALPR data should be purged unless it has become, or it is reasonable to believe it will become, evidence in a criminal action pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant or civil action or is subject to a lawful action to produce records. In those circumstances the applicable data should be downloaded from the server onto portable media and booked into evidence. 1302.5 DATA ACCESS
(a) Only properly trained Parking Control Officers and information technology personnel are allowed access to the Genetec ALPR system or to collect ALPR information. (b) No member of this department shall operate ALPR equipment or access ALPR data without first completing department-approved training, which shall include complying with this use policy.
(c) No ALPR operator may access California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) data unless otherwise authorized to do so pursuant to California Department of Justice’s CLETS Policies, Practices, and Procedures Section 1.9.3 and Section 1.9.4
.
(cd) If a Sworn officer is called to verify a stolen vehicle, iIf practicable, the officer should verify an ALPR response through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) before taking enforcement action that is based solely on an ALPR Hit. (e) Police will not take any police action that restricts the freedom of any individual based solely on an ALPR Hit unless it has been validated as described above in (d). (1) Police need to have reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to make an enforcement stop of any vehicle. For example, if a vehicle is entered into the system because of its association with a wanted individual, Officers should attempt to visually match the driver to the description of the wanted subject prior to making the stop or should have another legal basis for making the stop.
(2) Prior to initiation of a stop of a vehicle or other intervention based on an ALPR Hit, Department members shall undertake the following:
(i) Verification of status on State Stolen or Wanted System.

An officer must receive confirmation from a Police Department Communications Dispatcher or other department computer device, that the license plate is still stolen, wanted, or otherwise of interest before proceeding (absent exigent circumstances).

657

(ii) Visual verification of license plate number.

(d) Sworn Officers shall visually verify that the license plate of interest matches identically with the ALPR Read Image of the license plate number captured (ALPR Read) by the ALPR, including both the alphanumeric characters of the license plate, state of issue, and vehicle descriptors before proceeding. Department members alerted to the fact that an observed motor vehicle's license plate is entered as an ALPR Hit in a specific State Stolen or Wanted System list are required to make a reasonable effort to confirm that a wanted person is actually in the vehicle and/or that a reasonable basis exists before a Department member would have a lawful basis to stop the vehicle. 1302.6 CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS PROTECTION:

The Berkeley Police Department is dedicated to the most efficient utilization of its resources and services in its public safety endeavors. The Berkeley Police Department recognizes the need to protect its ownership and control over shared information and to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the public, in accordance with federal and state law. The procedures described within this policy (Data Access, Data Protection, Data Retention, Public Access and Third- Party Data Sharing) protect against the unauthorized use of ALPR data. These policies ensure the data is not used in a way that would violate or infringe upon anyone's civil rights and/or liberties, including but not limited to impacts that may violate the First and Fourth Amendments and other potentially disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups.

The Berkeley Police Department does not permit the sharing of ALPR data gathered by the City or its contractors/subcontractors for the purpose of federal immigration enforcement, pursuant to the California Values Act (Government Code § 7282.5; Government Code § 7284.2 et seq) – these federal immigration agencies include Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CPB).

1302.7 PUBLIC ACCESS
Non-law enforcement requests for information regarding a specific vehicle's license plate may be honored when the requester is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, and when providing such information will not invade the privacy of a third party. The requester in such cases must provide acceptable proof of his or her identity and of ownership of the vehicle in question.
1302.8 THIRD-PARTY DATA-SHARING
(a) Non-law enforcement requests for access to stored ALPR data related to parking management shall be processed according to this policy, and the Records Maintenance and Release Policy in accordance with applicable law.
(b) The ALPR data may be shared only with other law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies for official law enforcement purposes or as permitted by this policy and under Formatted: Strikethrough

658

no circumstances. ALPR data is subject to the provisions of BPD Policy 415, and hence may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials.

Requests for ALPR data by non-law enforcement or non-prosecutorial agencies will be processed as provided by this policy and in the Records Maintenance and Release Policy (Civil Code § 1798.90.55).

Aggregated ALPR data not related to specific criminal investigations authorized by a court order, subpoena, or search warrant shall not be released to any local, state or federal agency or entity without the express written consent of the City Manager and only in accordance with this Use Policy.

Third-party data-sharing shall be subject to non-privileged and non-confidential City Council notification pursuant to BMC 2.99.020 (2) (a).
1302.9 TRAINING AND ALPR ADMINISTRATOR
Training for the operation of ALPR technology shall be provided by BPD personnel. All BPD employees who utilize ALPR technology shall be provided a copy of this Surveillance Use Policy.
(1) The Investigations Division Captain shall be responsible for compliance with the requirements of Civil Code § 1798.90.5 et seq. This includes, but is not limited to (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53):
(i) A description of the job title or other designation of the members and independent contractors who are authorized to use or access the Genetec ALPR system or to collect ALPR information.

(ii) Ensuring that training requirements are completed for authorized users. The Administrator shall ensure that members receive department-approved training for those authorized to use or access ALPRs (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53).

(iii) A description of how the Genetec ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws.

(iv) Procedures for system operators to maintain records of access in compliance with Civil Code§ 1798.90.52 and this Use Policy.
(v) The title and name of the current designee in overseeing the ALPR operation. (vi) Ensuring this policy and related procedures are conspicuously posted on the City's website.
1302.10 AUDITING AND OVERSIGHT
Formatted: Strikethrough

659

Genetec ALPR System audits will be conducted by the Professional Standards Bureau's (PSD) Audit and Inspections Sergeant pursuant to Municipal Code SectionBMC

2.99.020 4. k. on a regular basis, at least biannually. (1) Any unauthorized access or data breach shall be reported immediately to the City Manager.
(2) The audit shall be documented in the form of an internal department memorandum to the Chief of Police. The memorandum shall include any data errors found so that such errors can be corrected. After review by the Chief of Police, the memorandum and any associated documentation shall be placed into the annual report filed with the City Council pursuant to BMC Section 2.99.020 2. d.
, published on the City of Berkeley
website in an appropriate location, and retained by PSD. 1302.11 MAINTENANCE
Any installation and maintenance of ALPR equipment, as well as ALPR data retention and access, shall be managed by the Investigations Division Captain or his or her designee. The Investigations Division Captain will assign members under their command to administer the day-to-day operation of the ALPR equipment and data.

660

Kate Harrison
Councilmember District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]

REVISED AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 2

Meeting Date: November 30, 2021

Item Number: 27

Item Description: Resolution Accepting the Surveillance Technology Report for Automatic License Plate Readers, GPS Trackers, Body Worn Cameras, and the Street Level Imagery Project Pursuant to Chapter 2.99 of the Berkeley Municipal Code

Submitted by: Councilmember Harrison

The supplemental includes updates to the ALPR Use Policy as follows:

• Removes reference to Government Code Section 34090 consistent with SB 34 (providing for a local government to set ALPR retention limits). • Clarifies that the definition of the State Stolen System includes the DMV’s SVS database.
• Clarifies the type of data that is considered confidential pursuant to recent State Supreme Court rulings.
• Fixes inconsistency under the “Invasion of Privacy” section. • Adds missing reference to state and federal law under “Use Based on a Protected Characteristic” section.
• Clarifies IT’s role in maintaining accuracy and functionality of ALPR equipment.
• Further clarifies distinction between ALPR Read Images and ALPR Hits. • Strikes extraneous language regarding Sworn Officer stolen vehicle verification procedures.
• Clarifies that ALPR data may only be shared with law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies as permitted by the Policy.
• Adds specific references to BMC sections under the auditing and oversight section.
• Adds other non-substantive changes.

661

Surveillance Use Policy – Automatic License Plate Readers 1302.1 PURPOSE
This Surveillance Use Policy is legally-enforceable pursuant to BMC 2.99.

The policy of the Berkeley Police Department is to utilize ALPR technology to capture and store digital license plate data and images for Parking Enforcement Operations and Parking Occupancy Analysis while recognizing the established privacy rights of the public.
1302.2 DEFINITIONS
“Alleged Parking Violation” means an alleged violation of time limits in parking areas designated by state and local law, or a violation of time limits and/or non-permit parking in the City’s RPP zones.
“ALPR Read Image” means images of license plates, vehicles, wheels or any other incidentally captured image.
“ALPR Read” means computer-readable data captured by an ALPR Reader, including ALPR Read Image and associated ALPR Read Metadata. ALPR Reads are transient means to create potential government records, to include Parking Occupancy Analysis data and Enforced Citations, and therefore shall not be considered a government record itself pursuant to Government Code § 34090.6.
“ALPR Hit” means an Alleged Parking Violation or State Stolen or Wanted System alert resulting from computer generated analysis of ALPR Reads by the Genetec ALPR System resulting in an apparent:
(1) match between an ALPR Read and ALPR Read Metadata stored in the Genetec ALPR System, to include the State Stolen or Wanted System; or (2) incongruence between an ALPR Read and permit information stored in the Passport Parking Management System.
“ALPR Read Metadata” means any image-based or other metadata, including but not limited to, global positioning system coordinates, block face information, tire position information, digitized license plates in alphanumeric characters, and timestamps. “Automated License Plate Reader” or “ALPR” means one or more Genetec AutoVu mobile cameras affixed to Parking Enforcement Scooters and combined with computer software and algorithms to read and convert images of license plates, the characters they contain, and associated ALPR Read Metadata related to Parking Enforcement Operations or Parking Occupancy Analysis into computer-readable data. “Deploy” or “Deployment” means any operation or use of ALPR Readers affixed to Parking Enforcement Scooters.

662

“Enforced ALPR Hit” means an Alleged Parking Violation confirmed by a Parking Enforcement Officer that results in the transmission of associated ALPR Read Image and ALPR Read Metadata to the Passport Parking Management System for storage in a database as a government record for the purpose of citation processing. “Genetec ALPR System” means the computerized Genetec server and database that stores and pushes ALPR Read Metadata generated by ALPR Readers. “Residential Parking Permits” or “RPP” means an annual, visitor, merchant or in-home care parking permit, typically represented by a vehicle’s license plate, and associated with the City’s Residential Parking Permit program across designated zones. “Parking Enforcement Scooter” means the GO-4 three-wheeled parking enforcement vehicle.
“Parking Enforcement Officers” means employees of the City who work weekly rotations on Parking Enforcement Operations beats throughout the City and are properly trained to operate ALPRs and access the Genetec ALPR System.
“Parking Enforcement Operations” means Parking Enforcement Officer enforcement of parking regulations associated with local ordinances, the California Vehicle Code, and State Stolen or Wanted System enforcement through Parking Enforcement Scooter- based automated (ALPR) and non-automated means.
“Personally Identifiable Information” or “PII” means information:
(1) that directly identifies an individual (e.g., name, address, vehicle registration number, or other identifying number or code, telephone number, email address, etc.) or (2) by which the City or other agency intends to identify specific individuals in conjunction with other data elements, i.e., indirect identification. “Parking Occupancy Analysis” means ongoing computational or algorithmic analyses performed by Passport Parking Management System or the City of Berkeley on ALPR Read Metadata regarding the occupancy of total parking spaces across commercial districts as part of goBerkeley, the City's data-driven, demand-responsive parking management program. ALPR Read Metadata data associated with Parking Occupancy Analysis shall not include any license plate or other PII information. “Parking Permit Application” means an application submitted to the City for RPP or other permit that may include but is not limited to PII such as names, address, photo identification, vehicle registration (license plate and vehicle identification number), phone number and email address.
“Passport Automatic Occupancy Data Collection System” means the server and database whereby the Passport Parking Management System vendor, on behalf of the City, downloads, stores and transfers Parking Occupancy Analysis ALPR Read

663

Metadata stripped of any and all PII before being transferred to the goBerkeley program.
“Passport Parking Management System” means the servers and databases maintained by Passport Labs Incorporated, containing the database of the license plate numbers and other PII associated with Parking Permit Applications and Residential Parking Permits, and including historic parking citation data, to include Enforced Hits. “PocketPEO” means a mobile device providing handheld ticket issuance and ALPR data reference capabilities.
“State Stolen or Wanted System” means information from the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System's (CLETS) Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Stolen Vehicle System (SVS) database providing data regarding stolen vehicles., and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database of and wanted vehicles.
1302.3 AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED USES
Use of an ALPR is restricted to the purposes outlined below.

All data and images gathered by the ALPR are for official use by the Berkeley Police Department for Parking Enforcement Operations and may be retroactively queried in limited circumstances only as specified by this policy.

In addition, ALPR data may be used by the Finance, Information Technology (IT), Customer Service, and Public Works Departments only as specified herein this policy, and consistent with Parking Enforcement Operations and Parking Occupancy Analysis.

Since such data may contain confidential information, it is notData that is considered confidential under recent state Supreme Court rulings is not open to public review, except as specified.

Berkeley Police Department members or other Departments shall not use, or allow others to use the equipment or database records for any unauthorized purpose (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53).

Anyone who engages in an impermissible use of the Genetec ALPR system or associated scan files or hot lists may be subject to administrative sanctions, up to and including termination, pursuant to and consistent with the relevant collective bargaining agreements and Department policies.
(a) An ALPR shall only be Deployed and used for Parking Enforcement Operations, and Parking Occupancy Analysis.
(b) ALPR data strictly obtained from Parking Enforcement Operations retained pursuant to this use policy, including data and metadata associated with ALPR Reads and Hits, may be used to support a specific criminal investigation only pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant.

664

(c) The following uses of the Genetec ALPR System are specifically prohibited:
(1) Invasion of Privacy

Except when done pursuant to a court order, subpoena, or a search warrant, iIt is a violation of this Policy to utilize the ALPR to record license plates except those of vehicles that are exposed to public view (e.g., vehicles on a public road or street, or that are on private property but whose license plate(s) are visible from a public road, street, or a place to which members of the public have access, such as the parking lot of a shop or other business establishment).
(2) Harassment or Intimidation
It is a violation of this Policy to use the Genetec ALPR system to harass and/or intimidate any individual or group.
(3) Use Based on a Protected Characteristic.

It is a violation of this Policy to use the ALPRs or associated scan files or hot lists solely because of a person's, or group's race, gender, religion, political affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or other classification protected by state and federal law.
(4) Personal Use

It is a violation of this Policy to use the Genetec ALPR System or associated ALPR Read data or the State Stolen or Wanted System hot lists for any personal purpose. (5) First Amendment Rights

It is a violation of this Policy to use ALPRs or associated scan files or hot lists for the purpose or known effect of infringing upon First Amendment rights. (6) Criminal Enforcement
It is a violation of this Policy to use or Deploy ALPRs to scan or canvass license plates in connection with any crime scene, patrol operation, or investigation. (7) Use of Hot Lists
It is a violation of this Policy to use the Genetec ALPR System in conjunction with any hot list other than the State Stolen or Wanted System.
1302.4 DATA COLLECTION AND RETENTION
The Investigations Division Captain, or their designee, is responsible for ensuring proper collection and retention of ALPR data. Technical support and assistance shall be provided by the City of Berkeley's IT department and associated Genetec ALPR system providers/vendors as identified below.

665

IT's role will be limited to providing initial infrastructure set-up and accessing or viewing individual records or reports (potentially including PII or CLETS information as authorized by the Chief of Police), limited to the purposes of testing the accuracy of the equipment. Genetec ALPR System data provided to Parking Control Officers may also contain confidential CLETS information and is not open to public review.

ALPR information gathered and retained by the Berkeley Police Department may only be used and shared with prosecutors or other law enforcement agencies pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant and as limited by this policy. (a) ALPR Read Images
ALPR Read Images and Metadata resulting from ALPR Reads stored locally on Parking Control Officer Vehicle laptops and PocketPEO shall be purged at least nightly.

In no case shall ALPR Read Images resulting from ALPR Reads be transmitted to or stored in the Genetec ALPR System.
(b) ALPR Reads Not Resulting in ALPR Hits
All ALPR Read Metadata from ALPR Reads transmitted and stored in the Genetec ALPR System shall be purged within five (5) days consistent with the City’s 72- Hour Rule (BMC Section 14.36.050).

In no case shall ALPR Read Metadata in the form of license plate data or other PII be transmitted to or stored in the Passport Automatic Occupancy Data Collection System. (c) ALPR Hits
All ALPR Read Images, Metadata, and Hits resulting from ALPR Reads stored locally on Parking Control Officer Vehicle laptops and PocketPEO shall be purged at least nightly.

In no case shall data associated with ALPR Hits be transmitted to or stored in the Genetec ALPR System, nor shall license plate data or other PII included as part of ALPR Read Metadata be transmitted to or stored by the City for Parking Occupancy Analysis (goBerkeley), to include the Passport Automatic Occupancy Data Collection System or as City Department records.
(d) Unenforced ALPR Hits
All erroneous and unenforced ALPR Hit data and Read Metadata shall be purged locally at least nightly.
(e) Enforced ALPR Hits
Only ALPR Read Images and Metadata associated with Enforced ALPR Hits shall be downloaded to the Passport Parking Management servers with a minimum retention period of one year (Government Code § 34090.6) and in accordance with the established records retention schedule. Thereafter, ALPR data should be purged unless

666

it has become, or it is reasonable to believe it will become, evidence in a criminal action pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant or civil action or is subject to a lawful action to produce records. In those circumstances the applicable data should be downloaded from the server onto portable media and booked into evidence. 1302.5 DATA ACCESS
(a) Only properly trained Parking Control Officers and information technology personnel are allowed access to the Genetec ALPR system or to collect ALPR information. (b) No member of this department shall operate ALPR equipment or access ALPR data without first completing department-approved training, which shall include complying with this use policy.
(c) No ALPR operator may access California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) data unless otherwise authorized to do so. (cd) If a Sworn officer is called to verify a stolen vehicle, iIf practicable, the officer should verify an ALPR response through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) before taking enforcement action that is based solely on an ALPR Hit. (e) Police will not take any police action that restricts the freedom of any individual based solely on an ALPR Hit unless it has been validated as described above in (d). (1) Police need to have reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to make an enforcement stop of any vehicle. For example, if a vehicle is entered into the system because of its association with a wanted individual, Officers should attempt to visually match the driver to the description of the wanted subject prior to making the stop or should have another legal basis for making the stop.
(2) Prior to initiation of a stop of a vehicle or other intervention based on an ALPR Hit, Department members shall undertake the following:
(i) Verification of status on State Stolen or Wanted System.

An officer must receive confirmation from a Police Department Communications Dispatcher or other department computer device, that the license plate is still stolen, wanted, or otherwise of interest before proceeding (absent exigent circumstances). (ii) Visual verification of license plate number.

(d) Sworn Officers shall visually verify that the license plate of interest matches identically with the ALPR Read Image of the license plate number captured (ALPR Read) by the ALPR, including both the alphanumeric characters of the license plate, state of issue, and vehicle descriptors before proceeding. Department members alerted to the fact that an observed motor vehicle's license plate is entered as an ALPR Hit in a specific State Stolen or Wanted System list are required to make a reasonable effort to

667

confirm that a wanted person is actually in the vehicle and/or that a reasonable basis exists before a Department member would have a lawful basis to stop the vehicle. 1302.6 CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS PROTECTION:

The Berkeley Police Department is dedicated to the most efficient utilization of its resources and services in its public safety endeavors. The Berkeley Police Department recognizes the need to protect its ownership and control over shared information and to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the public, in accordance with federal and state law. The procedures described within this policy (Data Access, Data Protection, Data Retention, Public Access and Third- Party Data Sharing) protect against the unauthorized use of ALPR data. These policies ensure the data is not used in a way that would violate or infringe upon anyone's civil rights and/or liberties, including but not limited to impacts that may violate the First and Fourth Amendments and other potentially disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups.

The Berkeley Police Department does not permit the sharing of ALPR data gathered by the City or its contractors/subcontractors for the purpose of federal immigration enforcement, pursuant to the California Values Act (Government Code § 7282.5; Government Code § 7284.2 et seq) – these federal immigration agencies include Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CPB).

1302.7 PUBLIC ACCESS
Non-law enforcement requests for information regarding a specific vehicle's license plate may be honored when the requester is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, and when providing such information will not invade the privacy of a third party. The requester in such cases must provide acceptable proof of his or her identity and of ownership of the vehicle in question.
1302.8 THIRD-PARTY DATA-SHARING
(a) Non-law enforcement requests for access to stored ALPR data related to parking management shall be processed according to this policy, and the Records Maintenance and Release Policy in accordance with applicable law.
(b) The ALPR data may be shared only with other law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies for official law enforcement purposes or as permitted by this policy and under no circumstances. ALPR data is subject to the provisions of BPD Policy 415, and hence may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials.

Requests for ALPR data by non-law enforcement or non-prosecutorial agencies will be processed as provided by this policy and in the Records Maintenance and Release Policy (Civil Code § 1798.90.55).

Aggregated ALPR data not related to specific criminal investigations authorized by a court order, subpoena, or search warrant shall not be released to any local, state or

668

federal agency or entity without the express written consent of the City Manager and only in accordance with this Use Policy.

Third-party data-sharing shall be subject to non-privileged and non-confidential City Council notification pursuant to BMC 2.99.020 (2) (a).
1302.9 TRAINING AND ALPR ADMINISTRATOR
Training for the operation of ALPR technology shall be provided by BPD personnel. All BPD employees who utilize ALPR technology shall be provided a copy of this Surveillance Use Policy.
(1) The Investigations Division Captain shall be responsible for compliance with the requirements of Civil Code § 1798.90.5 et seq. This includes, but is not limited to (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53):
(i) A description of the job title or other designation of the members and independent contractors who are authorized to use or access the Genetec ALPR system or to collect ALPR information.

(ii) Ensuring that training requirements are completed for authorized users. The Administrator shall ensure that members receive department-approved training for those authorized to use or access ALPRs (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53).

(iii) A description of how the Genetec ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws.

(iv) Procedures for system operators to maintain records of access in compliance with Civil Code§ 1798.90.52 and this Use Policy.
(v) The title and name of the current designee in overseeing the ALPR operation. (vi) Ensuring this policy and related procedures are conspicuously posted on the City's website.
1302.10 AUDITING AND OVERSIGHT
Genetec ALPR System audits will be conducted by the Professional Standards Bureau's (PSD) Audit and Inspections Sergeant pursuant to Municipal Code SectionBMC

2.99.020 4. k. on a regular basis, at least biannually. (1) Any unauthorized access or data breach shall be reported immediately to the City Manager.
(2) The audit shall be documented in the form of an internal department memorandum to the Chief of Police. The memorandum shall include any data errors found so that such errors can be corrected. After review by the Chief of Police, the memorandum and

669

any associated documentation shall be placed into the annual report filed with the City Council pursuant to BMC Section 2.99.020 2. d. , published on the City of Berkeley website in an appropriate location, and retained by PSD. 1302.11 MAINTENANCE
Any installation and maintenance of ALPR equipment, as well as ALPR data retention and access, shall be managed by the Investigations Division Captain. The Investigations Division Captain will assign members under their command to administer the day-to-day operation of the ALPR equipment and data.

670

Kate Harrison
Councilmember District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]

REVISED AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 1

Meeting Date: November 30, 2021

Item Number: 27

Item Description: Resolution Accepting the Surveillance Technology Report for Automatic License Plate Readers, GPS Trackers, Body Worn Cameras, and the Street Level Imagery Project Pursuant to Chapter 2.99 of the Berkeley Municipal Code

Submitted by: Councilmembers Harrison and Hahn

Amends Resolution to adopt a Surveillance Technology Use Policy for Automatic License Plate Readers as required by the Surveillance Technology Ordinance.

To date, Council deferred adoption of a Surveillance Use Policy pursuant to Sections

2.99.020 and 2.99.050 of the Ordinance for Automatic License Plate Readers, including in order to draft a policy with enhanced civil liberties protections. Berkeley Police Department Administrative Order #001-2016, prepared in 2016 before adoption of the Surveillance Ordinance, has served as a de facto ALPR policy, however Administrative Order #001-2016 is out of date and does not satisfy the specific requirements of the Surveillance Ordinance. Adoption of an earlier proposed update to the use policy for ALPRs was deferred by Council as it did not contain sufficient information about data retention and sharing and protection of civil liberties.

The attached Use Policy supersedes Administrative Order #001-2016 and satisfies the requirements of the Ordinance, including providing a legally-enforceable Surveillance Use Policy and enhanced civil liberties protections.

Use Policy Overview:

• Provides key definitions.
• Authorizes ALPR for Parking Enforcement Operations and Parking Occupancy Analysis.
• Enumerates specifically prohibited uses of ALPR that may impact civil liberties.
• Incorporates key provisions from BPD’s previously proposed Policy 1302.

671
• Addresses the Police Review Commission’s concerns, as expressed in their September 11, 2019 letter to Council pursuant to Section 2.99.030, about the previously proposed Use Policy 1302.
• Specifies appropriate data retention periods for ALPR reads and hits. • Specifies that personally identifiable ALPR data will not be sent to goBerkeley (as confirmed by Transportation Division staff) as part of Parking Occupancy Analysis.
• Specifies that ALPR data obtained from Parking Enforcement Operations, including data and metadata associated with ALPR Reads and Hits, may be used to support a specific criminal investigation only pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant.
• Restates the City’s policy of not sharing of ALPR data gathered by the City or its contractors/subcontractors for purpose of federal immigration enforcement. • Specifies that third-party data-sharing shall be subject to non-privileged and non-confidential City Council notification pursuant to BMC 2.99.020.

672
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY

REPORT FOR AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS, GPS TRACKERS, BODY

WORN CAMERAS, AND THE STREET LEVEL IMAGERY PROJECT AND ADOPTING

A SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY USE POLICY FOR AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE

READERS

WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance 7,592-N.S., which is known as the Surveillance Technology Use and Community Safety Ordinance (“Ordinance”); and

WHEREAS, Section 2.99.070 of the Ordinance requires that the City Manager must submit to the City Council a Surveillance Technology Report as defined by Section

2.99.020(2) of the Ordinance at the first regular City Council meeting in November; and

WHEREAS, the Surveillance Technology Reports satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance.; and

WHEREAS, Council deferred adoption of a Surveillance Use Policy pursuant to Sections 2.99.020 and 2.99.050 of the Ordinance for Automatic License Plate Readers in order to draft a policy with enhanced civil liberties protections, and heretofore Berkeley Police Department Administrative Order #001-2016, prepared in 2016 before passage of the Surveillance Ordinance, has served as a de facto ALPR policy; and

WHEREAS, the attached Use Policy supersedes Administrative Order #001-2016 and satisfies the requirements of the Ordinance, including providing a legally-enforceable Surveillance Use Policy and enhanced civil liberties protections.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council hereby accepts the Surveillance Technology Reports for Automatic License Plate Readers, GPS Trackers, Body Worn Cameras, and the Street Level Imagery Project and adopts a Surveillance Technology Use Policy for Automatic License Plate Readers.

Attachment

1. Surveillance Use Policy – Automatic License Plate Readers

673

Surveillance Use Policy – Automatic License Plate Readers 1302.1 PURPOSE
This Surveillance Use Policy is legally-enforceable pursuant to BMC 2.99.

The policy of the Berkeley Police Department is to utilize ALPR technology to capture and store digital license plate data and images for Parking Enforcement Operations and Parking Occupancy Analysis while recognizing the established privacy rights of the public.
1302.2 DEFINITIONS
“Alleged Parking Violation” means an alleged violation of time limits in parking areas designated by state and local law, or a violation of time limits and/or non-permit parking in the City’s RPP zones.
“ALPR Read Image” means images of license plates, vehicles, wheels or any other incidentally captured image.
“ALPR Read” means computer-readable data captured by an ALPR Reader, including ALPR Read Image and associated ALPR Read Metadata. ALPR Reads are transient means to create potential government records, to include Parking Occupancy Analysis data and Enforced Citations, and therefore shall not be considered a government record itself pursuant to Government Code § 34090.6.
“ALPR Hit” means an Alleged Parking Violation or State Stolen or Wanted System alert resulting from computer generated analysis of ALPR Reads by the Genetec ALPR System resulting in an apparent:
(1) match between an ALPR Read and ALPR Read Metadata stored in the Genetec ALPR System, to include the State Stolen or Wanted System; or (2) incongruence between an ALPR Read and permit information stored in the Passport Parking Management System.
“ALPR Read Metadata” means any image-based or other metadata, including but not limited to, global positioning system coordinates, block face information, tire position information, digitized license plates in alphanumeric characters, and timestamps. “Automated License Plate Reader” or “ALPR” means one or more Genetec AutoVu mobile cameras affixed to Parking Enforcement Scooters and combined with computer software and algorithms to read and convert images of license plates, the characters they contain, and associated ALPR Read Metadata related to Parking Enforcement Operations or Parking Occupancy Analysis into computer-readable data. “Deploy” or “Deployment” means any operation or use of ALPR Readers affixed to Parking Enforcement Scooters.

674

“Enforced ALPR Hit” means an Alleged Parking Violation confirmed by a Parking Enforcement Officer that results in the transmission of associated ALPR Read Image and ALPR Read Metadata to the Passport Parking Management System for storage in a database as a government record for the purpose of citation processing. “Genetec ALPR System” means the computerized Genetec server and database that stores and pushes ALPR Read Metadata generated by ALPR Readers. “Residential Parking Permits” or “RPP” means an annual, visitor, merchant or in-home care parking permit, typically represented by a vehicle’s license plate, and associated with the City’s Residential Parking Permit program across designated zones. “Parking Enforcement Scooter” means the GO-4 three-wheeled parking enforcement vehicle.
“Parking Enforcement Officers” means employees of the City who work weekly rotations on Parking Enforcement Operations beats throughout the City and are properly trained to operate ALPRs and access the Genetec ALPR System.
“Parking Enforcement Operations” means Parking Enforcement Officer enforcement of parking regulations associated with local ordinances, the California Vehicle Code, and State Stolen or Wanted System enforcement through Parking Enforcement Scooter- based automated (ALPR) and non-automated means.
“Personally Identifiable Information” or “PII” means information:
(1) that directly identifies an individual (e.g., name, address, vehicle registration number, or other identifying number or code, telephone number, email address, etc.) or (2) by which the City or other agency intends to identify specific individuals in conjunction with other data elements, i.e., indirect identification. “Parking Occupancy Analysis” means ongoing computational or algorithmic analyses performed by Passport Parking Management System or the City of Berkeley on ALPR Read Metadata regarding the occupancy of total parking spaces across commercial districts as part of goBerkeley, the City's data-driven, demand-responsive parking management program. ALPR Read Metadata data associated with Parking Occupancy Analysis shall not include any license plate or other PII information. “Parking Permit Application” means an application submitted to the City for RPP or other permit that may include but is not limited to PII such as names, address, photo identification, vehicle registration (license plate and vehicle identification number), phone number and email address.
“Passport Automatic Occupancy Data Collection System” means the server and database whereby the Passport Parking Management System vendor, on behalf of the City, downloads, stores and transfers Parking Occupancy Analysis ALPR Read

675

Metadata stripped of any and all PII before being transferred to the goBerkeley program.
“Passport Parking Management System” means the servers and databases maintained by Passport Labs Incorporated, containing the database of the license plate numbers and other PII associated with Parking Permit Applications and Residential Parking Permits, and including historic parking citation data, to include Enforced Hits. “PocketPEO” means a mobile device providing handheld ticket issuance and ALPR data reference capabilities.
“State Stolen or Wanted System” means information from the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System's (CLETS) Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Stolen Vehicle System (SVS) database providing data regarding stolen vehicles, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database of wanted vehicles.
1302.3 AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED USES
Use of an ALPR is restricted to the purposes outlined below.

All data and images gathered by the ALPR are for official use by the Berkeley Police Department for Parking Enforcement Operations and may be retroactively queried in limited circumstances only as specified by this policy.

In addition, ALPR data may be used by the Finance, Information Technology (IT), Customer Service, and Public Works Departments as specified herein and consistent with Parking Enforcement Operations and Parking Occupancy Analysis. Since such data may contain confidential information, it is not open to public review, except as specified.

Berkeley Police Department members or other Departments shall not use, or allow others to use the equipment or database records for any unauthorized purpose (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53).

Anyone who engages in an impermissible use of the Genetec ALPR system or associated scan files or hot lists may be subject to administrative sanctions, up to and including termination, pursuant to and consistent with the relevant collective bargaining agreements and Department policies.
(a) An ALPR shall only be Deployed and used for Parking Enforcement Operations, and Parking Occupancy Analysis.
(b) ALPR data strictly obtained from Parking Enforcement Operations, including data and metadata associated with ALPR Reads and Hits, may be used to support a specific criminal investigation only pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant.
(c) The following uses of the Genetec ALPR System are specifically prohibited: