Berkeley City Council
April 12, 2022

15

Revenue Grant: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022
Page | 2
A portion of the project funds will offset City of Berkeley personnel costs for a Community Services Specialist and the Resilient Buildings Program Manager who will manage the project.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The California Office of Emergency Services anticipates disbursing approximately $428 million of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding in California, aimed at reducing or eliminating risks of future disasters. Berkeley submitted a Notice of Interest for a project to provide retrofit grants for seismically vulnerable buildings and was invited to develop a full application for HMGP funding. The proposed project must be in conformance with Berkeley’s FEMA-approved Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. This project would fulfill Berkeley’s approach, as described in that plan, to encourage local residents and businesses to upgrade the hazard resistance of their own properties. The project would also advance the priority of reducing hazard vulnerabilities in Berkeley buildings, would help retain existing affordable housing by making it more resistant to earthquake damage, and help to advance Berkeley’s Strategic Plan goal of creating a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

A new $3.75 million FEMA grant would allow the Retrofit Grants Program to support additional seismic retrofits in Berkeley and allow greater flexibility in grant dispersal.

Grant sizes will be based on the project size and complexity, building type, and benefit to the community. Design grants will not exceed 75% of design costs, and will be disbursed after the owner has completed design, applied for a building permit, and obtained City-approved plans for an eligible scope of work. Construction grants will typically not exceed 40% of actual construction costs, though grants up to 75% of the total retrofit costs may be offered for high priority projects. Increased grant amounts would reflect the increased complexity and size of retrofit projects that are expected to participate in future rounds of the program, as well as the likelihood that incentivizing voluntary seismic retrofits of larger projects will require larger grant sizes. In all cases, property owners will be required to pay a portion of the project costs, which will be used toward FEMA’s local match requirement.

This project will be managed by staff in the Building and Safety Division of the Planning & Development Department. A Community Services Specialist will conduct outreach to property owners and assist participants with applying for grants and meeting program requirements. Staff throughout the Building and Safety Division will assist with property retrofits, including plan review, permit issuance, inspection for code compliance, monitoring progress and compliance with state and federal requirements, and problem solving for difficult projects.

BACKGROUND
In early 2017, hazard mitigation grant funding enabled the City of Berkeley to launch the Retrofit Grants Program, a groundbreaking program that encourages individual property

Revenue Grant: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022
Page | 3
owners to strengthen their buildings, increase public safety and mitigate the risk of future damage caused by earthquakes. Grant funding was used to incentivize both mandatory and voluntary retrofits of seismically vulnerable buildings through disbursement of design and construction grants to qualifying property owners.

The initial Retrofit Grants Program led to the strengthening of 61 buildings within the City of Berkeley and disbursal of $1,561,843 to individual property owners. A total of 45 design grants and 52 construction grants were approved and distributed to eligible participants. The City sought and was awarded additional hazard mitigation grant funding in 2020, and a second Retrofit Grants Program was launched in September 2020. This second program is underway and is scheduled to conclude in January 2023.

Through this program, the City seeks to disburse $3 million to Berkeley property owners and strengthen an additional 50-60 seismically vulnerable buildings.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Retrofitted buildings will be less likely to suffer damage in the event of a major earthquake, and as a result will be less likely than non-retrofitted structures to create additional environmental impacts from demolition and rebuilding efforts.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
If the City receives funding under FEMA’s Hazardous Mitigation Grant Program, more seismically vulnerable structures in Berkeley are likely to be retrofitted, affordable housing within the City will be retained, safety for tenants and other community members will be increased, and Berkeley will be more resilient in the event of a major seismic event.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff has considered larger grant award amounts to upgrade individual properties.

CONTACT PERSONS
Galadriel Burr, Community Services Specialist II, Planning and Development Department, 510-981-7475
Jenny McNulty, Resilient Buildings Program Manager, Planning and Development Department, 510-981-7451
Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Cal OES 130 – Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO COMMIT MATCHING FUNDS FOR A

HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE RETROFIT GRANTS

PROGRAM TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) AND

SUBJECT TO ITS AWARD, TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AND EXECUTE ANY

RESULTANT REVENUE AGREEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING ANY

ADDITIONAL FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FROM THE HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM.

WHEREAS, as a result of the declaration of a major federal disaster for DR-4482, the State of California is eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding aimed at reducing or eliminating future damages; and
WHEREAS, federal funding is provided under the Robert T. Stafford Emergency Assistance and Disaster Relief Act (Stafford Act) through FEMA and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES); Cal OES is responsible for identifying program priorities, reviewing applications and forwarding recommendations for funding to FEMA; FEMA has final approval for activity eligibility and funding; and WHEREAS, the federal regulations governing the HMGP are found in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) Part 206, and the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Federal Awards are found in 2 CFR Part 200; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Interest was approved for Retrofit Grants for Seismically Vulnerable Buildings and the City of Berkeley is submitting a full application for HMGP funding on or before April 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS, a letter committing at least 25% matching funds, is required as part of the grant application; the matching funds must be from a non-federal source; and WHEREAS, the match will consist of $1.25 million over the three-year grant period; $910,000 would be provided by eligible property owners who participate in the grant program in the form of construction costs; up to $340,000 would be provided by staff time charged to the Permit Service Center Fund 621, funded from plan review and permit fees during Fiscal Years 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026, that will be used to support project management and other personnel expenses associated with projects receiving grant funds; and
WHEREAS, the Permit Service Center Fund has an adequate fund balance to provide matching funds; and

WHEREAS, the $3.75 million grant will be used to provide up to $2,730,000 in grants to owners of hazardous buildings to reimburse them for a portion of retrofit costs and $1,020,000 to support the Planning Department’s costs to operate the program.

WHEREAS, on December 13, 2016, the Berkeley City Council authorized the City Manager to accept a previous $3 million HMGP to provide Retrofit Grants for seismically vulnerable buildings; and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2018, the Berkeley City Council authorized the City Manager to accept a previous $4.5 million HMGP to provide additional Retrofit Grants for seismically vulnerable buildings, and this grant would allow the City to increase the grant funding available to support seismic retrofits by Berkeley property owners.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to submit a letter of commitment to provide $1.25 million in local matching funds for the City of Berkeley’s application for a $3.75 million Hazard Mitigation grant from FEMA, and to accept the grant and execute any resultant revenue agreements and amendments including any additional funding allocations from the Hazard Mitigation Program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or Deputy City Managers are authorized to provide Cal OES Form 130 (Exhibit A) to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for all matters pertaining to disaster assistance required under DR-4482 assurances and agreements.

Exhibit A: Cal OES 130 – Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Cal OES ID No: ______________________ CAL OES 130
DESIGNATION OF SUBRECIPIENT’S AGENT RESOLUTION
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE OF THE
(Go
verning Body) (Name of Applicant)
TH

AT , OR
(Ti
tle of Authorized Agent)
, OR
(Ti
tle of Authorized Agent)
(Title of Authorized Agent)
is h
ereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the , a public entity (Nam
e of Subrecipient)
esta
blished under the laws of the State of California, this application and to file it with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Service. for the purpose of obtaining certain federal financial assistance under Public Law 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act.

THAT the ________________________________________________ , a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, (Nam
e of Subrecipient)
hereby
authorizes its agent(s) to provide to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Service for all matters pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and agreements required.

Please check the appropriate box below:

This is a universal resolution and is effective for all open and futures Disasters/Grants up to three (3) years following the date of approval below.

This is a Disaster/Grant specific resolution and is effective for only Disaster/Grant name/number(s) ________________________ Passed and approved this day of , 20
(Nam
e and Tit
le of Go
verning Body Representative)
(Name and Tit
le of Go
verning Body Representative)
(Name and Tit
le of Go
verning Body Representative)
CE

RTIFICATION
I, , duly appointed and of
(Name) (T
itle)
,
do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a (Nam
e of Applicant)
Re
solution passed and approved by the of the
(Go
verning Body) (Name of Applicant)
on th
e day of , 20 .

(Si
gnature) (Title)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA GOVERNORS OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICE
CAL OES 130 - INSTRUCTIONS
Cal
OES Form 130
Instructions
A new
Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution is required if the previously submitted document is older than three (3) years from the last date of Board/Council approval.

Wh
en completing the Cal OES Form 130, Subrecipients should fill in the blanks on page 1. The blanks are to be filled in as follows:

Res
olution Section:

Gov
erning Body: This is the individual or group responsible for appointing and approving the Authorized Agents. Examples include: Board of Directors, City Council, Board of Supervisors, etc.

Name of Subrecipient: This is the official name of the non-profit, agency, city, county or special district that has applied for the grant.

Examples include: City of Sacramento; Sacramento County; or Los Angeles Unified School District.

Authorized Agent: These are the individuals that are authorized by the Governing Body to engage with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Service regarding grants applied for by the subrecipient.

There are two ways of completing this section:

1. T
itles Onl
y: If th
e Governing Body so cho
oses, the title
s of the Authorized Agents should be entered here, not their names. This allows the document to remain va
lid if an Authorized Agent leaves the position and is repl aced by another
individual. If “Titles
Onl
y” is the chosen method, this document must be accompanied by a cov er letter
na
ming the
Authorized Agents by name an
d title.

Thi
s cover letter
can be co
mpleted by an
y authori
zed person within the agency
(e.g.; City C
lerk, the Authorized Agent, Secretary to the Director) and does not require the Gov erning Body’s
signature.

2. Names and T
itles: If th
e Governing Body so chooses, the names and titl
es of th
e Authorized Agents should be listed. A
new Cal OES Form 130 w
ill be required if an
y of the Aut
horized Agents are replaced, leave th
e position lis
ted on th
e
document or their title changes.

Governing Body Representative: The
se are the names an
d titl
es of th
e approving board memb
ers. Examples
include: Ch
airman of the Board, Superintendent, etc.

The
names and titles can
not be one of the de
signated Authorized Agents.

Cer
tification Section:

Nam
e and Titl
e: Thi
s is the individual th
at was in a
ttendance and recorded the Resolution creation and approval.

Examples inc
lude: City Cl
erk, Secretary to the Board of Directors, County Clerk, etc.

Thi
s person cannot
be one of th
e d
esignated Aut
horized Agents to elim
inate “S
elf Certification.”
Page
2 Cal OES 130 (Rev.03/28/17

Berkeley Police Department
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
APRIL 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Interim Chief of Police
Subject: Revenue Grant: Fiscal Year 2022-2025 Department of Justice Tobacco Grant

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, and/or Chief of Police, to execute a grant contract and any subsequent amendments with the State of California Department of Justice (DOJ) in the amount of $191,053 for three fiscal years, 2021-22 through 2024-25.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The City of Berkeley Police Department (BPD) will be the direct recipient of the grant in the amount of $191,053 for the fiscal years from 2021-22 through 2024-25. The grant provides $63,684 per year for three years to support Berkeley Police Department operations and efforts to reduce underage access to tobacco. Grant revenues will be deposited into the Police Department’s One-Time Grant Fund. There is no required local match of funds to obtain the grant. Appropriation of the expenditures is being included in the Second Amendment to the Appropriations Ordinance.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In a recent focus group, middle and high school students in Berkeley told the City that they and their peers need to hear more about the dangers of flavored tobacco and vape products, and that persistent advertising and access to these products can affect their decisions. City staff heard from young people that they are affected by the prevalence and placement of tobacco products in stores. Youth said “you don’t have to look for it, it finds you” and “it’s in your eyesight, so even if you don’t want it, it’s in your mind already.” They feel inundated by tobacco advertising throughout the Bay Area. The City presently has over 90 licensed tobacco retailers. The City of Berkeley is home to the University of California, with an estimated 42,000 students. With this population comes a plethora of students who are under 21. There are multiple tobacco-licensed establishments concentrated near the UCB campus that create an environment with free and ready access for underage tobacco use. There has not been minimum-age of purchase tobacco enforcement in the City in over 20 years. This grant would aid in establishing a baseline from which data and future planning, in collaboration with our

16

Revenue Grant: Fiscal Year 2022-2025 Department of Justice Tobacco Grant APRIL 12, 2022

Health, Housing and Community Services Department (HHCS), could aid in lowering the incidence of underage tobacco use.

BACKGROUND
The Office of the Attorney General established the California DOJ Tobacco Grant Program in 2017 with the goal of awarding grants to local enforcement agencies in California. As of this report the Tobacco Grant Program has furnished upwards of $124 million dollars in funding to approximately 260 grantees. The City of Berkeley has been at the forefront of municipal legislation geared towards reducing the availability of and access to tobacco products for minors. As of December 2019 the Federal government raised the age restriction for all tobacco, vaping and smoking products from 18 to 21 years of age.

BPD would use this funding to educate youth and businesses about the well documented negative health effects of tobacco use, and enforce under-age tobacco laws against businesses in an effort to reduce and/or prevent underage tobacco related purchases within the City of Berkeley. The education and information about applicable laws and negative health effects, not citation of underage persons, is one of the goals of this grant. For particular businesses that do not comply with state and local regulations, BPD would collaborate with HHCS and the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office to bring the business into compliance.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental impacts associated with this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The BPD has been awarded a DOJ Tobacco Grant in the amount of $191,053 funding the critical need to address underage access to tobacco related products. Without the funding, the BPD would not have the resources to adequately reduce underage access to tobacco products which can be detrimental to the short and long-term health of our minor children and young adults.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
If the award is not accepted, the City would not be able to provide these vital services to our community.

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Louis, Interim Chief of Police, 981-5700
Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

REVENUE GRANT: STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOBACCO GRANT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2025
WHEREAS, the Police Department is committed to providing a safe and secure environment through vigorous law enforcement within the City of Berkeley; and WHEREAS, underage access to tobacco products is currently a problem within the City of Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, there has been longstanding evidence of the negative health effects to all communities who use tobacco products to persons under the age of 21 throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, underage minors and the young adult community continues to acquire tobacco products through fake identification, merchants who fail to check identification or asking someone to purchase products for them; and
WHEREAS, several tobacco products retailers can be magnets for criminal activity; and WHEREAS, the police do not have sufficient resources within the existing budget to expand their work on these problems; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Police Department desires to undertake a certain project to limit access to tobacco products by minors funded in part from state funds from the California Department of Justice (hereafter referred to as DOJ); and WHEREAS, the funds have been appropriated into the DOJ Tobacco Grant Program Fund with the agreement that grant funds received hereunder shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by this body.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or her designee, is hereby authorized to execute a contract and any amendments or extensions with the State of California in order to accept funds in the amount of $191,053 from the Department of Justice for the enforcement of tobacco related laws for three fiscal years, FY2021-22, FY2022-23, FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any liability arising out of the performance of this contract, including civil court actions for damages, shall be the responsibility of the grant recipient and the authorizing agency. The State of California and Department of Justice disclaim responsibility for any such liability.

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Contract: Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. for Street Rehabilitation FY 2022 Project

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution: 1) approving plans and specifications for the Street Rehabilitation FY 2022 Project, Specification No. 22-11470-C; 2) approving the plans for the Intersection Reconfiguration at Dwight Way and California Street Project, Specification No. 22-11485- C; 3) rejecting the lowest bid from Azul Works, Inc. as non-responsive; 4) accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc.; and 5) authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions or other change orders until completion of the project, in accordance with the approved plans and specifications in an amount not to exceed $6,084,809.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding is available from the Street Capital Improvement Program budget, Transportation Capital Improvement Program budget and an allocation by City Council from the General Fund. No other funding is required, and no other projects will be delayed due to this expenditure.

Low bid by Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc.

Including Allston Paver Alternate Bid Item $5,291,138
15% Contingency $793,671
Total construction cost $6,084,809
FY 2022 Street Capital Improvement Program Funds
State Transportation Tax (127-54-623-673-0000-000-431-665110).........$345,266 Measure F Vehicle Registration Fee
(133-54-623-673-0000-000-431-665110) ..............................................$155,000 Measure BB Sales Tax (134-54-623-673-0000-000-431-665110) ........$2,360,045 Capital Improvement Fund (501-54-623-673-0000-000-431-665110)...$1,013,596 Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation Account (SB1)
(127-54-623-673-0000-000-431-665110) ...........................................$1,700,000 Storm Water Fund (616-54-623-675-0000-000-473-665120) $100,000 $5,673,907

17

Contract: Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. for CONSENT CALENDAR Street Rehabilitation FY 2022 Project April 12, 2022

FY 2022 & FY 2023 Transportation Capital Improvement Program Funds General Fund
(011-54-622-668-0000-000-431-665110-PWTRTC1902)......................$111,072 Measure BB Sales Tax
(134-54-622-668-0000-000-431-665110-PWTRTC1902)......................$214,767 State Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities Grant (306-54-622-668-0000-000-431-665110) ................................................$54,059 Measure BB Sales Tax (134-54-622-668-0000-000-431-665110) $31,004 $410,902
Total construction cost $6,084,809

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Street Rehabilitation FY 2022 Project (Specification No. 22-11470-C) was released for bids on November 30, 2021, and bids were opened on January 6, 2022. The scope of work associated with the Intersection Reconfiguration at Dwight Way and California Street Project, Specification No. 22-11485-C, were incorporated into the Street Rehabilitation FY 2022 Project (see Attachment 3, Abstract of Bids). Three non-local bids were received, from a low of $4,705,793 to a high of $6,422,710. The engineer’s estimate for the project was $5.1 million.

On January 11, 2022, the City received a bid protest from the second-lowest bidder, Bay Cities Paving and Grading, Inc. The general basis for the protest was that the Azul Works, Inc. bid was non-responsive because the bid did not comply with the following requirements in the Specifications: 1) Failure to Provide Signature Authority, Section 201.5, Rejection of Proposals Containing Alterations or Irregularities, “When proposals are signed by an agent, other than officer or manager of a corporation or member of a partnership, a power of attorney or written authorization must be on file with the City prior to opening bids or shall be submitted with the proposal; otherwise the proposal will be rejected as irregular and unauthorized.”; and 2) Lack of Experience, Section 201.9, Competency of Bidders, “The Engineer may require the Bidder to present satisfactory evidence that he has sufficient experience and that he is fully prepared with the necessary capital, materials, and skilled workmen to carry out the contract.” A copy of the bid protest was sent to Azul Works, Inc. to provide them an opportunity to respond to the protest issues. City staff and the City Attorney’s office carefully reviewed and investigated the bids, protest, and responses. Subsequently, City staff concluded that Azul Works, Inc.’s bid should be deemed non-responsive.

As a result, Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. became the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. References for Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. were provided and checked out satisfactorily. Staff recommends that a contract for this project be awarded to Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc.

The Street Rehabilitation FY 2022 Project is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to provide state-of-the art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

Contract: Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. for CONSENT CALENDAR Street Rehabilitation FY 2022 Project April 12, 2022

BACKGROUND
Streets throughout Berkeley are scheduled for rehabilitation as part of the City’s Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan. Berkeley maintains a rolling 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for resurfacing and repaving City streets. The plan was developed utilizing a sophisticated Pavement Management System in coordination with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The plan was most recently updated for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2023 by Resolution 69,712-N.S. adopted by Council on January 26, 2021.

This contract is for rehabilitation and preventative maintenance of approximately 2.6 miles of City streets. The scope of work consists of rehabilitation and surface seal of selected streets as shown in Attachment 2: Location Map & List of Streets and an alternate bid item to perform maintenance for the permeable pavers on Allston Way between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and Milvia Street. In addition to street pavement, the project incorporates many other improvements to selected streets in compliance with the Berkeley Complete Streets Policy (Resolution No. 65,978-N.S.), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and stormwater best management practices. Among the Complete Streets improvements included are Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan recommendations to install quick-build traffic circles at Browning/Channing and Heinz/9th, a traffic circle at Fulton/Parker, a traffic diverter at Fulton/Derby, a pedestrian island at Colusa/Vincente/Portland and to paint high visibility crosswalks at multiple locations.

Additional infrastructure repairs, including curb ramps, curbs, drainage inlets and pipes, gutters and speed tables, are also included in this project. The non-repaving related costs represent approximately 24% of the construction costs. Also included is the construction of Phase 3 of the Intersection Reconfiguration at Dwight Way and California Street.

The project plans and specifications have gone through planning, coordination with outside utility companies, preliminary cost estimates, field investigations, surveys, and extensive design prior to being released for bid.

The plans and specifications are on file in the Public Works Department. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, this project has been determined to be categorically exempt because it consists of the maintenance of existing streets and does not expand their use beyond existing conditions.

The Living Wage Ordinance does not apply to this project since Public Works construction contracts are, subject to state prevailing wage law, pursuant to City policy. Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. has submitted a Certification of Compliance with the Equal Benefits Ordinance. The Community Workforce Agreement applies to this project because the estimated value exceeds $500,000. As a result, the contractor and all subcontractors will be required to sign an agreement certifying compliance with the CWA.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The project includes rubberized hot mix asphalt treatments which will divert waste tires from local landfills.

Contract: Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. for CONSENT CALENDAR Street Rehabilitation FY 2022 Project April 12, 2022

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This street repair project is part of the City’s ongoing annual program to rehabilitate deteriorated streets throughout the City. The work requires contracted services, as the City does not possess the in-house labor or equipment resources necessary to complete the project.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions were considered for this pavement rehabilitation project. The City could choose not to proceed with this project. However, the street pavement would continue to deteriorate, drainage improvements would not be made, and complete street bicycle and pedestrian elements would not be installed, affecting use by the community and others.

CONTACT PERSON
Joe Enke, Manager of Engineering, Public Works (510) 981-6411 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Location Map & List of Streets for Project
3: Abstract of Bids

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

CONTRACT: BAY CITIES PAVING & GRADING, INC. FOR STREET
REHABILITATION FY 2022 PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Street Rehabilitation FY 2022 Project is part of the City’s ongoing Street Capital Improvement Program to rehabilitate deteriorated streets located throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has neither the labor nor the equipment necessary to undertake this Street Rehabilitation FY 2022 Project or Allston Way permeable paver maintenance; and WHEREAS, an invitation for bids was duly advertised, bids were opened on January 6, 2021; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a bid protest, review of the submitted bids, and careful consideration, the bid from the apparent low bidder, Azul Works, Inc., was deemed non- responsive; and
WHEREAS, Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, funding is available in the current year budget in the Street Capital Improvement Program State Transportation Tax (Fund 127), Measure B Sales Tax (Fund 130), Measure F Vehicle Registration Fee (Fund 133), Measure BB Sales Tax (Fund 134), Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 501), Storm Water (Fund 616), and State Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Grant (306).

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Plans and Specification No. 22-11470-C for the Street Rehabilitation FY 2022 Project and the Plans (Specification No. 22-11485-C) for the Intersection Reconfiguration at Dwight Way and California Street are approved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid from Azul Works, Inc. is deemed non- responsive and rejected; and that the construction contract is awarded to Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions or change orders, until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications with Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. for the Street Rehabilitation FY 2022 Project, in an amount not to exceed $6,084,809, which includes a 15% contingency for unforeseen circumstances. A record signature copy of said agreement and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Street Rehabilitation FY 2022
Street From To
Browning Addison Dwight
Colusa North City Limit Solano
Delaware Acton Sacramento
Ellsworth Stuart Ashby
Fulton Dwight Stuart
Heinz 7th San Pablo
9th Heinz End
Stuart Fulton Ellsworth
Stuart Benvenue College
Sunset Grizzly Peak Wildcat Canyon
Dwight California Intersection
Allston Pavers MLK Milvia

City of Berkeley
Abstract of Bid Worksheet
Finance Department
General Services Division
Spec. Number Bid Date: 1/6/2022
FOR: Street Rehabilitation FY 2022 22-11470-C
required w/ bid
Bidders Base Bid (Package A) Package B Total Bid Bond Addendum (1) Experience - Fin. Qual. Taxpayer ID Opp.States Nuclear Free EBO Sanctuary City
1 Azul Works, Inc. 4,432,223.20$ 273,569.80$ 4,705,793.00$ X X X X X X X X 2 Gallagher & Burk, Inc. 5,806,821.00$ 340,889.00$ 6,147,710.00$ X X X X X X X X 3 Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. 4,937,800.00$ 283,337.50$ 5,221,137.50$ X X X X X X X X -$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Bid Recorder: ________________________________________________________________________________________ Bid Opener: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Project Manager: _____________________________________________________________________________________ 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7320 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7390 E-mail: [email protected]
Darryl Sweet
Josh Roben
Azul Works, Inc.

Gallagher & Burk, Inc.

Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc.

BID Alternate - Allston Pavers
$240,000.00
$70,000.00
$275,000.00
Total + Bid Alternate
$4,945,793.00
$6,422,710.00
$5,291,137.50

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Public Works
Subject: Master License Agreement Template for the Non-Exclusive Installation of Small Cell Telecommunications Facilities on City Owned and Maintained Streetlight Poles in the Public Right-of-Way

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution directing staff to 1) prepare a draft Master License Agreement template for the non-exclusive installation of small cell telecommunication facilities on City-owned and maintained streetlight poles in the public right-of-way, and 2) return to City Council for review and consideration of template approval.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There will be no fiscal impact to the General Fund since the attached resolution does not approve or adopt a master license agreement (MLA) template at this time. However, as part of the proposed MLA template, the City will be able to charge telecommunication companies for review fees and annual rent to cover reasonable costs related to small cell installations on City owned streetlight poles.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has historically determined that wireless providers are a utility and, therefore, have all the rights of use of the public right-of-way (PROW) as any other telecommunications utility under the Public Utilities Code section 7901. The PROW contains existing overhead infrastructure, such as utility poles, traffic signal poles, and streetlight poles that can support wireless telecommunication facilities. As an example, small cell facilities can be and are being installed on wood poles owned by PG&E, and the City has exercised its limited discretion over such installations by adopting the City’s Aesthetic Guidelines1. 1 Aesthetic Guidelines
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Public_Works/Level_3_- _Sidewalks,_Streets_-_Utility/PROW%20Aesthetic%20Guidelines%20(FINAL)(1).pdf

18

Directing Staff to Prepare a Master License Agreement CONSENT CALENDAR Template for the Non-Exclusive Installation of Small Cell April 12, 2022 Telecommunications Facilities on City Owned and Maintained Streetlight Poles in the Public Right-of-Way

Wireless equipment is attached to wooden utility poles in the PROW as part of an agreement between the telecommunication company and the utility that owns the pole.

The usual instances where wireless telecommunication companies would request to attach their equipment to City-owned streetlights are in underground utility districts where the wooden utility poles have been removed or are not present. Rather than install a new pole specifically for mounting the small cell equipment, the wireless carrier would prefer to make use of existing streetlight poles. The Aesthetic Guidelines also require use of existing poles to the extent technically feasible.

Staff has been contacted by wireless telecommunication companies requesting that they be permitted to attach small cell equipment to City-owned streetlight poles. It is reasonable to expect that a wireless carrier will apply for multiple locations throughout the City. Given the short deadlines, known commonly as “shot clocks,” by which Federal law requires the City to act on each permit application for wireless facilities, it is not feasible to take a separate license agreement to the City Council for approval of each installation and remain in compliance with the law. The time period for the shot clock is 60 days for small cell installations on existing structures and 90 days on new or replacement structures.

By entering into an MLA, the basic terms and procedure for installation of small cell wireless facilities on City owned streetlight poles would be pre-established by City Council. This action removes the need for City Council authorization of each individual installation, and allows the review and authorization of individual pole requests and the permit approval process to meet the shot clock deadlines. Upon City Council’s approval of tonight’s item, staff will prepare a draft MLA template and return to the City Council to request approval of the draft template for use with future applications.

Entering into an MLA is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, by advancing our goal to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

BACKGROUND
Small cell wireless facilities (“Small Wireless Facilities”) are relatively low-power, short- range wireless communication systems that cover a more limited geographic range than traditional “macro” wireless facilities. Small Wireless Facilities are designed to accommodate emerging technologies, which transmit higher volumes of data at higher speed than existing networks. These facilities supplement (rather than replace) larger facilities. The word “small” in “small cell” refers to its service area and, because of the short range of these facilities, projected network buildouts require installation of Small Wireless Facilities at more locations and closer in proximity to each other than is the case with traditional wireless facilities.

Directing Staff to Prepare a Master License Agreement CONSENT CALENDAR Template for the Non-Exclusive Installation of Small Cell April 12, 2022 Telecommunications Facilities on City Owned and Maintained Streetlight Poles in the Public Right-of-Way

On September 26, 2018, the FCC adopted its Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (“Small Cell Order”)2,3 relating to small cell wireless technology, and the placement of small wireless facilities in the PROW. The rules adopted in the Report and Order interpret the federal Telecommunications Act of 19964.

Existing federal and state law grant wireless providers certain rights to deploy small wireless communication facilities within the City’s PROW and the Small Cell Order places certain limitations on local jurisdictions’ ability to deny, condition, or restrict small wireless installations. Among other things, the Small Cell Order: (1) adopted short “shot clocks” or timelines for action on these applications (60 days for collocation on existing structures or 90 days for new or replacement structures); (2) determined that fees for application review and for use of City facilities must be reasonable and cost-based; (3) established “safe harbor” fee amounts for non-recurring and recurring (rent) fees that are presumed to be reasonable. The non-recurring safe harbor amounts are $500 for reviewing an application covering up to five small cells on existing poles; $100 for each additional attachment; and $1,000 for review of an application for a new or replacement pole containing small cell equipment. The recurring safe harbor amount is an annual fee of $270 per unit placed on any City-owned pole. Implementing restrictions that would effectively prohibit the installation of small cell facilities in the PROW could result in a lawsuit against the City.

In response to the adoption of the Small Cell Order, on July 7, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance 7,726-N.S. amending the language of the City's Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance and provisions applicable to telecommunications permits in the PROW (BMC Chapter 16.10 and the Aesthetic Guidelines for PROW Permits).

Amendments to the Aesthetic Guidelines for PROW Permits implemented the City’s authority to regulate the location and aesthetics of the wireless facilities installed in the PROW. The Guidelines set forth application requirements, a process for reviewing permit applications, and standards for the placement and design of wireless facilities for PROW permits. These guidelines are currently being applied to installation of telecommunication equipment on utility company-owned poles and will also apply to installations on City-owned streetlight poles as contemplated with the proposed MLA.

Finally, as of January 1, 2022, a new state law (AB 537) went into effect. This law expanded the reach of the “deemed granted” remedy in Government Code 65964.1 to now include applications for small cells facilities, heightening the risks for any non- compliance with the FCC shot clocks.
2 FCC Small Cell Order https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-133A1.pdf 3 FCC Fact Sheet https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-353962A1.pdf 4 Telecommunications Act of 1996 https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf

Directing Staff to Prepare a Master License Agreement CONSENT CALENDAR Template for the Non-Exclusive Installation of Small Cell April 12, 2022 Telecommunications Facilities on City Owned and Maintained Streetlight Poles in the Public Right-of-Way

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Per the Telecommunications Act of 1996, “No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.” Furthermore, the attached resolution is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly. The resolution does not authorize any specific development or installation on any specific piece of property within the City’s boundaries and does not approve or adopt an MLA template at this time.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Entering into an MLA with the telecommunication companies will have the benefit of allowing the City to have more control over the installation of small cells on City-owned streetlights through mutual agreement, allow for review fees and annual rent to cover reasonably incurred costs, allow the City to meet federally mandated deadlines for action, reduce the potential proliferation of new poles, and reduce the potential for a lawsuit.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Agreements can be negotiated with the utility companies for individual small cell installations on a case by case basis. However, due to the amount of applications that could potentially be submitted, there would be a risk that the parties involved could not come to terms in the FCC-required, shot-clock time for local approval, risking applications being deemed approved under state law.

Another alternative could include permitting the use of the poles without an agreement and solely relying on the BMC and the Aesthetic Guidelines. However, this would relinquish controls that the City could have over the installation, maintenance, and future removal of the equipment on the streetlight poles, and forego the collection of rent and other fees unrelated to permit reviews.

CONTACT PERSON
Andrew Brozyna, Deputy Director of Public Works, (510) 981-6396 Joe Enke, Manager of Engineering, Public Works, (510) 981-6411 Ronald Nevels, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works, 510-981-6439 Attachments: Resolution

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

MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT TEMPLATE FOR THE NON-EXCLUSIVE

INSTALLATION OF SMALL CELL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ON CITY

OWNED AND MAINTAINED STREETLIGHT POLES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, existing federal and state law grant wireless providers certain rights to deploy small wireless communication facilities within the City’s right-of-way (PROW) and the Small Cell Order places limitations on local jurisdictions’ ability to deny, condition, or restrict small wireless installations; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance 7,726-N.S. amending the language of the City's Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance and provisions applicable to telecommunications permits in the public PROW (BMC Chapter 16.10 and the Aesthetic Guidelines for PROW Permits); and
WHEREAS, the Aesthetic Guidelines for PROW Permits exercise the City’s limited control over the location and aesthetics of the wireless facilities installed in the PROW, consistent with applicable state and federal law. These guidelines have been applied to installation of telecommunication equipment on utility company owned poles and can also be used for installations on City owned streetlight poles; and
WHEREAS, Staff has been contacted by wireless telecommunication companies requesting that they be permitted to attach small cell equipment to City owned streetlight poles in the PROW; and
WHEREAS, Staff proposes to draft a Master License Agreement (MLA) template that will benefit the City by giving it more control over the installation of small cells on City owned streetlights through mutual agreement; allow for review fees and annual rent to cover reasonably incurred costs; allow the City to meet federally mandated deadlines; reduce the potential proliferation of new poles and reduce the potential for lawsuit; and WHEREAS, at the direction of the City Council, Staff shall return to the City Council to request approval of the proposed MLA template and delegation of authority.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that Staff is hereby directed to draft a Master License Agreement template for mounting of wireless telecommunication equipment on City owned streetlight poles in the PROW.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Staff shall return to the City Council at a future date to request approval of the agreement template and delegation of authority.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín and Councilmember Sophie Hahn Subject: Budget Referral: $60,000 to the FY 2023-2024 Budget Process for Supply Bank School Supply Distribution

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the FY 2023-2024 budget process $60,000 for Supply Bank ($30k for each fiscal year) to support their services in providing essential school supplies to Berkeley families.

BACKGROUND
Supply Bank, formerly known as K to College, plays an important role in the community by purchasing and distributing school supplies to low-income students. Founded by a group of UC Berkeley students, a pilot program launched in Berkeley in 2009. Over the past 13 years, Supply Bank has grown to support kids in need in more than 300 school districts in California.

The mission of Supply Bank is to provide homeless and other underserved children with the tangible resources they need to achieve. Supply Bank operates the School Supply and Dental Kit Initiatives, intended for low-income students to help ensure that they are able to start the school year off on equal footing as their counterparts and provides the basic oral healthcare necessities: a toothbrush, toothpaste, and floss to ensure that oral health issues do not stand in the way of student’s academic success.

In partnership with the Berkeley Unified School District, the City of Berkeley, and the Berkeley Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Department, SupplyBank.Org has provided 4,000 comprehensive, grade-appropriate school supply kits and dental kits with an instore value of more than $175,000 for low-income (free/reduced price meal eligible) K- 12 Berkeley students over the past 3 years.

The City Council has consistently approved the budget request to Supply Bank. To help support the program and ensure it will be operational in the long term, this budget referral will cover the next two fiscal years, with $30,000 being allocated in both FY 2023 and FY 2024, for a total of $60,000.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$60,000

19

FY23-24 Budget Referral: Supply Bank CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no environmental impacts associated with the recommendations in this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Councilmember Susan Wengraf, and Councilmember Ben Bartlett
Subject: Assembly Bill 1944: Support and Seek Amendments

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving a support and seek amendments position on Assembly Bill (AB) 1944 (Lee), which amends the Brown Act to permanently enable meetings of legislative bodies to be conducted through videoconference or teleconference with flexibility on noticing requirements. Send a copy of the Resolution to Governor Gavin Newsom, State Senator Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks and Alex Lee.

BACKGROUND
Under Executive Order N-29-20, signed by Governor Newsom on March 17, 2020, legislative bodies in California were able to hold public meetings via teleconferencing while removing provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act that required that the agency post each individual address where agency members were teleconferencing from and enable the public to access those locations to observe and participate in the proceedings. Such flexibility is needed to enable social distancing and prevent the spread of COVID-19 and are still needed. Additionally, the need to shift to fully virtual meetings in response to the pandemic has demonstrated the ability of legislative bodies to have open and transparent meetings without the need to make a private address publicly accessible – many which are not able to accommodate people. Virtual meetings have resulted in greater attendance of elected officials and the public and more robust public participation all while protecting public health and safety.

Executive Order N-29-20 expired on September 30, 2021 and was replaced by AB 361 (Rivas). The bill amended the Brown Act to continue the flexibility afforded by EO N-29- 20 during a state declared emergency. The bill also required that every 30 days the legislative body must vote to reauthorize based on findings around public health need.

The authority granted under AB 361 for local government agencies expires on January 1, 2024. Therefore, there is a need for a permanent law to enable teleconference participation in government meetings.

The Berkeley City Council is currently piloting hybrid (in-person/virtual) meetings and will move to meeting in a full hybrid format soon. But to allow this flexibility permanently, further changes to state law are needed. AB 1944, introduced by Assembly member

20

Support AB 1944 with Amendments CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022

Alex Lee, would make further amendments to the Brown Act to allow teleconferencing while suspending the noticing requirements for individual locations. Specifically, it will allow teleconferencing as an option for public participation in public meetings. The bill also allows for a member of the legislative body to teleconference from a private location without needing to notice the address or make it publicly available.

There are a couple of amendments that will help maximize the benefits of the bill. Under the current draft, legislative bodies would have to renew these changes every 30 days.

This would require the Council (or any public agency) to call a special meeting, including during a recess period, just to be able to continue conducting meetings virtually under the streamlined authority in the Brown Act. One of the proposed amendments would be to strike the requirement that a vote must take place every 30 days to allow teleconferencing to continue under AB 1944. This would prevent the need to call special meetings to make findings every 30 days and ensure that there is no interruption in being able to hold virtual or hybrid meetings.

One other amendment proposes to change the bill to an “urgency” statute, which would take effect immediately upon passage, prior to the bill’s current effective date of January 1, 2023. While this would require a two-thirds vote to pass, it is important that local governments can take advantage of the authority provided under AB 1944 immediately upon passage.

Overall, enabling teleconferencing capabilities for both the members of the legislative body and members of the public is beneficial in expanding accessibility and transparency.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no environmental impacts associated with the recommendations in this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100
Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Text of AB 1944

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

ASSEMBLY BILL 1944: SUPPORT AND SEEK AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the ability to attend and participate in public meetings is a vital part of our democratic process; and
WHEREAS, under the Ralph M. Brown Act, teleconferencing options are very limited, with only members of the legislative body able to participate remotely, along with the requirement that their location, often a private address, be publicly noticed and made publicly accessible; and
WHEREAS, during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-29-20, which allowed legislative bodies to hold public meetings through teleconference and videoconference while suspending the requirement to post the teleconference locations of members of the legislative body; and WHEREAS, the Executive Order expired in September 2021, but was replaced by AB 361 which allows a legislative body during the state of emergency to continue to meet via teleconferencing, if they vote to approve this policy every 30 days; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill (AB) 1944, introduced by Assemblymember Alex Lee, would make further amendments to the Brown Act making it easier for elected officials and the public to participate in meetings by allowing members of a legislative body to teleconference without needing to reveal a private address and make it accessible to the public, and require the livestreaming of such meetings and give the public the ability to participate by calling into the meeting; and
WHEREAS, enabling teleconferencing capabilities for both the members of the legislative body and members of the public is beneficial in expanding accessibility, and should be allowed under normal conditions, instead of only during a state of emergency.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it hereby adopts a support and seek amendments position on Assembly Bill (AB) 1944, and proposes the following amendments to the bill author, Assemblymember Alex Lee:
1) Strike the requirement that a vote must take place every 30 days to allow teleconferencing to continue; and
2) Change the nature of the bill to an “urgency” measure so that the provisions of the bill take place immediately without the need for a state of emergency to be in effect, instead of waiting until January 1, 2024.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be sent to Governor Gavin Newsom, State Senator Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks and Alex Lee.

california legislature—2021–22 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1944
Introduced by Assembly Members Lee and Cristina Garcia
February 10, 2022
An act to amend Section 54953 of the Government Code, relating to public meetings.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1944, as introduced, Lee. Local government: open and public meetings.

Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency, as those terms are defined, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate. The act contains specified provisions regarding the timelines for posting an agenda and providing for the ability of the public to observe and provide comment. The act allows for meetings to occur via teleconferencing subject to certain requirements, particularly that the legislative body notice each teleconference location of each member that will be participating in the public meeting, that each teleconference location be accessible to the public, that members of the public be allowed to address the legislative body at each teleconference location, that the legislative body post an agenda at each teleconference location, and that at least a quorum of the legislative body participate from locations within the boundaries of the local agency’s jurisdiction. The act provides an exemption to the jurisdictional requirement for health authorities, as defined.

Existing law, until January 1, 2024, authorizes a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with those specified teleconferencing requirements in specified circumstances when a

99

declared state of emergency is in effect, or in other situations related to public health.

This bill would specify that if a member of a legislative body elects to teleconference from a location that is not public, the address does not need to be identified in the notice and agenda or be accessible to the public when the legislative body has elected to allow members to participate via teleconferencing.

This bill would require all open and public meetings of a legislative body that elects to use teleconferencing to provide a video stream accessible to members of the public and an option for members of the public to address the body remotely during the public comment period through an audio-visual or call-in option.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

V ote: majority.

Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.​
State-mandated local program: no.​
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 54953 of the Government Code, as line 2 amended by Section 3 of Chapter 165 of the Statutes of 2021, is line 3 amended to read:
line 4 54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislative body of a local line 5 agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted line 6 to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, line 7 except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
line 8 (b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the line 9 legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for line 10 the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency 99 — 2 — AB 1944

line 1 in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. line 2 The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all line 3 otherwise applicable requirements of this chapter and all otherwise line 4 applicable provisions of law relating to a specific type of meeting line 5 or proceeding.
line 6 (2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used line 7 for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject line 8 matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during line 9 a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall.
line 10 (3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use line 11 teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference line 12 locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that line 13 protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the line 14 public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. line 15 Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and line 16 agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference line 17 location shall be accessible to the public. public, except as provided line 18 in subparagraph (A). During the teleconference, at least a quorum line 19 of the members of the legislative body shall participate from line 20 locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the line 21 local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in line 22 subdivisions (d) and (e). The agenda shall provide an opportunity line 23 for members of the public to address the legislative body directly line 24 pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location. line 25 location, except as provided in subparagraph (A). line 26 (A)  If a member of a legislative body elects to teleconference line 27 from a location that is not public, the address does not need to be line 28 identified in the notice and agenda or be accessible to the public line 29 when the legislative body has elected to allow members to line 30 participate via teleconferencing.
line 31 (B)  If a legislative body elects to use teleconferencing, they shall line 32 provide both of the following:
line 33 (i)  A video stream accessible to members of the public. line 34 (ii)  An option for members of the public to address the body line 35 remotely during the public comment period through an audio-visual line 36 or call-in option.
line 37 (4)   For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a line 38 meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different line 39 locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or 99 AB 1944 — 3 —

line 1 video, or both. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agency line 2 from providing the public with additional teleconference locations. line 3 (5)  For the purposes of this section, “video streaming” means line 4 media in which the data from a live filming or a video file is line 5 continuously delivered via the internet to a remote user, allowing line 6 a video to be viewed online by the public without being downloaded line 7 on a host computer or device.
line 8 (c)   (1)  No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, line 9 whether preliminary or final.
line 10 (2)   The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report line 11 any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each line 12 member present for the action.
line 13 (3)  Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally line 14 report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the line 15 salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of line 16 fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in line 17 subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in line 18 which the final action is to be taken. This paragraph shall not affect line 19 the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter line 20 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1) to line 21 inspect or copy records created or received in the process of line 22 developing the recommendation.
line 23 (d)   (1)  Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in line 24 paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a line 25 teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction line 26 of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a line 27 quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 line 28 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum line 29 are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the line 30 authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides line 31 a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that line 32 allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the line 33 number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda line 34 of the meeting.
line 35 (2)   Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as line 36 discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at line 37 a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or line 38 from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction line 39 of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is 99 — 4 — AB 1944

line 1 established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other line 2 requirements of this section.
line 3 (3)   For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means line 4 any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, line 5 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare line 6 and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant line 7 to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of line 8 Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section line 9 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory line 10 committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to line 11 Chapter 2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the line 12 Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more line 13 members.
line 14 (e)   (1)  A local agency may use teleconferencing without line 15 complying with the requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision line 16 (b) if the legislative body complies with the requirements of line 17 paragraph (2) of this subdivision in any of the following line 18 circumstances:
line 19 (A)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed line 20 state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or line 21 recommended measures to promote social distancing. line 22 (B)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed line 23 state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority line 24 vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person line 25 would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. line 26 (C)  The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed line 27 state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant line 28 to subparagraph (B), that, as a result of the emergency, meeting line 29 in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of line 30 attendees.
line 31 (2)   A legislative body that holds a meeting pursuant to this line 32 subdivision shall do all of the following:
line 33 (A)   The legislative body shall give notice of the meeting and line 34 post agendas as otherwise required by this chapter. line 35 (B)  The legislative body shall allow members of the public to line 36 access the meeting and the agenda shall provide an opportunity line 37 for members of the public to address the legislative body directly line 38 pursuant to Section 54954.3. In each instance in which notice of line 39 the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the line 40 agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body 99 AB 1944 — 5 —

line 1 shall also give notice of the means by which members of the public line 2 may access the meeting and offer public comment. The agenda line 3 shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend line 4 via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. This line 5 subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body line 6 to provide a physical location from which the public may attend line 7 or comment.
line 8 (C)  The legislative body shall conduct teleconference meetings line 9 in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of line 10 the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body of line 11 a local agency.
line 12 (D)  In the event of a disruption which prevents the public agency line 13 from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the line 14 call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the event of line 15 a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents line 16 members of the public from offering public comments using the line 17 call-in option or internet-based service option, the body shall take line 18 no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until line 19 public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based line 20 service option is restored. Actions taken on agenda items during line 21 a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting line 22 the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1. line 23 (E)   The legislative body shall not require public comments to line 24 be submitted in advance of the meeting and must provide an line 25 opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer line 26 comment in real time. This subparagraph shall not be construed line 27 to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from line 28 which the public may attend or comment.
line 29 (F)   Notwithstanding Section 54953.3, an individual desiring to line 30 provide public comment through the use of an internet website, or line 31 other online platform, not under the control of the local legislative line 32 body, that requires registration to log in to a teleconference may line 33 be required to register as required by the third-party internet line 34 website or online platform to participate.
line 35 (G)  (i)  A legislative body that provides a timed public comment line 36 period for each agenda item shall not close the public comment line 37 period for the agenda item, or the opportunity to register, pursuant line 38 to subparagraph (F), to provide public comment until that timed line 39 public comment period has elapsed.
99 — 6 — AB 1944

line 1 (ii)   A legislative body that does not provide a timed public line 2 comment period, but takes public comment separately on each line 3 agenda item, shall allow a reasonable amount of time per agenda line 4 item to allow public members the opportunity to provide public line 5 comment, including time for members of the public to register line 6 pursuant to subparagraph (F), or otherwise be recognized for the line 7 purpose of providing public comment.
line 8 (iii)   A legislative body that provides a timed general public line 9 comment period that does not correspond to a specific agenda item line 10 shall not close the public comment period or the opportunity to line 11 register, pursuant to subparagraph (F), until the timed general line 12 public comment period has elapsed.
line 13 (3)   If a state of emergency remains active, or state or local line 14 officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote line 15 social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without line 16 compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the legislative line 17 body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the line 18 first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph line 19 (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by line 20 majority vote:
line 21 (A)   The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of line 22 the state of emergency.
line 23 (B)   Any of the following circumstances exist:
line 24 (i)   The state of emergency continues to directly impact the line 25 ability of the members to meet safely in person. line 26 (ii)   State or local officials continue to impose or recommend line 27 measures to promote social distancing.
line 28 (4)  For the purposes of this subdivision, “state of emergency” line 29 means a state of emergency proclaimed pursuant to Section 8625 line 30 of the California Emergency Services Act (Article 1 (commencing line 31 with Section 8550) of Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2). line 32 (f)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, line 33 and as of that date is repealed.
line 34 SEC. 2. Section 54953 of the Government Code, as added by line 35 Section 4 of Chapter 165 of the Statutes of 2021, is amended to line 36 read:
line 37 54953. (a)  All meetings of the legislative body of a local line 38 agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted line 39 to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, line 40 except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
99 AB 1944 — 7 —

line 1 (b)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the line 2 legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for line 3 the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency line 4 in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. line 5 The teleconferenced meeting or proceeding shall comply with all line 6 requirements of this chapter and all otherwise applicable provisions line 7 of law relating to a specific type of meeting or proceeding. line 8 (2)  Teleconferencing, as authorized by this section, may be used line 9 for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the subject line 10 matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. All votes taken during line 11 a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall. line 12 (3)  If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use line 13 teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference line 14 locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that line 15 protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the line 16 public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. line 17 Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and line 18 agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference line 19 location shall be accessible to the public. public, except as provided line 20 in subparagraph (A). During the teleconference, at least a quorum line 21 of the members of the legislative body shall participate from line 22 locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the line 23 local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in line 24 subdivision (d). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for line 25 members of the public to address the legislative body directly line 26 pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location. line 27 location, except as provided in subparagraph (A). line 28 (A)  If a member of a legislative body elects to teleconference line 29 from a location that is not public, the address does not need to be line 30 identified in the notice and agenda, or be accessible to the public line 31 when the legislative body has elected to allow members to line 32 participate via teleconferencing.
line 33 (B)  If a legislative body elects to use teleconferencing, they shall line 34 provide both of the following:
line 35 (i)  A video stream accessible to members of the public. line 36 (ii)  An option for members of the public to address the body line 37 remotely during the public comment period through an audio-visual line 38 or call-in option.
line 39 (4)   For the purposes of this section, “teleconference” means a line 40 meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different 99 — 8 — AB 1944

line 1 locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or line 2 video, or both. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local agency line 3 from providing the public with additional teleconference locations line 4 (5)  For the purposes of this section, “video streaming” means line 5 media in which the data from a live filming or a video file is line 6 continuously delivered via the internet to a remote user, allowing line 7 a video to be viewed online by the public without being downloaded line 8 on a host computer or device.
line 9 (c)   (1)  No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, line 10 whether preliminary or final.
line 11 (2)   The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report line 12 any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each line 13 member present for the action.
line 14 (3)  Prior to taking final action, the legislative body shall orally line 15 report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the line 16 salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of line 17 fringe benefits of a local agency executive, as defined in line 18 subdivision (d) of Section 3511.1, during the open meeting in line 19 which the final action is to be taken. This paragraph shall not affect line 20 the public’s right under the California Public Records Act (Chapter line 21 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1) to line 22 inspect or copy records created or received in the process of line 23 developing the recommendation.
line 24 (d)   (1)  Notwithstanding the provisions relating to a quorum in line 25 paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), if a health authority conducts a line 26 teleconference meeting, members who are outside the jurisdiction line 27 of the authority may be counted toward the establishment of a line 28 quorum when participating in the teleconference if at least 50 line 29 percent of the number of members that would establish a quorum line 30 are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the line 31 authority exercises jurisdiction, and the health authority provides line 32 a teleconference number, and associated access codes, if any, that line 33 allows any person to call in to participate in the meeting and the line 34 number and access codes are identified in the notice and agenda line 35 of the meeting.
line 36 (2)   Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as line 37 discouraging health authority members from regularly meeting at line 38 a common physical site within the jurisdiction of the authority or line 39 from using teleconference locations within or near the jurisdiction line 40 of the authority. A teleconference meeting for which a quorum is 99 AB 1944 — 9 —

line 1 established pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to all other line 2 requirements of this section.
line 3 (3)   For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means line 4 any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, line 5 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare line 6 and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant line 7 to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of line 8 Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section line 9 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory line 10 committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to line 11 Chapter 2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the line 12 Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more line 13 members.
line 14 (e)   This section shall become operative January 1, 2024. line 15 SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that Sections 1 and line 16 2 of this act, which amends Section 54953 of the Government line 17 Code, further, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision line 18 (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the line 19 purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of line 20 public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings line 21 of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph line 22 (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California line 23 Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:
line 24 This act is necessary to ensure minimum standards for public line 25 participation allowing for greater public participation in line 26 teleconference meetings.
line 27 SEC. 4. (a)  The Legislature finds and declares that during the line 28 COVID-19 public health emergency, certain requirements of the line 29 Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) line 30 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code) and the line 31 Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with line 32 Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of line 33 the Government Code) were suspended by Executive Order No. line 34 N-29-20. Audio and video teleconference were widely used to line 35 conduct public meetings in lieu of physical location meetings, and line 36 public meetings conducted by teleconference during the COVID-19 line 37 public health emergency have been productive, have increased line 38 public participation by all members of the public regardless of line 39 their location in the state and ability to travel to physical meeting line 40 locations, have protected the health and safety of civil servants 99 — 10 — AB 1944

line 1 and the public, and have reduced travel costs incurred by members line 2 of state bodies and reduced work hours spent traveling to and from line 3 meetings.
line 4 (b)   The Legislature finds and declares that Sections 1 and 2 of line 5 this act, which amend Section 54953 of the Government Code, line 6 imposes a potential limitation on the public’s right of access to the line 7 meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and line 8 agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the line 9 California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, line 10 the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the line 11 interest protected by this potential limitation and the need for line 12 protecting that interest:
line 13 By removing the requirement for each teleconference location line 14 to be identified in the notice and agenda, including the member’s line 15 private home address, this act protects the personal, private line 16 information of public officials and their families while preserving line 17 the public’s right to access information concerning the conduct of line 18 the people’s business.

O
99 AB 1944 — 11 —

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Councilmember Kate Harrison, Councilmember Susan Wengraf, and Councilmember Ben Bartlett Subject: Support of AB 1947 – Addressing Hate Crimes

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution in support of Assembly Bill (AB) 1947 (Ting), which will require law enforcement agencies to adopt policies around how to identify, respond to, and report hate crimes. Send a copy of the Resolution to Governor Gavin Newsom, State Senator Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks and Phil Ting.

BACKGROUND
According to statistics from the FBI, the year 2020 saw 7,759 hate crimes committed across the entire country. This data was collected by the FBI from over 15,000 law enforcement agencies. However, this is a voluntary process, so it does not portray a complete picture. In fact, according to the US Department of Justice, between 2005- 2019, there were an average of 246,900 hate crimes per year. The most common types of hate crimes are based on race, ethnicity, or nationality, followed by sexual orientation and then religion. In recent years, hate crime trends have gone up, especially among the Asian American community during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet clearly there is a disparity between such crimes being committed and being reported. As a result, less resources are made available to address hate crimes as the official statistics suggest it is not as widespread as it is in reality.

Addressing hate crime has been a priority of the Mayor and City Council. In 2020, Council approved a referral to implement new systems for reporting and response to hate incidents and crimes. This includes creating a hate crime reporting hotline, launching a public information campaign, and improving reporting on hate crimes by our Police Department. Implementation of these policies is currently underway.

AB 1947, introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting, would require law enforcement agencies to adopt a policy on how officers identify, respond to, and report hate crimes.

These policies would be submitted to the Department of Justice to ensure compliance.

By having better protocols to address and report hate crimes, we will be in a better position to end hate crimes.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None

21

Support AB 1947 CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no environmental impacts associated with the recommendations in this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100
Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Text of AB 1947
3: AB 1947 Factsheet

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

IN SUPPORT OF AB 1947
WHEREAS, hate crimes are on the rise across the country over the last few years, with a significant increase in hate crimes against Asian Americans since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, while data from the FBI shows that in calendar year 2020, 7,759 hate crimes were reported across over 15,000 law enforcement agencies, according to the US Department of Justice, between 2015-2019 an average of 246,900 hate crimes took place each year; and
WHEREAS, with a large disparity between such crimes being committed and being reported, less resources are made available to address hate crimes as the official statistics suggest it is not as widespread as it is in reality; and WHEREAS, Berkeley is currently taking action to improve reporting of hate crimes; in 2020 the City Council passed a referral to implement new systems for reporting and response to hate incidents and crimes, including creating a hate crimes reporting hotline, launching a public information campaign, and improving reporting on hate crimes by our Police Department; and
WHEREAS, AB 1947, introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting, would require law enforcement agencies to adopt a policy on how officers identify, respond to, and report hate crimes;
WHEREAS, by having better protocols to address and report hate crimes, we will be in a better position to end hate crimes.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it hereby supports AB 1947.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of the Resolution be sent to Governor Gavin Newsom, State Senator Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks and Phil Ting.

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 16, 2022
california legislature—2021–22 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1947
Introduced by Assembly Members Ting and Bloom
February 10, 2022
An act to amend Sections 422.55, 422.87, 422.9, 13023, and 13519.6 of the Penal Code, and to amend Section 1 of Chapter 691 of the Statutes of 2021, relating to hate crimes.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1947, as amended, Ting. Hate crimes: law enforcement policies.

Existing law defines a “hate crime” as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including, among other things, race, religion, disability, and sexual orientation. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to develop guidelines and a course of instruction and training for law enforcement officers addressing hate crimes. Existing law requires state law enforcement agencies to adopt a framework or other formal policy created by POST regarding hate crimes. Existing law requires any local law enforcement agency that adopts or updates a hate crime policy to include specified information in that policy, including information on bias motivation.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice to collect specified information relative to hate crimes and to post that information on its internet website.

This bill would require each local law enforcement agency to adopt a hate crimes policy. The bill would require those policies to, among other things, include instructions on considering the relevance of specific dates and phrases when recognizing whether an incident is a hate crime,

98

to include a supplemental suspected hate crime form, and to include a requirement that, absent a more pressing violent crime emer gency, officers respond immediately to a report of a hate crime in progress, as specified. form. The bill would require every state and local agency to use specified definitions for the terms “hate crime incident” and term “protected characteristics.” The bill would require each law enforcement agency to report their hate crime policy to the Department of Justice, as specified. The bill would require the department to post information regarding the compliance and noncompliance of agencies that are required to provide information relative to hate crimes to the department.

The bill would require POST to develop a model hate crime policy, as specified. The bill would additionally make specified findings regarding state-mandated local programs in its provisions. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.

Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

V ote: majority.

Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.​
State-mandated local program: yes.​
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the line 2 Freedom from Hate Crimes Act.
line 3 SEC. 2. Section 422.55 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 4 422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other line 5 state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly line 6 requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
line 7 (a)   “Hate crime” means a criminal act committed, in whole or line 8 in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived line 9 characteristics of the victim:
line 10 (1)   Disability.
line 11 (2)   Gender.
line 12 (3)   Nationality.
line 13 (4)   Race or ethnicity.
98 — 2 — AB 1947

line 1 (5)   Religion.
line 2 (6)   Sexual orientation.
line 3 (7)  Association with a person or group with one or more of these line 4 actual or perceived characteristics.
line 5 (b)   “Hate crime” includes, but is not limited to, a violation of line 6 Section 422.6.
line 7 (c)  “Hate crime incident” means an incident of a hate crime. line 8 (d)  “Multimission criminal extremism” means the nexus of two line 9 or more of the follo wing:
line 10 (1)  Hate crimes.
line 11 (2)  Antigovernment extremist crimes.
line 12 (3)  Anti-reproductive-rights crimes, as defined in Section 13776. line 13 (4)  Crimes committed in whole or in part because of the victims’ line 14 actual or percei ved homelessness.
line 15 (5)  Crimes committed in whole or in part because of the victims’ line 16 actual or percei ved status as journalists.
line 17 (e)  “Noncriminal hate incident” means an incident that is not a line 18 crime and that is moti vated by hate or other bias ag ainst one or line 19 more of the protected characteristics listed in subdi vision (a). line 20 (f)
line 21 (c)  “Subject matter experts” includes, but is not limited to, line 22 representatives of communities most victimized by hate crimes, line 23 academic experts, and law enforcement agencies. line 24 (g)  “Suspected hate crime” means a crime that a la w line 25 enforcement agenc y is to in vestigate or is in vestigating as line 26 potentially being a hate crime.
line 27 SEC. 3. Section 422.87 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 28 422.87. (a)  Each state and local law enforcement agency shall line 29 adopt a hate crimes policy that shall include, but not be limited to, line 30 all of the following:
line 31 (1)   The definitions in Sections 422.55 and 422.56. line 32 (2)   The content of the framework and model policy that the line 33 Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training developed line 34 in 2019 pursuant to Section 13519.6, and any content that the line 35 commission has revised or added or may revise or add in the future, line 36 including, but not limited to, any policy, definitions, response and line 37 reporting responsibilities, training resources, and planning and line 38 prevention methods.
line 39 (3)   (A)  Information regarding bias motivation. 98 AB 1947 — 3 —

line 1 (B)   For the purposes of this paragraph, “bias motivation” is a line 2 preexisting negative attitude toward actual or perceived line 3 characteristics referenced in Section 422.55. Depending on the line 4 circumstances of each case, bias motivation may include, but is line 5 not limited to, hatred, animosity, discriminatory selection of line 6 victims, resentment, revulsion, contempt, unreasonable fear, line 7 paranoia, callousness, thrill-seeking, youthful pranks, desire for line 8 social dominance, desire for social bonding with those of one’s line 9 “own kind,” or a perception of the vulnerability of the victim due line 10 to the victim being perceived as being weak, worthless, or fair line 11 game because of a protected characteristic, including, but not line 12 limited to, disability or gender.
line 13 (C)  (i)  In recognizing suspected disability-bias hate crimes, the line 14 policy shall instruct officers to consider whether there is any line 15 indication that the perpetrator was motivated by hostility or other line 16 bias, occasioned by factors such as, but not limited to, dislike of line 17 persons who arouse fear or guilt, a perception that persons with line 18 disabilities are inferior and therefore “deserving victims,” a fear line 19 of persons whose visible traits are perceived as being disturbing line 20 to others, or resentment of those who need, demand, or receive line 21 alternative educational, physical, or social accommodations. line 22 (ii)   In recognizing suspected disability-bias hate crimes, the line 23 policy also shall instruct officers to consider whether there is any line 24 indication that the perpetrator perceived the victim to be vulnerable line 25 and, if so, if this perception is grounded, in whole or in part, in line 26 antidisability bias. This includes, but is not limited to, if a line 27 perpetrator targets a person with a particular perceived disability line 28 while avoiding other vulnerable-appearing persons such as line 29 inebriated persons or persons with perceived disabilities different line 30 than those of the victim, those circumstances could be evidence line 31 that the perpetrator’s motivations included bias against persons line 32 with the perceived disability of the victim.
line 33 (D)   In recognizing suspected religion-bias hate crimes, the line 34 policy shall instruct officers to consider whether there were targeted line 35 attacks on, or biased references to, symbols of importance to a line 36 particular religion or articles considered of spiritual significance line 37 in a particular religion. Examples of religions and such symbols line 38 and articles include, but are not limited to:
line 39 (i)   In Buddhism, statutes of the Buddha.
line 40 (ii)   In Christianity, crosses.
98 — 4 — AB 1947

line 1 (iii)  In Hinduism, forehead markings, known as bindis and tilaks, line 2 Aum/Om symbols, and images of deities known as murtis. line 3 (iv)   In Islam, hijabs.
line 4 (v)   In Judaism, Stars of David, menorahs, and yarmulke. line 5 (vi)  In Sikhism, turbans, head coverings, and unshorn hair, line 6 including beards.
line 7 (E)   In recognizing suspected hate crimes committed against a line 8 victim or victims with a particular known, evident, or perceived line 9 protected characteristic, the policy shall instruct officers to consider line 10 whether the crimes occurred on a day of actual or perceived line 11 significance to, or concerning, the victim or victims or to persons line 12 of the same actual or perceived protected characteristic as the line 13 victim or victims. Examples of such days may include, but are not line 14 limited to, Chinese Lunar New Year, Cinco de Mayo, Easter, line 15 Hitler’ s birthday (April 20), Martin Luther King Day, September line 16 11, and Yom Kippur.
line 17 (F)  In recognizing any multiple suspected hate crimes, the policy line 18 shall instruct officers to consider whether the victim or victims of line 19 the crimes were one or more persons or properties with a particular line 20 actual or perceived protected characteristic when other, at least line 21 equally available and vulnerable potential victims were not line 22 targeted. Examples of such discriminatory selection may include, line 23 but are not limited to, the following:
line 24 (i)   A series of sexual assaults of women and girls. line 25 (ii)   A series of crimes against actual or perceived transgender line 26 women, against actual or perceived noncitizens of the United line 27 States, or against persons demonstrating on behalf of a particular line 28 race or ethnicity and any observers or bystanders. line 29 (iii)  A series of attacks on one or more places of worship of a line 30 particular religion.
line 31 (iv)   A series of attacks on one or more businesses, community line 32 centers, or other gathering places operated, staffed, or frequented line 33 by a person or persons with a particular known, evident, or line 34 perceived protected characteristic.
line 35 (G)  In recognizing any suspected hate crime, the policy shall line 36 instruct officers to consider whether the victim is either of the line 37 following:
line 38 (i)  A person with an actual or perceived disability that is known line 39 or evident to the perpetrator.
98 AB 1947 — 5 —

line 1 (ii)   A person with any other actual or perceived protected line 2 characteristic that is known or evident to the perpetrator and that, line 3 under the existing facts and circumstances, is likely to make the line 4 victim the target of a hate crime. Examples of such f acts and line 5 circumstances include, b ut are not limited to, the nationwide surge line 6 of anti-Asian American and P acific Islander hate crimes and line 7 noncriminal hate incidents be ginning in 2020 and resulting from line 8 rhetoric blaming China for CO VID-19.
line 9 (H)   In recognizing a suspected anti-immigrant or antirace hate line 10 crime, the policy shall instruct officers to consider whether persons line 11 who are part of the victim’s community in the victim’s actual or line 12 perceived country of origin are commonly subject to hate or other line 13 bias there because of one or more of the protected characteristics line 14 and whether the perpetrator may have been motivated by such line 15 bias. Examples include, b ut are not limited to, an line 16 indigenous-language-speaking Mexican immigrant who is assaulted line 17 by a perpetrator who uses racial slurs such as “Indio” or line 18 “Oaxaquito. ”
line 19 (I)  In recognizing a suspected anti-immigrant hate crime, the line 20 polic y shall instruct officers to consider whether the perpetrator line 21 used terms such as “go back to your country” or “b uild the wall.” line 22 (J)
line 23 (I)  In any case described in subparagraphs (C) through (I) (H) line 24 or a similar case, and in every case in which a crime victim or line 25 witness believes that the crime was a hate crime or motivated by line 26 bias against an actual or perceived protected characteristic, the line 27 policy shall instruct officers to include such statements in any line 28 report the crime as a suspected hate crime and not a mere crime line 29 of opportunity, and generated as a result of the incident. The policy line 30 shall instruct officers to not argue with a victim or witness who line 31 believes it was a hate crime, regardless of the initial opinion of the line 32 officer prior to, during, or after completion of the supplemental line 33 report form required by paragraph (10). officer. The policy shall line 34 instruct supervising officers who review reports of incidents in line 35 which the victim believed the crime was a hate crime to carefully line 36 consider whether additional investigation is necessary, consistent line 37 with this section.
line 38 (4)  Information regarding the general underreporting of hate line 39 crimes to, and by, law enforcement and the more extreme 98 — 6 — AB 1947

line 1 underreporting of antidisability, antigender, and anti-Sikh hate line 2 crimes and a plan for the agency to remedy this underreporting. line 3 (5)   A protocol for reporting suspected hate crimes to the line 4 Department of Justice pursuant to Section 13023. line 5 (6)  A checklist of first responder responsibilities, including, but line 6 not limited to, being sensitive to effects of the crime on the victim, line 7 determining whether any additional resources are needed on the line 8 scene to assist the victim or whether to refer the victim to line 9 appropriate community and legal services, and giving the victims line 10 and any interested persons the agency’s hate crimes brochure, as line 11 required by Section 422.92.
line 12 (7)   A specific procedure for transmitting and periodically line 13 retransmitting the policy and any related orders to all officers, line 14 including a simple and immediate way for officers to access the line 15 policy in the field when needed.
line 16 (8)   The title or titles of the officer or officers responsible for line 17 ensuring that the department has a hate crime brochure as required line 18 by Section 422.92 and ensuring that all officers are trained to line 19 distribute the brochure to all suspected hate crime victims and all line 20 other interested persons, victims, regardless of whether they line 21 specifically request it. it, and to all other interested persons upon line 22 request.
line 23 (9)   A requirement that all officers be familiar with the policy line 24 and carry out the policy at all times unless directed by the chief, line 25 sheriff, director, or other chief executive of the law enforcement line 26 agency or other command-level officer to whom the chief executive line 27 officer formally delegates this responsibility. line 28 (10)  A supplemental suspected hate crime report form providing line 29 the information necessary for the law enforcement agency or the line 30 prosecution agency to determine whether a hate crime has occurred line 31 or whether to conduct a further investigation to make that line 32 determination, and an instruction that responding officers complete line 33 the form when either of the follo wing apply: the officers have a line 34 reasonable belief based upon the available evidence and line 35 information, including the circumstances in subparagraphs (C) line 36 through (H) of paragraph (3), that a hate crime may have been line 37 committed.
line 38 (A)  The officers have a reasonable suspicion that a hate crime line 39 occurred.
98 AB 1947 — 7 —

line 1 (B)  When the circumstances in subparagraphs (C) through (I) line 2 of paragraph (3) indicate it may be a hate crime. line 3 (11)  A schedule for providing the hate crime training, including, line 4 but not limited to, that required by Section 13519.6 and any other line 5 hate crime training certified by the Commission on Peace Officer line 6 Standards and Training that the law enforcement agency selects. line 7 (12)  A procedure for officers to document noncriminal hate line 8 incidents for crime pre vention, la w enforcement planning, and line 9 potential e videntiary purposes.
line 10 (13)  A requirement that, absent a more pressing violent crime line 11 emer gency, officers respond immediately to a report of a hate line 12 crime in progress or in which the perpetrator may escape without line 13 a rapid response, re gardless of whether the report comes from a line 14 victim, witness, or other person.
line 15 (14)
line 16 (12)  A requirement that, when an officer has reported a line 17 suspected hate crime and has identified a suspect, the person or line 18 unit of the agency responsible for determining whether the crime line 19 was a hate crime shall contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation line 20 and ask the bureau’s assistance in searching publicly available line 21 records concerning the suspect for any relevant evidence. line 22 (15)
line 23 (13)  A requirement that, when an officer suspects multimission line 24 criminal extremism, they report it to their agency’s terrorism liaison line 25 officers.
line 26 (14)  In adopting a hate crimes policy, each state and local law line 27 enforcement agency shall seek to incorporate examples of line 28 terminology that is specific to the communities they serve. For line 29 example, given the nationwide surge of anti-Asian American and line 30 Pacific Islander hate crimes beginning in 2020 and resulting from line 31 rhetoric blaming China for COVID-19, agencies that serve Asian line 32 American and Pacific Islander communities may include line 33 terminology and slurs relating to the coronavirus as part of a hate line 34 crime investigation.
line 35 (b)  (1)  A law enforcement agency shall be deemed in line 36 compliance with subdivision (a) if it adopts a policy including, but line 37 not limited to, all the provisions of the Commission on Peace line 38 Officer Standards and Training framework and model hate crime line 39 policy, including the supplemental suspected hate crime report line 40 form, called the “hate crime checklist” in the 2019 update, by April 98 — 8 — AB 1947

line 1 1, 2023, and updates the agency’s policy within six months of each line 2 time the commission updates the framework and model policy. line 3 (2)   Any law enforcement agency that updates an existing hate line 4 crimes policy or adopts a new hate crimes policy may include any line 5 of the provisions of a model hate crime policy and other relevant line 6 documents developed by the International Association of Chiefs line 7 of Police that are relevant to California and consistent with state line 8 law.
line 9 (c)  This section is intended to establish statewide minimum line 10 practices, and shall not be construed to restrict a law enforcement line 11 agency from implementing more precise or more stringent policies. line 12 SEC. 4. Section 422.9 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 13 422.9. Except as other provisions of state or federal law require:
line 14 (a)   Every law enforcement agency and each state and local line 15 agency shall use the definition of “hate crime” set forth in line 16 subdivision (a) of Section 422.55 exclusively.
line 17 (b)  Every la w enforcement agenc y and each state and local line 18 agencies shall use the terms “hate crime incident” and “noncriminal line 19 hate incident” as defined in Section 422.55 e xclusively and shall line 20 not use ine xact terms such as “hate incident.” line 21 (c)
line 22 (b)  Every law enforcement agency and each state and local line 23 agency shall use the terms “characteristics” or “protected line 24 characteristics” as defined in Section 422.55 exclusively and shall line 25 not use misleading terms such as “protected classes” or “protected line 26 groups.”
line 27 SEC. 5. Section 13023 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 28 13023. (a)  Subject to the availability of adequate funding, the line 29 Attorney General, in consultation with subject matter experts, as line 30 defined in Section 422.55, shall direct law enforcement agencies line 31 to report to the Department of Justice, in a manner to be prescribed line 32 by the Attorney General, any information that may be required line 33 relative to hate crimes.
line 34 (b)  In 2023, and whenever changes in law or in the Commission line 35 on Peace Officer Standards and Training framework and model line 36 policy require it, or whenever the Attorney General in consultation line 37 of with subject matter experts deems it prudent, the information line 38 required by subdivision (a) shall include the agency’s hate crime line 39 policy and the hate crime pamphlet required pursuant to Section line 40 422.92.
98 AB 1947 — 9 —

line 1 (c)  In every year, information required by subdivision (a) shall line 2 also include any of the following that the agency failed to submit line 3 in the previous year:
line 4 (1)   Hate crime policies.
line 5 (2)   Hate crime pamphlets.
line 6 (3)   Any other information required by the Attorney General in line 7 the previous year.
line 8 (d)   On or before July 1 of each year, the Department of Justice line 9 shall update the OpenJustice Web portal with the information line 10 obtained from law enforcement agencies pursuant to this section. line 11 The information shall include the names of agencies that have line 12 complied with subdivision (a) and other relevant laws in the report line 13 year and the names of any agencies that have failed to comply with line 14 those laws. The information also shall include the names of any line 15 agencies that failed to comply in the both the report year and the line 16 previous year, regardless of whether any information is required line 17 of compliant agencies in the report year. The department shall line 18 submit its analysis of this information to the Legislature in the line 19 manner described in subdivision (g) of Section 13010. line 20 (e)  For purposes of this section, “hate crime” has the same line 21 meaning as in Section 422.55.
line 22 SEC. 6. Section 13519.6 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 23 13519.6. (a)  The commission, in consultation with subject line 24 matter experts, as defined in Section 422.55, shall develop line 25 guidelines and a course of instruction and training for law line 26 enforcement officers who are employed as peace officers, or who line 27 are not yet employed as a peace officer but are enrolled in a training line 28 academy for law enforcement officers, addressing hate crimes. line 29 “Hate crimes,” for purposes of this section, has the same meaning line 30 as in Section 422.55.
line 31 (b)  The course shall make maximum use of audio and video line 32 communication and other simulation methods and shall include line 33 instruction in each of the following:
line 34 (1)   Indicators of hate crimes.
line 35 (2)  The impact of these crimes on the victim, the victim’s family, line 36 and the community, and the assistance and compensation available line 37 to victims.
line 38 (3)  Knowledge of the laws dealing with hate crimes and the line 39 legal rights of, and the remedies available to, victims of hate line 40 crimes.
98 — 10 — AB 1947

line 1 (4)  Law enforcement procedures, reporting, and documentation line 2 of hate crimes.
line 3 (5)   Techniques and methods to handle incidents of hate crimes line 4 in a professional manner.
line 5 (6)  Multimission criminal extremism, as defined in Section line 6 422.55. which means the nexus of certain hate crimes, line 7 antigovernment extremist crimes, anti-reproductive-rights crimes, line 8 and crimes committed in whole or in part because of the victim’s line 9 actual or perceived homelessness, or status as a journalist. line 10 (7)   The special problems inherent in some categories of hate line 11 crimes, including gender-bias crimes, disability-bias crimes, line 12 including those committed against homeless persons with line 13 disabilities, anti-immigrant crimes, anti-Sikh crimes, and anti-Arab line 14 and anti-Islamic crimes, and techniques and methods to handle line 15 these special problems.
line 16 (8)   Preparation for, and response to, possible future anti-Asian, line 17 anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh, anti-Arab/Middle Eastern, and anti-Islamic line 18 hate crimewaves, and any other future hate crime waves that the line 19 Attorney General, in consultation with subject matter experts, line 20 determines are likely, and for which the Attorney General has line 21 notified law enforcement agencies.
line 22 (c)  The guidelines developed by the commission shall line 23 incorporate the procedures and techniques specified in subdivision line 24 (b), and shall include a framework and model hate crime policy. line 25 The elements of the framework and model policy shall include, line 26 but not be limited to, the following:
line 27 (1)   A message from the law enforcement agency’s chief line 28 executive officer to the agency’s officers and staff concerning the line 29 importance of hate crime laws and the agency’s commitment to line 30 enforcement.
line 31 (2)   The definition of “hate crime” in Section 422.55. line 32 (3)   References to hate crime statutes including Section 422.6. line 33 (4)  A title-by-title specific protocol that agency personnel are line 34 required to follow, including, but not limited to, the following:
line 35 (A)  Preventing and preparing for likely hate crimes by, among line 36 other things, establishing contact with persons and communities line 37 who are likely targets, and forming and cooperating with line 38 community hate crime prevention and response networks. line 39 (B)  Responding to reports of hate crimes, including reports of line 40 hate crimes committed under the color of authority. 98 AB 1947 — 11 —

line 1 (C)   Accessing assistance, by, among other things, activating line 2 the Department of Justice hate crime rapid response protocol when line 3 necessary.
line 4 (D)   Providing victim assistance and followup, including line 5 community followup.
line 6 (E)   Reporting.
line 7 (F)   Each of the items Section 422.87 requires law enforcement line 8 agencies to include in their hate crime policies. line 9 (d)  (1)  The commission shall adopt revisions of, or additions line 10 to, the framework and model policy only by a vote of the line 11 commission following consultation with subject matter experts line 12 and a public hearing before the commission.
line 13 (2)   The framework and model policy are not regulations as line 14 defined in Section 11342.600 of the Government Code. line 15 (e)   (1)  The course of training leading to the basic certificate line 16 issued by the commission shall include the course of instruction line 17 described in subdivision (a).
line 18 (2)   Every state law enforcement and correctional agency, and line 19 every local law enforcement and correctional agency to the extent line 20 that this requirement does not create a state-mandated local line 21 program cost, shall provide its peace officers with the basic course line 22 of instruction as revised pursuant to the act that amends this section line 23 in the 2003–04 session of the Legislature, beginning with officers line 24 who have not previously received the training. Correctional line 25 agencies shall adapt the course as necessary.
line 26 (f)  (1)  The commission shall, subject to an appropriation of line 27 funds for this purpose in the annual Budget Act or other statute, line 28 for any basic course, incorporate the November 2017 video course line 29 developed by the commission entitled “Hate Crimes: Identification line 30 and Investigation,” as updated in August of 2020, and as updated line 31 thereafter, or any successor video, into the basic course curriculum. line 32 (2)   The commission shall make the video course described in line 33 paragraph (1) available to stream via the learning portal. line 34 (3)   Each peace officer shall, within one year of the commission line 35 making the course available to stream via the learning portal, be line 36 required to complete the November 2017 video facilitated course line 37 developed by the commission entitled “Hate Crimes: Identification line 38 and Investigation,” the course identified in paragraph (4), or any line 39 other POST-certified hate crimes course via the learning portal or line 40 in-person instruction.
98 — 12 — AB 1947

line 1 (4)  The commission, in consultation with subject matter experts line 2 as defined in Section 422.55, shall develop and periodically update line 3 an interactive course of instruction and training for in-service peace line 4 officers on the topic of hate crimes and make the course available line 5 via the learning portal. The course shall cover the fundamentals line 6 of hate crime law and preliminary investigation of hate crime line 7 incidents, and shall include updates on recent changes in the law, line 8 hate crime trends, and best enforcement practices. line 9 (5)   The commission shall require the course described in line 10 paragraph (3) to be taken by in-service peace officers every six line 11 years.
line 12 (g)  As used in this section, “peace officer” means any person line 13 designated as a peace officer by Section 830.1 or 830.2. line 14 SEC. 7. Section 1 of Chapter 691 of the Statutes of 2021 is line 15 amended to read:
line 16 SECTION 1. The Le gislature finds and declares all the line 17 follo wing:
line 18 (a)   (1)  In 2018, the California State Auditor released a report line 19 entitled “Hate Crimes in California: La w Enforcement Has Not line 20 Adequately Identified, Reported, or Responded to Hate Crimes. ” line 21 (2)   The California State Auditor found that despite an increase line 22 in hate crimes in California since 2014, la w enforcement has not line 23 been doing enough to identify, report, and respond to these crimes. line 24 (3)   According to the Department of Justice’ s annual report line 25 entitled “Hate Crime in California, ” hate crime e vents increased line 26 31 percent from 1,015 in 2019 to 1,330 in 2020. line 27 (4)  In 2021, the Southern Poverty Law Center tracked 838 active line 28 hate groups and found increased hate acti vity by indi viduals line 29 unaffiliated with an y groups, increased spread of hate ideology , line 30 and, in some cases, affinity for violence in a gro wing number of line 31 persons with antigo vernment e xtremist vie ws and more line 32 traditionally mainstream populations.
line 33 (5)   Hate crimes and incidents ag ainst Asian Americans and line 34 P acific Islanders (“AAPIs”) have surged in response to increased line 35 xenophobia and bigotry amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The Stop line 36 AAPI Hate coalition has reported recei ving 3,795 incidents line 37 nationwide of hate, violence, harassment, and discrimination line 38 ag ainst AAPIs, most of which tar geted women, from March 19, line 39 2020, to February 28, 2021. Similarly , the Center for the Study of line 40 Hate and Extremism released data in early March 2021 that showed 98 AB 1947 — 13 —

line 1 the number of anti-Asian hate crimes reported to police in line 2 America’ s lar gest cities spik ed 145 percent between 2019 and line 3 2020. California in particular has seen a rise in hate-fueled violence line 4 ag ainst Asian Americans, including recent brutal attacks ag ainst line 5 elderly Asian Americans. The Department of Justice figures line 6 sho wed that anti-Asian hate crime e vents more than doubled in line 7 2020, rising from 43 in 2019 to 89 in 2020. The numbers that are line 8 being reported and the incidents that are being publicized reflect line 9 only a fraction of the number of hate crimes and incidents that line 10 actually occur because of insufficient data collection and line 11 underreporting. AAPI immigrant communities f ace particular line 12 barriers to reporting due to insufficient language access. line 13 (6)   Many of the estimated 9,000,000 Californians with line 14 disabilities, including disabilities caused by aging, are al ways at line 15 high risk of becoming victims of hate crimes, often including line 16 e xtraordinary sadism, and antidisability hate crimes in California line 17 and nationally are justifiably called the in visible hate crimes. A line 18 2017 United States Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of hate crime line 19 victims estimated 40,000 antidisability hate crimes per year . This line 20 figure is certainly an underestimation because antidisability hate line 21 crime victims often do not recognize that the crimes the y suffered line 22 were hate crimes, those with serious disabilities often find it line 23 difficult or impossible to report the crimes, and the estimate omits line 24 crimes in hospices, nursing homes, group homes, prisons, jails, line 25 and other institutions. Yet in 2019, la w enforcement agencies line 26 reported just 177 antidisability hate crimes to the Federal Bureau line 27 of In vestigation (FBI), less than 0.5 percent of the earlier estimate. line 28 In California in 2020, la w enforcement agencies reported just five line 29 antidisability hate crimes.
line 30 (7)   According to the FBI’s annual hate crime statistics, in 2019, line 31 California la w enforcement agencies reported more hate crimes line 32 nationwide than an y other state, accounting for almost 14 percent line 33 of all reported hate crimes nationwide, despite comprising only line 34 12 percent of the population, and almost 40 percent more than the line 35 second highest reporting state, Ne w York.
line 36 (8)   Hate crimes are notoriously underreported, both by victims line 37 to la w enforcement and by law enforcement to state departments line 38 of justice and the FBI, so the actual number of victims and cases line 39 is generally unkno wn.
98 — 14 — AB 1947

line 1 (9)   According to the FBI’s 2019 statistics, 11 California cities line 2 with populations of at least 100,000 affirmati vely reported zero line 3 hate crimes in their jurisdictions.
line 4 (10)   Also according to the FBI’ s 2019 statistics, only 195 line 5 California la w enforcement agencies reported at least one hate line 6 crime, out of the 692 la w enforcement agencies listed on the line 7 Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training’s internet line 8 website.
line 9 (11)   The California State Auditor’s report found that out of the line 10 four la w enforcement agencies reviewed, three failed to properly line 11 identify some hate crimes. For example, for the years 2014 to 2016, line 12 inclusi ve, the Los Angeles Police Department and the San line 13 Francisco State Uni versity Police Department f ailed to correctly line 14 identify 11 of the 30 cases the California State Auditor reviewed line 15 as hate crimes.
line 16 (12)   The four la w enforcement agencies the California State line 17 Auditor re viewed failed to report to the Department of Justice a line 18 total of 97 hate crimes—about 14 percent of hate crimes identified. line 19 (13)   The California State Auditor’s report noted that better line 20 proacti ve guidance and o versight by the Department of Justice line 21 will result in impro ved reporting of hate crime information. line 22 (14)  The Department of Justice’s current reporting process does line 23 not capture the geographic location where each hate crime line 24 occurred, b ut only reports the agency that reported the crime. line 25 (15)   Of the 245 law enforcement agencies the California State line 26 Auditor surv eyed, more than 30 percent stated they do not use any line 27 methods to encourage the public to report hate crimes. line 28 (16)   The California State Auditor noted that the Department of line 29 Justice is “uniquely positioned to pro vide leadership for la w line 30 enforcement agencies’ response to hate crimes” because of its line 31 statutory responsibilities to collect, analyze, and report on hate line 32 crimes.
line 33 (17)   The California State Auditor recommended better la w line 34 enforcement policies to guide officers. Section 422.87 of the Penal line 35 Code, ef fective January 1, 2019, requires man y local la w line 36 enforcement agencies to adopt hate crime policies with specified line 37 content, and Section 422.92 of the Penal Code requires all state line 38 la w enforcement agencies to adopt such polices. Yet as of January line 39 1, 2022, some agencies had no such policies, while some others line 40 had polices that fell f ar short of the statutory guidelines. 98 AB 1947 — 15 —

line 1 (b)   (1)  Section 422.92 of the Penal Code requires e very law line 2 enforcement agenc y to have a hate crimes brochure and to provide line 3 it to hate crime victims and witnesses. As of January 1, 2022, it line 4 w as unkno wn whether all agencies did so and there w as no line 5 statutory accountability mechanism to ensure that agencies comply line 6 with this la w.
line 7 (2)   Section 13519.6 of the Penal Code, contingent on future line 8 funding, requires all la w enforcement agencies to conduct specific line 9 hate crime training. As of January 1, 2022, there was no statutory line 10 accountability mechanism to ensure that agencies comply with line 11 this la w.
line 12 (3)   Section 422.9 of the Penal Code, enacted in 2004, requires line 13 all agencies to use the statutory definition of “hate crime” line 14 e xclusively. Yet, as of January 1, 2022, some la w enforcement line 15 agencies still used narro wer, noncompliant decisions, and there line 16 was no statutory accountability mechanism to ensure that agencies line 17 comply with this la w.
line 18 (c)   (1)  Section 422.87 of the Penal Code, ef fective January 1, line 19 2019, requires that an y local law enforcement agency that updates line 20 an e xisting hate crimes policy or adopts a new hate crimes policy line 21 shall include, b ut not be limited to, the content of the model policy line 22 frame work that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and line 23 Training developed pursuant to Section 13519.6 of the Penal Code, line 24 and an y content that the commission may re vise or add in the line 25 future, including an y response and reporting responsibilities. line 26 (2)   The California State Auditor in 2018 recommended that law line 27 enforcement agencies use supplemental hate crime report forms line 28 so that responding officers can conduct initial in vestigations on line 29 the scene.
line 30 (3)  The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training’s line 31 model polic y framework, effective in May 2019, includes such a line 32 supplemental report form, which it calls a “hate crime checklist. ” line 33 (4)   The Los Angeles Police Department in 2021 reported that line 34 use of the form had “sa ved many officer/detective work hours,” line 35 in addition to impro ving public safety.
line 36 (5)   Many agencies, as of January 1, 2022, had updated or line 37 adopted hate crime policies in the three years since adoption of line 38 paragraph (2) of subdi vision (a) of Section 422.87 of the Penal line 39 Code. Yet some had not included the form in their policies, and line 40 there w as no statutory accountability mechanism to ensure that 98 — 16 — AB 1947

line 1 agencies comply with this la w. For such agencies, the requirement line 2 of the act that amended that section in 2020 that their policies line 3 include the form created no state-mandated local cost. line 4 (d)   It is the intent of the Le gislature in enacting this act to do line 5 all of the follo wing:
line 6 (1)   Enact clear, specific language to apply the pro visions of line 7 e xisting law and the highest priority recommendations of the audit line 8 to all la w enforcement agencies throughout the state as quickly as line 9 feasible.
line 10 (2)   Establish an effective accountability mechanism. line 11 (3)   Minimize costs to la w enforcement agencies by allo wing line 12 them to meet all of the requirements of this act by utilizing line 13 materials that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and line 14 T raining has produced and will update in the future. line 15 SEC. 8.
line 16 SEC. 7. (a)  The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 17 following:
line 18 (1)   Section 422.87 of the Penal Code, as amended by this act, line 19 creates no costs to state law enforcement agencies because it is line 20 declaratory of existing law in subdivision (c) of Section 13519.6 line 21 of the Penal Code.
line 22 (2)   Section 422.87 of the Penal Code, as amended by this act, line 23 minimizes state-mandated local costs to local law enforcement line 24 agencies by allowing them to meet the requirements of that section line 25 by adopting the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and line 26 Training model hate crime policy and any updates of that policy line 27 that the commission develops in the future.
line 28 (3)   Section 13023 of the Penal Code, as amended by this act, line 29 creates no state-mandated local costs to local law enforcement line 30 agencies because all of the requirements of the amendments to line 31 that section were within the authority of the Attorney General to line 32 require prior to enactment of those amendments. line 33 (4)   As concerning the supplemental report form requirements, line 34 this act creates no state-mandated local cost to any local law line 35 enforcement agency that has adopted or revised a hate crime policy line 36 on or after January 1, 2019, for reasons including, but not limited line 37 to, those stated in subdi vision (c) of Section 7 of this act. 2019. line 38 (b)   If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this line 39 act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local line 40 agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant 98 AB 1947 — 17 —

line 1 to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title line 2 2 of the Government Code.

O
98 — 18 — AB 1947

AB 1947
Freedom from Hate Crimes

SUMMARY
In 2018, the State Auditor found that “law
enforcement has not adequately
identified, reported, or responded to hate
crimes.” AB 1947 follows the auditor’s
recommendations by requiring each law
enforcement agency to adopt a hate
crimes policy , including specific guidelines
for recognizing, reporting, and res ponding
to these crimes.

BACKGROUND
Hate crimes have surged in California and
nationally since 2015, escalating more since
the start of the COVID -19 pandemic and
still further in 2021.

The most commonly reported types of hate
crimes are those committed with a racial,
ethnic, or nationality bias, followed by
sexual orientation and religious biases.

The Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI)
community has been largely targeted
amidst the p andemic. California in
particular has seen a rise in hate -fueled
violence against Asian Americans,
including recent brutal attacks a gainst
elderly Asian Americans.

The Center for the Study of Hate and
Extremism’s preliminary 2021 data shows
large increas es in anti -AAPI hate crimes in
major cities nationally, including 173% in LA
and an astonishing 567% in San Francisco.

Overall nationally, hate crimes were
reported up another 11%, w ith African
Americans remaining the most targeted
community and a resurgen ce in anti -
Semitic hate crimes

The national coalition Stop AAPI Hate
noted at least 931 hate incidents in the Bay
Area alone in 2021, and nearly 11,000
incidents nationwide.

Despite the spike in reported cases, hate
crimes are still notoriously underrepor ted.

For instance, 11 California cities with
populations of at least 100,000 reported
zero hate crimes in 2019. Anti-female and
anti-disability hate crimes remain the most
underreported in California.

The numbers reported and the incidents
publicized refl ect only a fraction of the
actual numbers because of insufficient
data collection and underreporting. This
results in a significant lack of support and
services needed within our communities,
and instills fear among Californians.

THIS BILL
AB 1947 requires every law enforcement
agency to adopt a detailed, specific policy
instructing officers on how to identify,
respond to, and report hate crimes.

It also requires agencies to submit their hate
crime policies, brochures, and training
schedules to the Depa rtment of Justice to
ensure compliance.

This bill does not create or expand the
definition of any crime, increase penalties
for any crime, or preclude restorative justice
sentencing for any crime.

SUPPORT
 The Arc & United Cerebral Palsy
California Collaboration (sponsor)
 Asian Law Alliance (sponsor)
 California Asian Pacific American Bar
Association (sponsor)
 California Alliance for Retired Americans
(sponsor)
 California Association of Human
Relations Organizations (sponsor)
 California Council of Churches IMPACT
(sponsor)

AB 1947
Freedom from Hate Crimes

 California Hawaii State Conference of
the NAACP (sponsor)
 California League of United Latin
American Citizens (LULAC) (sponsor)
 California Women’s Law Center
(sponsor)
 Center for the Study of Hate and
Extremism, CSU San Bernardino (sponsor)
 Feminist Majority Foundation (sponsor)
 Hindu American Foundation (sponsor)
 National Japanese American Citizens
League (sponsor)
 Sikh Coalition (sponsor)
 Alpha Resource Center
 The Arc San Francisco
 Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach
 BeChinatown
 California Catholic Conference
 California Community Living Network
 California Council of Behavioral Health
Agencies
 California Democratic Party Senior
Caucus
 California Foundation for Independent
Living Centers
 California In-Home Supportive Services
Consumer Alliance
 California La Raza Lawyers Association
 California Nurses Association
 California Rural Legal Assistance
Foundation
 California Women’s Law Center
 Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
(CHIRLA)
 Council on American-Islamic Relations,
California Chapter
 Compassion in Oakland

 Consumer Federation of California
 Dolores Huerta Foundation
 Easterseals Southern California
 Gray Panthers of San Francisco
 Islamic Networks Group (ING)
 Japanese American Citizens League,
NCWNP
 Japanese Cultural and Community
Center of Northern California
 Korean American Community Services in
San Jose
 LEAD Filipino
 National Asian Pacific American Bar
Association
 National Japanese American Historical
Society
 Not in Our Town
 PathPoint
 Sacramento LGBT Community Center
 Salvador E. Alvarez Institute for Non-
Violence
 Services Immigrant Rights and Education
Network
 Sikh American Legal Defense and
Education Fund (SALDEF)
 Stand with Asian Americans
 UDW/AFSCME Local 3930

STAFF CONTACT
Jessica Duong
Office of Assemblymember Phil Ting
(916) 319-2019
[email protected]

Rashi Kesarwani
Councilmember District 1

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (Author), Councilmembers Lori Droste, Terry Taplin, and Susan Wengraf (Co-sponsor)
SUBJECT: Resolution Reaffirming the City of Berkeley’s Commitment to Transgender Rights

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution reaffirming the City of Berkeley’s commitment to Transgender and Gender Expansive Rights

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On February 22, 2022, Texas Governor Greg Abbott authored a letter to Texas’s Department of Family and Protective Services saying that medical treatments provided to transgender adolescents should be classified as child abuse under existing state law.1 This was in response to an opinion issued the week earlier by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stating that medical treatments such as puberty-suppressing drugs and hormones provided to transgender teens for gender-affirming care should be investigated as child abuse. This letter sowed fear among transgender youth and their families. Several families are already being unjustly investigated for supposed child abuse under this standard. On March 1, 2022, a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal Defense to secure a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction against both Governor Abbott and Jaime Masters, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Family Protective Services.2 On March 11, Judge Amy Clark Meachum issued an injunction, declaring the Governor’s order to be 1 See NYTimes March 1, 2022 article: Texas Investigates Parents Over Care for Transgender Youth, Suit Says
2 See NYTimes March 1, 2022 article: Texas Investigates Parents Over Care for Transgender Youth, Suit Says

22

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
2 unconstitutional.3 Within hours of Judge Meachum’s ruling, however, Attorney General Paxton tweeted that his office had filed an appeal to the ruling, thus freezing the injunction and allowing the investigations to continue.4 At the time of this writing, the legal landscape remains murky and it is uncertain whether these persecutory investigations will continue.

Transgender and gender expansive rights have recently come under direct attack in state legislatures across the country, and these individuals are especially vulnerable due to a lack of federal legal protections—with no comprehensive non-discrimination law inclusive of gender identity currently in place. As of March 2022, 15 states have sought to restrict access to gender- affirming care or are currently considering laws to do so. According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, these bills carry severe penalties for health care providers and sometimes families who provide or seek out gender-affirming care for minors.5 In light of these bills and laws that seek to deny gender-affirming care to minors, it is critically important to reaffirm Berkeley’s commitment to the transgender and gender expansive community and their rights.

BACKGROUND
Acts of violence and discrimination against transgender and gender expansive individuals continue to be on the rise, despite the June 15, 2020, U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v.

Clayton County which declared that discrimination based on transgender status counts as discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity (falling under discrimination due to sex prohibited in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act). Although this decision has become one of the most important for LGBTQ legal rights, transgender and gender expansive individuals have historically been oppressed and continue to face challenges—particularly in the workplace, healthcare, and education. The transgender community continues to grapple with violence as demonstrated by the at least 46 transgender and gender expansive individuals murdered in 2021—most of them Black or Latinx, according to the Human Rights Campaign Fund—marking the deadliest year on record.6
Berkeley is the first city in the United States to provide domestic partnership benefits to city and school district employees and has historically safeguarded the rights of the LGBTQ community.

In 2018, Berkeley’s Commission on the Status of Women announced a resolution providing $2,400 from the General Fund to fund a half-day Transgender Health Access Training for its Public Health staff. In 2015, Berkeley also added a provision to the Municipal Code requiring 3 See NYTimes March 11, 2022 article: Texas Court Halts Abuse Inquiries into Parents of Transgender Children
4 See Washington Post March 17, 2022 article: Dreading the Knock at the Door: Parents of Trans Kids in Texas are Terrified for Their Families
5 “Prohibiting Gender-Affirming Medical Care for Youth,” UCLA School of Law Williams Institute, March 2022, https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/bans-trans-youth-health-care/ 6 See the November 17, 2021 Human Rights Campaign Fund press release: Marking the Deadliest Year on Record, Human Rights Campaign Fund Announces Release of Annual Report on Violence Against Transgender and Gender expansive People.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
3 that single-occupancy bathrooms in businesses and other places of public accommodation be designated as gender-neutral.

The state of California has also continued to support the transgender and gender expansive community and their rights. In 2014, AB 1577, the Respect After Death Act, requires any official who completes a transgender person’s death certificate to record the deceased individual’s sex to reflect their gender identity. In 2015, California became the first state to grant transgender prison inmates the right to have access to gender affirmation surgeries. Additionally, under AB 1732, California became the first state to require single-occupancy restrooms in businesses, government buildings, and places of public accommodation to be indicated as gender-neutral. In 2016, California passed AB 1887, which banned state-funded travel to states enacting laws that discriminated against or removed protections for individuals based on sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

Let this resolution reaffirm the City of Berkeley’s strong history of commitment to upholding and protecting the rights of members of the LGBTQ community, including transgender and gender- expansive individuals.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
None

CONTACT PERSON
Rashi Kesarwani, Council District 1, 510-981-7110
Attachments:

1. Resolution

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
4 RESOLUTION NO. ##, ###-N.S.

REAFFIRMING THE CITY OF BERKELEY’S COMMITMENT TO TRANSGENDER AND

GENDER EXPANSIVE RIGHTS
WHEREAS, June 28, 2022 will mark the 53rd anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, which were a pivotal series of events that invigorated the modern movement for LGBTQ rights and served as the catalyst for the formation of LGBTQ activist organizations and pride marches.

WHEREAS, Even with the landmark Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which prohibited employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation, transgender individuals still lack legal protection on the federal level since no comprehensive non- discrimination law inclusive of gender identity currently exists.

WHEREAS, More than 100 anti-transgender bills have been introduced in 33 states in an attempt to dismantle fundamental transgender rights and transgender identity.7 WHEREAS, Individual states are passing laws restricting access to medical care and sports participation for transgender youth, for example: Tennessee banned doctors from prescribing transition hormone treatments for transgender children; Arkansas prohibited doctors from providing gender-affirming medical treatment to transgender minors; and Alabama barred transgender girls and women from playing on female teams.

WHEREAS, The transgender and gender expansive community, especially the most marginalized transgender people such as trans women and trans people of color, experience daily challenges due to a lack of healthcare coverage, greater likelihood of living in poverty, and ongoing violence, harassment, and discrimination.

WHEREAS, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe transgender people should be guaranteed federal anti-discrimination protections and rights to participate in opportunities through the Equality Act, a bill that passed in the House of Representatives but is currently stalled in the Senate.

WHEREAS, In December 1984, the City of Berkeley was the first to extend health benefits to domestic partners who served as City and school district employees; Berkeley’s Domestic Partner Task Force conceived the term “domestic partner”; and the City’s policy set a precedent for domestic partner policies in the rest of the country.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Berkeley that it hereby reaffirms its commitment to assuring transgender and gender expansive rights, regardless of 7 See KQED’s June 6, 2021 article Pride: 2021 has Set a Record in Anti-Trans Bills in America

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
5 socioeconomic, ethnic, racial, cultural, or religious background, and to opposing any laws or regulations that pose a threat to the well-being, identity, and advancement of the transgender and gender expansive community.

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Terry Taplin, Councilmember Kate Harrison, and Councilmember Susan Wengraf
Subject: Budget Referral: Municipal Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council refer to the FY2023-24 budget process the funding of electric charging infrastructure for the City’s fleet of electric vehicles.

FISCAL IMPACTS
An estimated $1,150,000 for the implementation of electric charging infrastructure at the Corporation Yard and other City properties.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In July of 2020, the Department of Public Works presented its 2020 Municipal Fleet Electrification Assessment to the City Council. This assessment, developed in response to a 2019 referral from Council requesting it, details the department’s action plan for the pursuit of the full electrification of Berkeley’s municipal vehicle fleet by the year 2030.

Public Works’ report, and this recommendation, are primarily focused on the electrification of the 40% of Berkeley’s fleet that are light-duty vehicles. This is due to the fact that there are few existing medium and heavy-duty electric vehicles and none of them are suitable for the City’s desired uses.1
While the pursuit of the full electrification of Berkeley’s light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles remains limited by existing technologies, the City Council can and must prioritize the electrification of that portion of the fleet that is ready to be electrified. In order to meet its 2030 electrification goal and its broader climate goal to reach greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 2000 levels by 2050, the City of Berkeley has to make steady investments into the work of electrification.

Public Works is on track to complete conversion of the light duty fleet to EVs by 2028, two years ahead of the assessment’s schedule. However, failure to fund and/or install the Corporation Yard charging stations may delay this schedule and/or compromise the City achieving the goal of an all EV light duty fleet. The FY 2022 budget did not include 1 2020 Municipal Fleet Electrification Assessment

23

the $850,000 necessary to construct the charging infrastructure for the Corporation Yard, and the total gap in funding needed to get this infrastructure to the Corp Yard and other sites is now $1,150,000. The Corporation Yard is an especially important location because much of the City’s light duty fleet resides there, and without this charging infrastructure, EV conversion will slow dramatically.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Public Works and the Office of Energy and Sustainable Development may continue discussions with East Bay Community Energy for their potential financing and management of this important capital project.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The use of electric vehicles for Berkeley’s municipal fleet stands to significantly reduce the City’s greenhouse gas emissions. While the production of electric vehicles still results in some emissions, shifting away from fossil fuel-powered vehicles will nonetheless drastically advance the City’s climate goals.

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2020 Municipal Fleet Electrification Assessment

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 28, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Referral Response: An Action Plan for Greening the City of Berkeley Fleet of Vehicles

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the City of Berkeley Municipal Fleet Electrification Assessment, a plan to accelerate Berkeley’s municipal fleet electrification by 2030, and refer to the City Manager to pursue grant and rebate opportunities through East Bay Community Energy and other entities to support its recommendations for transitioning fleet vehicles away from fossil fuels to electric vehicles, including charging infrastructure and associated distributed energy resource options.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
This recommendation has no direct fiscal impacts. The City of Berkeley Municipal Fleet Electrification Assessment Plan (Fleet EV Plan), however, estimates that transitioning light-duty fleet vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs) over the next ten years will have significant costs, due primarily to expenses associated with needed charging infrastructure. Light-duty EV fleet replacement is estimated at $9.76 million over the next ten years, compared with $8.34 million for gasoline/hybrid vehicles. The differential is primarily due to the high costs associated with charging infrastructure including procurement, installation at the multiple locations where Berkeley fleet vehicles are domiciled, and electrical upgrades required to support charging. Further, if recommended solar photovoltaic (PV) and battery energy storage systems are included, an additional $1.58 million will be required, totaling an estimated $11.34 million over ten years. Light-duty vehicles are approximately 40% of the total Berkeley Municipal Fleet; costs associated with transitioning medium-duty, heavy-duty, and emergency vehicles to EVs have not been estimated in the Fleet EV Plan because very few options are available. Implementation of an electric fleet will require additional funding through future City Budget adoptions.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This Fleet EV Plan responds to Item 36, “An Action Plan for Greening the City of Berkeley Fleet of Vehicles,” which originally appeared on the agenda of the June 25, 2019 Council meeting and was sponsored by Councilmembers Wengraf, Harrison, Robinson, and Mayor Arreguin. This Council item called for the City Manager and

Referral Response: An Action Plan for Greening the City of Berkeley Fleet of Vehicles CONSENT CALENDAR July 28, 2020

Department of Public Works to create a plan to aggressively accelerate implementation of the electrification of the City’s municipal fleet and phase out fossil fuel use in municipal vehicles by 2030. The Fleet EV Plan complements the drafting of Berkeley’s first Electric Mobility Roadmap, by the Planning Department, and embodies the Roadmap goal of Demonstrating City Leadership, specifically the strategy to develop and implement a City fleet electrification plan.

This Fleet EV Plan completes the Strategic Plan Priority project “City Vehicle Fleet Assessment” and supports the Strategic Plan Goals of providing state-of-the-art, well- maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities and being a global leader in addressing climate change and protecting the environment.

As directed by Council, the Fleet EV Plan includes an evaluation of the City’s current fleet, and an analysis of opportunities for transitioning to a fleet of fossil fuel free vehicles, as soon as the technology can safely and reliably meet operational needs.

Based on this analysis, the Fleet EV Plan focuses on light-duty vehicles (approximately 40% of the total fleet) because few medium- and heavy-duty EVs exist, and of those that do, performance is not appropriate for Berkeley’s fleet. The Fleet EV Plan addresses 2021-2025 procurement cycles in detail, and 2026-2030 procurement cycles more generally, to ensure fiscally responsible procurement and deployment of EVs. It also proposes associated distributed energy resource (DER) options, including charging infrastructure and onsite solar PV and/or battery energy storage (BES) systems.

Specifically, the plan includes an initial screening to identify sites at which solar PV and/or BES may be favorable to offset electricity consumption of the City’s EV fleet.

BES systems allow for operational flexibility, resilience, and energy demand management. The plan has details on vehicle and DER technology, and financial model recommendations for each fleet facility (domicile). It recommends a scenario to meet fleet electrification requirements with the greatest ease of implementation and integration.

As of February 2020, the City fleet, excluding emergency response vehicles, consisted of 99 passenger sedans and SUVs, 30 parking enforcement scooters, 88 medium-duty pick-up trucks and vans, and 98 heavy-duty vehicles, all domiciled in 15 dispersed locations. It was determined the light-duty fleet could be transitioned to battery electric vehicles (BEVs, such as Chevy Bolts), with some plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs, such as Prius Primes) that travel primarily using electricity, but which also have gasoline engines for flexibility and resilience needed for emergency response and disaster preparedness. Emergency vehicles for police patrol and pursuit, firefighting, and emergency medical services are not currently available as BEVs or PHEVs. The plan recommends that medium-duty and heavy-duty gasoline engine/hybrid vehicles continue to be evaluated during the 2020-2030 timeframe via pilot programs, until EVs in these classes are available, cost-effective, and able to meet the same duty cycle of existing vehicles. For example, some of the fleet’s 72 medium-duty pickup trucks may

Referral Response: An Action Plan for Greening the City of Berkeley Fleet of Vehicles CONSENT CALENDAR July 28, 2020

be able to be replaced by the all-electric Ford F-150, a light-duty truck currently expected to arrive in the U.S. market by the end of 2021.

Table 1 summarizes Fleet EV Plan recommendations for adding charging stations, solar PV, BES systems, and backup generators to support the transition of the light-duty fleet to an EV fleet. Solar PV and BES recommendations are based on the energy load of the fleet, and some locations are being evaluated through East Bay Community Energy (EBCE)’s separate Solar + Storage at Critical Municipal Facilities Assessment, which is expected to completed by the end of 2020. Backup generators are included Fleet EV Plan to provide resilience, but these needs may be met at some locations with solar PV and BES.

Table 1: Summary of Fleet EV Plan Recommendations for Charging Infrastructure and Associated Distributed Energy Resource Options to Support Light-duty Fleet Electrification Transition

Referral Response: An Action Plan for Greening the City of Berkeley Fleet of Vehicles CONSENT CALENDAR July 28, 2020

Table 2 summarizes the estimated annual costs for transitioning the City’s light-duty fleet to EVs. Estimates are based on April 2020 data for initial procurement, installation, and annual operation and maintenance costs. Factors that impact these estimates include change in costs of equipment, insurance, sales tax, and utility rates; change in the numbers of vehicles procured each year; implementation of solar PV and/or BES systems, and the availability of incentives and grants.

Table 2: Summary of Estimated Procurement and Operating and Maintenance Costs by Year As shown in Table 2, complete implementation of the EV Fleet Plan requires significant resources, particularly in the first two years of implementation, 2021 and 2022. Costs associated with building adequate charging infrastructure are unavoidable, but the plan attempts to minimize those costs via charger sharing, load management, and potentially providing mobile charging in some locations. EVs require charging stations for refueling, and the City’s vehicles are domiciled in dispersed locations (see Table 1), most of which currently have limited electrical capacity, as well as physical constraints related to adding EV charging infrastructure. Although elements such as solar PV and BES are not essential for EV adoption, if incorporated, they will reduce utility costs associated with vehicle charging and provide greater resilience during power losses.

Referral Response: An Action Plan for Greening the City of Berkeley Fleet of Vehicles CONSENT CALENDAR July 28, 2020

BACKGROUND
As staff sought resources to complete the Action Plan for Greening the City of Berkeley Fleet of Vehicles in July 2019, EBCE offered to perform rapid fleet electrification assessments for member cities to help update EBCE’s electricity load growth curve forecast and plan for infrastructure build out. Member cities including Berkeley, Albany, Dublin, and Oakland expressed interest in participating in the assessments, and EBCE issued an RFP for consultant services in September 2019. City of Berkeley staff participated in review of the proposals, and final selection of the consultant team of Frontier Energy, DKS Associates, and Gladstein, Neandross & Associates. The project kicked off in November 2019 with Berkeley in first position for the comprehensive fleet electrification assessment. The consultant team, working closely with EBCE and Berkeley staff, completed the assessment in May 2020.

Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Berkeley, accounting for 60% of the community’s total emissions in 2016.1 In keeping with Berkeley Climate Action Plan goals, and consistent with Council’s 2018 Climate Emergency Declaration and resolution to become a Fossil Fuel Free City, staff began incorporating EVs into the municipal fleet in 2016. The fleet currently includes 2 electric scooters (GO-4 EVs) for parking enforcement and 15 Toyota Prius Primes used in multiple departments including Health, Housing & Community Services, Planning, and Public Works.

At the end of 2019, 37 additional charging ports were added to the newly rebuilt Center Street Garage, for a total 57 ports available for public and fleet charging, at this facility which also hosts a 168.9 kW solar PV rooftop canopy. The Center Street Garage rebuild and charging expansion utilized a portion of the $600,000 allocated in the FY2020 budget for EVs and charging infrastructure, with funding also going towards incorporating EV charging stations into current capital projects at the Mental Health Clinic and North Berkeley Senior Center; and charging design work at the Corp Yard and the Berkeley Marina. In addition, staff was recently informed Berkeley’s application for the West Oakland Zero Emission Grant Program to fund fleet EVs and charging infrastructure has been recommended for a $100,914 award for approval by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board in June 2020.

Further expansion of fleet EVs is dependent on providing appropriate charging infrastructure. This Fleet EV Plan provides the City of Berkeley with a plan and recommendations for the accelerated transition to fleet electrification, including associated DER options. EBCE graciously funded this plan, and will continue to offer assistance for the installation of EV charging infrastructure and DER. EBCE has applied to the California Energy Commission for CALeVIP funding that would provide $14.5 million to our region over 4 years beginning in 2021, for Level 2 and DC Fast Charge stations. This could potentially be combined with other funding opportunities including 1 Climate Action Plan Update, December 6, 2018, available at https://www.cityofberkeley.info/climate/.

Referral Response: An Action Plan for Greening the City of Berkeley Fleet of Vehicles CONSENT CALENDAR July 28, 2020

Pacific Gas & Electric’s EV Fleet program, but significant City investment will be required for plan implementation.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Driving an EV instead of a conventional gasoline or diesel-fueled combustion engine vehicle eliminates tailpipe emissions. The associated GHG emissions, when charging is powered by onsite solar PV or by EBCE’s 100% carbon-free product (Brilliant 100, which is currently used by municipal accounts), are also completely eliminated.

Widespread electric mobility is an essential component of reaching the State’s carbon neutrality (zero net carbon) by 2045, and becoming a Fossil Fuel Free City as soon as possible. This Fleet EV Plan estimates the annual lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the light-duty fleet would drop 96% between 2020 and 2030 from 56.6 metric tons to only 2.1 metric tons per year.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City of Berkeley Municipal Fleet Electrification Assessment presents an ambitious plan for transitioning fleet vehicles away from fossil fuels to electric vehicles, including developing charging infrastructure and associated distributed energy resource options, such as solar photovoltaics and battery energy storage. The Fleet EV Plan is thorough and was developed in close collaboration with City staff and EBCE to meet Council’s referral request and to demonstrate City leadership in addressing climate change and protecting the environment. Given the budgetary impacts of COVID-19 on the City, no specific budget allocation to support Fleet EV Plan implementation is being requested at this time.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Daryl Witbeck, Public Works Operations Manager, Public Works, 510-981-6451 Greg Ellington, Equipment Maintenance Superintendent, Public Works, 510-981-6469 Sarah Moore, Sustainability Program Manager, Planning, 510-981-7494 Attachments:
1: City of Berkeley Municipal Fleet Electrification Assessment Plan 2: Original Referral Report from June 25, 2019 (Item 36, An Action Plan for Greening the City of Berkeley Fleet of Vehicles)

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification

City of Berkeley Municipal Fleet Electrification Assessment

Prepared for: East Bay Community Energy on behalf of the City of Berkeley FRONTIER ENERGY, INC.
1000 Broadway, Suite 410
Oakland, CA 94607

DKS ASSOCIATES
1970 Broadway, Suite 740
Oakland, CA 94612

GLADSTEIN, NEANDROSS & ASSOCIATES
2525 Ocean Park Blvd, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90405

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 1 Final Report
Contents
Glossary ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Summarized Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 8 Summary of Estimated Costs by Year .............................................................................................. 9 Summary of Emissions Reduction .................................................................................................. 10 Fleet Electrification Transition .................................................................................................................... 12 Light-duty Vehicles ......................................................................................................................... 12 Availability of Medium- and Heavy-Duty EVs ................................................................................ 14 Availability of Emergency EVs ........................................................................................................ 14 2026-2030 Budgeting Considerations for Light-Duty EVs .............................................................. 15 Charging Strategy Options .......................................................................................................................... 16 Distributed Energy Resources ..................................................................................................................... 19 Total Cost of Ownership ............................................................................................................................. 21 TCO Model Results ......................................................................................................................... 22 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction ........................................................................................... 24 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 25 Appendix A: Municipal Fleet Assessment ................................................................................................... 26 Appendix B: Electrical Needs and Charging Infrastructure Summary ........................................................ 44 Appendix C: Distributed Energy Resources Analysis ................................................................................... 55 Appendix D: Total Cost of Ownership ......................................................................................................... 73 Appendix E: Recommendations by Domicile: Charging, Solar PV, BES for Light-Duty Fleet EVs ................ 87 Site #1 Corp Yard ............................................................................................................................ 87 Site #2 Berkeley Transfer Station ................................................................................................... 92 Site #3 Berkeley Marina (125/127 University Avenue) .................................................................. 93 Site #4 Adult Mental Health Clinic ................................................................................................. 97 Site #5 Mental Health Clinic ........................................................................................................... 99 Site #6 Center Street Garage ....................................................................................................... 101 Site #7 Central Library Parking Lot ............................................................................................... 104 Site #8 Public Safety Building ....................................................................................................... 107 Site #9 Civic Center (City Hall) ...................................................................................................... 110

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 2 Final Report
Site #10 Mental Health Clinic (2636/2640 Martin Luther King Jr Way) ....................................... 112 Site #11 South Berkeley Senior Center ........................................................................................ 115 Site #12 North Berkeley Senior Center ........................................................................................ 118

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 3 Final Report
Glossary
4WD/4x4 Four-wheel drive
A Amperes
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BES Battery energy storage
BEV Battery electric vehicle
CALeVIP California Electric Vehicle Incentive Program
CapEx Capital expense
CARB California Air Resources Board
CORE California Off-Road Equipment
CVRP Clean Vehicle Rebate Project
DCFC DC Fast Charging
DER Distributed energy resource
EBCE East Bay Community Energy
EV Electric vehicle
EVSE Electric vehicle service equipment
GHG Greenhouse gas
HVIP Hybrid Voucher Incentive Program
ICE Internal combustion engine
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt hour
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Level 2/L2 240-volt charging equipment
O&M/OpEx Operation and maintenance (expense)
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
PHEV Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
PV Photovoltaic
RA Resource adequacy
SF Square feet
SUV Sport utility vehicle
TCO Total cost of ownership
V Volt
W Watt
ZEV Zero emission vehicle

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 4 Final Report
City of Berkeley Fleet Transition Plan
Introduction
Fleet electrification offers local governments economic benefits that include lower lifecycle costs and reduced risk of fuel price volatility when compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

Deployment of electric vehicles (EV) in municipal fleets also benefits the local population through the use of clean electricity as fuel, which helps reduce criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

To assist local government partners in overcoming perceived barriers to municipal fleet electrification, East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) commissioned a consultant team to develop a plan on behalf of the City of Berkeley (City) that evaluates the short- and long-term cost savings associated with the transition to EVs, determines impacts and benefits to the City, and outlines steps to efficiently integrate EVs and charging infrastructure at municipal facilities in a fiscally responsible manner.

In June 2019 City Council requested the City Manager and Department of Public Works collaborate to create an Action Plan by June 2020 that would outline how the City would accelerate the implementation of municipal fleet electrification by 2030. The purpose of this report is to understand the current municipal fleet composition and make recommendations about transitioning from light-, medium-, and heavy-duty ICE vehicles to EVs by 2030, to the extent feasible. Commitment to fleet electrification will help move the City closer to achieving Council-adopted climate policies while leading by example in the community.

Development of this report was supported by data provided by the City and supplemental information gathered during meetings and interviews.

The purpose of this report is to present a formalized EV deployment plan for the City’s municipal fleet in line with the City’s commitments and goals. This plan addresses 2021-2025 procurement cycles in detail and 2026-2030 procurement cycles more generally to ensure fiscally responsible procurement and deployment of EVs and proposed associated distributed energy resource (DER) options, including charging infrastructure and onsite solar photovoltaic (PV) and/or battery energy storage (BES) systems.

It includes reporting about vehicle and DER technology and financial model recommendations for each fleet facility (domicile), and it ultimately recommends a scenario to meet fleet electrification requirements with the greatest ease of implementation and integration.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 5 Final Report
Vehicle Technology
Zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) are those that have electric drivetrains to provide all or some of the vehicle’s power. California regulations recognize three types of ZEVs as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Types of Zero-Emission Vehicles

Source: Center for Sustainable Energy
 Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV): PHEVs are powered by electric charging and gasoline fueling. Most have an all-electric driving range of 10-50 miles. PHEVs can often be fully charged overnight from a standard electrical socket (Level 1) and accept Level 2 charging. PHEVs are more efficient than hybrids and, if driven on primarily on electric power, can achieve up to 133 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent.0F
1  Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV): BEVs are powered by electric batteries only and have a range of between 70-315 miles. BEVs are very efficient and can achieve up to 120 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent.1 Most BEVs can be charged at Level 1, which is ideal for vehicles with a long dwell time, and Level 2 and DC Fast Charging. Figure 2 illustrates the difference in time to charge at the three charging levels.
 Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEV): FCEVs are powered by a fuel cell that converts hydrogen into electric energy within the vehicle. Current FCEV models have a range of 312-380 miles. FCEVs are fueled at public hydrogen stations in about five minutes. One hydrogen station located at 1250 University Avenue in Berkeley is currently in development. FCEVs are efficient in power conversion and can achieve up to 68 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent.1 Longer term, FCEVs may be considered for medium and heavy-duty fleet applications.

Charging Technology
Chargers are identified by their input voltage and are designed and sold by many manufacturers with different prices, applications and functionality. Figure 2 illustrates the difference in charging speeds (miles of range added per hour) from the three charging levels.  Level 1 charging uses a common wall outlet. Some vehicles can use a standard 120-volt outlet on a dedicated circuit for a “trickle” charge. Most EVs include a cord that can plug into a Level 1 outlet and, therefore, this level of charging does not require installation of charging equipment.

Depending on the battery capacity of the EV, Level 1 charging can take 7 to 24 hours for a full charge.

1 https://fueleconomy.gov

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 6 Final Report
 Level 2 equipment offers charging through a 240V, AC plug and requires electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) with a dedicated 40-amp circuit. All BEVs and PHEVs can use Level 2 charging by using the cord that is attached to the EVSE and plugging it into the vehicle. Level 2 EVSEs come in many configurations: wall mounted, free standing, curbside, and ceiling mounted, and can be networked (smart) to accept payment and communicate charging status or not networked (dumb). Depending on the battery capacity of the EV vehicle, Level 2 charging generally takes 4 to 6 hours to completely charge a depleted battery, however, charging duration can increase in extreme cold and hot temperatures.  DC Fast Charging (DCFC) is the fastest way to charge an EV and requires a specialized charger on a dedicated circuit that matches the amperage of the EVSE—between 50 and 150 amps. Most BEVs can utilize a DCFC by using the cord attached to the EVSE. Most DCFCs are networked to charge customers for use and help with power management to avoid peaks in demand. Mobile and portable DCFCs are just entering the market. DCFC charging generally takes fewer than 60 minutes to completely charge a depleted battery, however, charging duration can increase in extreme cold and hot temperatures.

Figure 2: Levels of EV Charging

Source: Frontier Energy
Solar Photovoltaic + Battery Energy Storage Systems
With the threat of a major earthquake predicted to impact the greater San Francisco Bay Area in the next 30 years, cities like Berkeley have extensive experiencing preparing for natural disasters that can interrupt the utility grid. In recent years, however, increased frequency of climate-related wildfires created a new impact on the City’s operations and those of its businesses and residents. As a last-resort measure to prevent grid-initiated fires, the investor owned utility PG&E implemented processes to de- energize targeted regions known as Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events. It is crucial that the City’s EV fleet has reliable fueling options when electric service is interrupted due to a natural disaster or PSPS to ensure staff can provide continuity of service to the community.

Onsite solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays paired battery energy storage (BES) systems can provide that resilience. And, on a day-to-day basis, these systems can also reduce costs associated with PG&E demand charges further helping the City’s fleet save on operational expenses.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 7 Final Report
With the help of a central controller, power generated from onsite solar PV is directed to the BES system. If a City facility is not suitable for onsite PV, electricity will be directed from the grid to the BES system by the controller. In either case, the controller monitors onsite electricity production, electricity flowing from the grid to the battery, and consumption by loads like building energy use and EV charging infrastructure. Figure 3 provides a simplified schematic of a solar PV and BES system.

Figure 3: Schematic of a DER system

Source: Frontier Energy

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 8 Final Report
Summarized Recommendations
In late-February 2020, the City fleet, excluding emergency response vehicles, consisted of 99 passenger sedans and SUVs, 30 parking enforcement scooters, 88 medium-duty pick-up trucks and vans, and 98 heavy-duty vehicles. The City’s fleet domiciles in 15 locations. With input from City staff, it was determined that the light-duty fleet could be transitioned to EVs and, in fact, that transition had already begun with the acquisition of 15 Prius Prime PHEVs. The detailed recommendations summarized in this report focus on the light-duty fleet. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles should be evaluated during the 2020-2030 timeframe via pilot programs until EVs in these classes are cost effective and can meet the same duty cycle of the existing vehicles.

Table 1 summarizes the recommendations throughout this report for adding charging stations, solar PV, and BES systems to support the transition of the light-duty fleet to EVs. Solar PV and BES recommendations are based on the energy load of the fleet, and some locations are being evaluated through EBCE’s separate Solar + Storage at Critical Municipal Facilities Assessment. Backup generators are included to provide resiliency, but these needs may be met at some locations with solar PV and BES.

Table 1: Summary of Light-duty Fleet Electrification Transition Facility Name Facility
Location
Light-
Duty EVs Chargers Solar PV
(kW DC) BES Backup
Generator
Corp Yard 1326 Allston
Way 16 4 dual-head L2
and 1 DCFC 52.7 33 kW /
130 kWh Yes
Berkeley
Transfer
Station (prior
to rebuild)
1201 Second
Street 5
2 dual-head L2
w/ load
management

Berkeley
Marina
125/127
University
Avenue
33 (includes
scooters)
4 dual-head L2 70.5 75 kW /
300 kWh Yes
Adult Mental
Health Clinic
1521
University
Avenue
13 3 dual-head L2 -- --
Mental Health
Clinic
1890 Alcatraz
Avenue/ 3282
Adeline Street
6 1 dual-head L2 -- -- Yes
Center Street
Garage
2025 Center
Street
36 (some
will
relocate
to Civic
Center)
28 dual-head, 1
single L2
(existing)
168.9 63 kW /
250 kWh
Central Library
Parking Lot
2031 Bancroft
Way 1 1 dual-head L2 18.8 -- Yes
Public Safety
Building
2100 Martin
Luther King Jr
Way
2 1 dual-head L2 10.8 --

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 9 Final Report
Facility Name Facility
Location
Light-
Duty EVs Chargers Solar PV
(kW DC) BES Backup
Generator
Civic Center 2180 Milvia
Street 1 2 dual-head L2 -- --
Mental Health
Clinic
2636/2640
Martin Luther
King Jr Way
8 2 dual-head L2 60.1
South Berkeley
Senior Center
2939 Ellis
Street 2 1 dual-head L2 7.8 Yes
North Berkeley
Senior Center
1901 Hearst
Avenue 2 1 dual-head L2 29.6
The City fleet includes three take-home vehicles that are assumed to be charged a staffs’ homes.

Summary of Estimated Costs
Table 2 summarizes the estimated annual costs for transitioning the City’s light-duty fleet to EVs.

Estimates are based on data available in April 2020 for initial procurement, installation, and annual operation and maintenance costs. Factors that impact these estimates include change in cost of equipment, insurance, sales tax, and utility rates; change in the numbers of vehicles procured each year; implementation of solar PV and/or BES systems, and the availability of incentives and grants.

Table 2: Summary of Estimated Procurement and Operating and Maintenance Costs by Year

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-30
Light-duty vehicle
procurement $1,156,200 $678,043 $151,379 $191,797 $151,736 $2,528,658 Charger
procurement and
installation*
$675,500 $675,500
Annual charger
maintenance fee* $12,400 $22,300 $22,300 $22,300 $22,300 $111,500 Solar PV
procurement and
installation*
$534,650 $534,650
BES procurement
and installation $1,020,000 $1,020,000
Back-up generator
procurement $827,000
Reserved funds for
procurement of
heavy-duty EVs for
evaluation
$250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
Total $4,475,750 $2,160,493 $423,679 $464,097 $424,036 $3,660,158 *Does not include charging stations and solar PV already installed or planned for 2020 or any charging stations that will be incorporated into the new Transfer Station rebuild project

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 10 Final Report
To understand the total cost of ownership, four scenarios were created:

1. Baseline—assume that existing gasoline and hybrid ICE vehicles are replace with similar vehicles

2. EV Transition—assumes that existing gasoline and hybrid ICE vehicles are replace with EVs

3. EV Transition + PV—adds solar to the EV Transition

4. EV Transition + PV and BES—adds battery storage
Due to the high costs associated with charging infrastructure, including procurement, installation, and electrical upgrades, the EV transition scenario is more expensive over 10 years than the Baseline scenario. Adding solar PV is a slight increase further and the addition of both solar PV and BES systems further increases the total cost of ownership, as shown in Figure 4. EBCE plans to aggregate cities’ solar PV and BES needs into a competitive solicitation in 2020 to reduce the cost and complexity of deploying these systems in the near term for its local government partners.

Figure 4: Total Value Summary by Scenario

Additional charging may need to be added to support medium-, heavy-duty, and emergency response EVs as they become more readily available and economically feasible. Additionally, grant programs, rebates, and incentives may further offset costs of procuring and operating the proposed supporting DER technologies. It is recommended that the City closely track such funding opportunities and coordinate with partners, such as EBCE, accordingly.

Summary of Emissions Reduction
Transportation contributes 60% of Berkeley’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.1F 2 Transitioning to EVs
charged with 100% renewable or carbon-free electricity that EBCE provides dramatically reduces GHGs from the City’s fleet. Figure 5 compares GHG emissions under the Baseline scenario and the EV

2 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/climate/

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 11 Final Report
transition scenario. Precipitous drops in the EV transition scenario in 2021, 2022, and 2025 are associated with the substantial number of vehicles slated for replacement in each of those years.

Figure 5: Annual GHG Emissions Projections from the City's Light-duty Fleet

In 2030, GHGs would be reduced 96% relative to the Baseline scenario. The few remaining GHG emissions are associated with seven PHEV SUVs that have a portion of their daily mileage powered by gasoline. By 2030, it is likely that SUV BEVs that meet the City’s duty cycles will be available, effectively allowing the City to achieve a 100% reduction in the GHG emissions for the light-duty fleet considered in this analysis.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 12 Final Report
Fleet Electrification Transition
Light-duty Vehicles
As of February 2020, the City’s light-duty fleet passenger sedans (or cars), SUVs, and parking enforcement scooters (excluding vehicles used for emergency services and response) consisted of 75 passenger sedans, 24 SUVs, and 30 parking enforcement scooters The City schedules vehicle replacement 7, 10, or 15 years from the purchase date, although some vehicles are kept longer than planned. All the GO-4 scooters are scheduled to be replaced in 2026. Based on the current vehicle replacement schedule, Table 3 summarizes year-by-year transition to EVs.

The consultant team recommends replacing existing passenger sedans with BEVs, transitioning some existing SUVs to BEV sedans and replacing other SUVs with PHEV SUVs. PHEV SUVs will primarily travel on the electricity available from the vehicles’ batteries and the gasoline engine provides flexibility and resiliency needed by these vehicles for emergency response and disaster preparedness. By 2026, the BEV parking enforcement scooters will likely meet the City’s needs for range and reliability. If BEV scooters are not viable or cost effective by 2026, the City may consider replacing the scooters with BEV sedans.

Table 3: Procurement Schedule for Passenger Sedans and SUVs Year Number of BEV
Passenger
Sedans/Wagons
Number of
PHEV SUVs
Number of
BEV Scooters
2020* 1 0
2021** 29 3
2022 10 8
2023 3 1
2024 4 1
2025 4 0
2026 11 0 30
2027 6 0
2028 3 0
2029 0 0
2030 1 0
*Vehicles the City procured in January and February 2020 or are scheduled to be procured in 2031 do not appear in this table. **Six vehicles may be replaced with EVs in 2020 (instead of 2021), pending approval of a Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) grant application.
2020-2025 Budgeting Considerations for Light-Duty EVs
Based on the negotiated contract rates from National Auto Fleet Group, Table 4 lists the estimated price for EVs, including 9.25% sales tax, additional keys, and other fees. The prices are rounded to the nearest dollar, based on the City’s stated preference to standardize on the Nissan Leaf Plus and Chevy Bolt. The City doesn’t have a stated preference for an SUV replacement and three PHEV options are listed.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 13 Final Report
Table 4: Average Contract Rates for EVs
Technology
Type Body Type Make and Model NAFG Est. Price
EPA Rated
All-electric
Range
Battery Size
(kWh)
BEV Sedan Nissan Leaf Plus $37,934 226 62
BEV Small Wagon Chevy Bolt $37,577 259 60
BEV Scooter GO-4 EV $47,666 100* 20
PHEV SUV Kia Niro LX PHEV $31,505 26 9
PHEV SUV Mitsubishi
Outlander 4WD $40,061 22 12
PHEV Minivan Chrysler Pacifica $43,578 32 16
*Manufacturer estimate
Currently, the City is eligible to claim a Clean Vehicle Rebate Program (CVRP) rebate from the State of California for up to 30 EVs per year.2F
3 In 2020, BEVs are eligible for a $2,000 per vehicle rebate and some PHEVs are eligible for a $1,000 rebate. The Mitsubishi Outlander, the only four-wheel-drive (4WD) PHEV, is not eligible for the rebate because it does not meet the minimum requirement for all-electric range.3F 4 The Kia Niro crossover PHEV and the Chrysler Pacifica minivan are eligible for CVRP.

Table 5 estimates the cost for replacement EVs in 2020 through 2025 (from Table 3) for each budget year with the current contracted prices (from Table 4). The estimated budget will vary based on the contract price, vehicle selected, and changes in sales tax rates. Although more EV makes and models will become available, EV costs will likely remain in the same price range through 2025. Because the CVRP rebate program may not be continued beyond the planned end in 2022,4F 5 the consultant team took a
conservative approach and did not include the rebates starting in 2023.

Table 5: Year-by-Year Budget Estimates to Replace Existing ICE Vehicles with EVs Year
Nissan Leaf
Plus @
$37,934
Chevy Bolt @
$37,577
Mitsubishi
Outlander PHEV
@
$40,061
Potential CVRP
Rebate
Total
Estimated
Vehicle Cost
2020 $37,934 (1) ($2,000) $35,934
2021* $455,208 (12) $638,809 (17) $120,183 (3) ($58,000) $1,156,200 2022 $189,670 (5) $187,855 (5) $320,488 (8) ($20,000) $678,043 2023 $113,802 (3) $37,577 (1) $151,379
2024 $151,736 (4) $40,061 (1) $191,797
2025 $151,736 (4) $151,736
*The City applied for a grant from Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If awarded, six vehicles scheduled to be replaced in 2021 will be replaced in 2020 and will not need to be included in the 2021 budget.

3 https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/fleet. Rebates are on a first-come, first-served basis. 4 https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/faqs/why-don%E2%80%99t-i-see-my-vehicle-eligibility-list-0 5 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aqip/fundplan/fy1920fundingplan-appc-rev.pdf

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 14 Final Report
Availability of Medium- and Heavy-Duty EVs
The City fleet includes 72 medium-duty pickup trucks, some of which may be able to be replaced with an upcoming all-electric Ford F-150, which Ford announced will arrive in the U.S. market by the end of 2021. Ford also announced it will have an F-150 PHEV by late-2020; however, the battery is intended to be used for accessories and not motive power.5F
6 It is unknown if the F-150s will have a utility body
application, but companies like Motiv Power Systems produce an EV chassis that can be upfitted with a utility body. Motiv’s EV-450 is larger than the F-250 and Rangers the City operates today.

The City also operates 16 cargo vans, primarily Ford E-250/350 and Connect Transit vans, two of which include a genset for camera operation. Electric vans (passenger and cargo) start at about $100,000, but production has not kept pace with orders and supplies are very limited. Some cargo vans may be able to be replaced with PHEV SUVs or pick-ups.

The City operates three Ford E450 20-passenger buses for the South Berkeley Senior Center, two of which are scheduled for replacement in 2020 and 2022. Several manufacturers offer EV shuttle buses that cost $270,000 and up, depending on configuration and accessories (e.g., wheelchair lift).

The fleet inventory list shows 16 refuse and dump trucks that are scheduled to be replaced in 2020 and 2021. Electric models of these vehicles are currently available in limited supply and cost about $320,000 each. Fleet staff have feedback from other agencies that the limited range and long charging time of current BEV refuse trucks is not practical for City operations, which includes multiple 88-mile round trips to the Livermore landfill every day. The City’s intention is to electrify refuse vehicles and add charging infrastructure, including solar PV and BES, during the rebuild of the Transfer Station.

From a budgeting perspective, the consultant team recommends allocating up to $250,000 per year to procure medium- and heavy-duty EVs as pilot projects so that City staff can evaluate their suitability to duty cycle and task. As grants and incentives become available, this amount should be reconsidered annually.

Availability of Emergency EVs
Emergency vehicles for police patrol and pursuit, firefighting, and emergency medical services are not currently available in plug-in models. None of the automakers that build police-specific vehicles have announced a plug-in version.6F
7 Rosenbauer, an Austrian company, has a concept BEV fire vehicle called the CFT that is smaller than a traditional U.S. firetruck.7F
8 The City of Los Angeles recently ordered a CFT, which will be the first in North America. Electric “ambulances” are BEV sedans that have been retrofitted to provide aid at an incident;

6 Other companies have announced BEV pickups with starting prices in the $70,000 range and are aimed at a luxury market. The consultant team did not consider these trucks for fleet use. 7 Ford announced a PHEV patrol sedan but released the car as “special services” sedan not rated for patrol or pursuit.
8 https://innovation.rosenbauer.com/en/concept-fire-truck/

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 15 Final Report
they are not capable of transporting patients as a traditional ambulance does. None of the manufacturers that make firetrucks and ambulances have announced plans to electrify these vehicles. 2026-2030 Budgeting Considerations for Light-Duty EVs
The year-by-year replacement schedule calls for replacing a total of 21 passenger sedans and 30 parking enforcement scooters between 2026 and 2030, with most replacements occurring in 2026.

In its Annual Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Agency projects that 300-mile-range BEVs will be upper-tier of the EV market by 2025.8F
9 Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s Electric Vehicle Outlook9F 10 report
published in late-2019 stated, “we expect price parity between EVs and internal combustion engines by the mid-2020s in most segments...”
By 2024, the City will have been acquiring data from the telematics system (scheduled to be installed in 2020) for four years. Data collected on vehicle use patterns and parking behavior will inform and support the City’s decision to either procure lower-cost BEVs with 100-to-150-mile range or higher-cost BEVs with 300-miles or more range. Although budgeting the cost of vehicles in future years is imprecise, Table 6 and Table 7 estimate costs for light-duty EVs for both scenarios. Should the City replace the GO- 4 scooters with BEV sedans for parking enforcement, upfits to the sedans (e.g., lightbars, license plate readers) will result in approximately the same cost per vehicle as per scooter. Note that the current replacement schedule calls for no vehicles to be replaced in 2029.

Table 6: Higher-cost, Longer-range BEVs
Year
Sedan @
$37,934
Scooter @
$53,906 Total Estimated Vehicle Cost
2026 $796,614 (21) $1,617,180 (30) $2,413,794
2027 $227,604 (6) $227,604
2028 $113,802 (3) $113,802
2030 $37,934 (1) $37,934
Table 7: Lower-cost, Shorter-range BEVs
Year
Sedan @
$32,273
Scooter @
$53,906 Total Estimated Vehicle Cost
2026 $677,733 (21) $1,617,180 (30) $2,294,913
2027 $193,638 (6) $193,638
2028 $96,837 (3) $96,837
2030 $32,273 (1) $32,273
Medium- and heavy-duty EVs may be competitive in performance, range, and reliability by the latter half of the decade. Additionally, the range of light-duty vehicles may have increased enough that BEVs could be used for some emergency response vehicles (e.g. police patrol and pursuit, some fire applications). It is recommended that the City reevaluate the vehicle budget in early 2025.

9 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
10 https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/#toc-download

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 16 Final Report
Appendix A includes detailed information about fleet replacement analysis, including an itemized list of the passenger sedans and SUVs in the current fleet and recommended replacement types.

Charging Strategy Options
Analysis of the City’s existing fleet found that most light-duty vehicles drive between 3 and 63 miles per day with an average usage of 27.1 miles. Considering the relative efficiency difference between gasoline-powered ICE vehicles and BEVs, this translates into approximately 80 kWh of electricity per day on average. In addition, most vehicles are driven during the day and parked overnight at City facilities, which provides ample dwell time for battery charging. The City stated intention to standardize on the Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf Plus, which have a 60 and 62 kilowatt/hour (kWh) battery, respectively, and well over 200 miles of range. Due to these minimal power requirements coupled with long dwell times for most vehicles domiciled at the City facilities, light-duty BEVs could share chargers and, at some facilities, share power loads by using a power load management strategy.

Table 8 lists the recommended charging infrastructure for transitioning the light-duty fleet to EVs, including charging stations that are already available to fleet vehicles. Cost estimates include electrical upgrades needed at City facilities (e.g., adding electrical capacity at the panel). To provide back-up power for resiliency, the consultant team included cost estimates for diesel generators at crucial sites, which would be powered by the City’s supply of renewable diesel. On-site solar PV and BES may fulfill this requirement. It is assumed that the City will install all charging by 2022 to support rapid transition to electrification and take advantage of anticipated incentive programs.

Table 8: Near-term Recommendations for Charging
Facility
Name
Facility
Location Chargers New
Service
Estimated
Build-out
Costs
Option Backup
Generator
Corp Yard 1326 Allston
Way
4 dual-head
L2 and 1
DCFC
Yes $354,000 $487,000
Berkeley
Transfer
Station
1201 Second
Street
2 dual-head
L2 No $87,000 $34,000
Berkeley
Marina
125/127
University
Avenue
4 dual-head
L2 Yes $290,000 $204,000
Adult
Mental
Health
Clinic
1521
University
Avenue
3 dual-head
L2 Yes $135,000
Mental
Health
Clinic
1890
Alcatraz
Avenue/
3282
Adeline
Street
1 dual-head
L2 Yes $147,000
$45,000
for mobile
charger
$34,000

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 17 Final Report
Facility
Name
Facility
Location Chargers New
Service
Estimated
Build-out
Costs
Option Backup
Generator
Center
Street
Garage
2025 Center
St
28 dual-
head, 1
single L2
NA
Currently
installed/Public
access

Central
Library
Parking Lot
2031
Bancroft
Way
1 dual-head
L2 Yes $149,000 $34,000
Public
Safety
Building
2100 Martin
Luther King
Jr Way
1 dual-head
L2 No $42,000
Civic Center 2180 Milvia
Street
2 dual-head
L2 No $65,000
Mental
Health
Clinic
2636/2640
Martin
Luther King
Jr Way
2 dual-head
L2 NA $40,000*
South
Berkeley
Senior
Center
2939 Ellis
Street
1 dual-head
L2 Yes
$82,000

$34,000
North
Berkeley
Senior
Center
1901 Hearst
Avenue
1 dual-head
L2 NA
$45,000 In
Progress
*One L2 charging is being installed; cost is for adding one additional charger Smart chargers also have an annual fee for networking, which can be negotiated as a multi-year contract. The City currently has a contract with ABM Industries through 2023 for EV network operations and maintenance, plus extended warranty for 57 Level 2 chargers at a cost that equals about $1,100 per charger.10F
11 DCFC contracts range from $2,500 to $15,000 annually. For purposes of analysis, it was assumed that the Corp Yard DCFC will have a $2,500 annual fee.

The California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP),11F 12 an incentive program from the
California Energy Commission, offers incentives to purchase and install Level 2 and DC fast chargers, available on a first-come, first-served basis. EBCE has applied as a co-funding partner for the 2021 funding round and, if selected, the City of Berkeley may be eligible for up to $4,500 per Level 2 charging connector. Additionally, mobile charging units currently qualify for a 50% rebate under CARB’s CORE12F 13 program.

11 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2018/12_Dec/Documents/2018-12- 11_Item_12_Contract_No__9893B_Amendment.aspx
12 https://calevip.org/about-calevip
13 http://californiacore.org/

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 18 Final Report
In projecting energy demand for charging, the consultant team took a conservative approach and assumed that all light-duty vehicles will be BEVs, although some will be PHEV SUVs. Estimated costs are for dual-head, pedestal mounted chargers (each charger has two connectors) and include equipment and installation. At some facilities, the estimated cost includes upgrades to the electrical service on the City’s side of the meter. For example, charging infrastructure at the Public Safety Building will require new electrical service with a 200 amperes (A) main breaker. Some facilities require one or more new breakers in an existing panel and other locations require a new subpanel.

Estimates do not include upgrades that may be required on the utility side of the meter. For example, the utility may need increase a transformer’s capacity to handle the additional load from charging. EBCE will work with the City to identify utility upgrades that may be necessary. To provide back-up power for resiliency, the consultant team included cost estimates for diesel generators at crucial sites, although BES systems may fulfill this need.

Appendix B provides detailed information about how charging needs were determined and considerations for charging strategies to minimize staff time and PG&E demand charges.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 19 Final Report
Distributed Energy Resources
The consultant team evaluated potential areas for DER—onsite solar PV, BES and EV charging infrastructure—at each of the vehicle domicile locations. The analyses represented an initial screening to identify sites at which solar PV and/or BES may be favorable and reasonably sized to offset electricity consumption of the City’s EV fleet.

The current fleet assessment identifies the need to support 1,009 kWh/day of EV charging, indicating that solar PV arrays deployed at some sites could also serve onsite building loads and/or future fleet charging needs.

Five domicile locations are also being evaluated through EBCE’s Solar + Storage at Critical Municipal Facilities Assessment, which is funded by a Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) grant.

The goal of this project is to identify critical facilities designated to serve the community in time of emergency throughout Alameda County and size solar PV and BES systems to meet critical loads at those sites. EBCE plans to aggregate the site portfolio into a competitive solicitation Summer 2020 to reduce the cost and complexity of deploying these systems near term for its local government partners.

Fleet modeling was performed using charging profiles beginning at 6:00 PM each day to provide a conservative baseline for EV charging costs.

As a result of modeling all domicile locations with the upcoming PG&E tariff schedule22 and assessing the physical space available for solar PV and/or BES systems, the consultant team recommends installing solar PV at eight locations (some of which are already planned or in construction) and augment three of these locations with BES systems for operational flexibility, resilience and demand management. BES at these locations will time-shift excess generation from solar PV or from EBCE-provided electricity during the day to use during the new evening peak period hours.

BES can provide resiliency at these three crucial locations, which could eliminate the need for diesel generators. Load management software for charging stations can effectively avoid PG&E’s electricity demand charges more cost effectively than BES.

Table 9 lists the domiciles and the recommendation for solar PV and BES to offset energy use by fleet charging.

Table 9: Recommended Solar PV and BES
Location
Existing and
Planned
Charging
Stations
Total Solar PV
Capacity (kW DC) BES Recommendation Potential Cost for
Solar PV + BES
Corp Yard
4 Dual-head
Level 2 and 1
DCFC

52.7* 33 kW / 130 kWh $423,800
Berkeley
Marina
4 Dual-head
Level 2 70.5* 75 kW / 300 kWh $54,000

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 20 Final Report
Location
Existing and
Planned
Charging
Stations
Total Solar PV
Capacity (kW DC) BES Recommendation Potential Cost for
Solar PV + BES
Center Street
Garage
28 Dual-head
Level 2 and 1
Single-head
Level 2
168.9*
63 kW / 250 kWh $782,100
Central Library
Parking Lot
1 Dual-head
Level 2 18.8 $75,200
Public Safety
Building
1 Dual-head
Level 2 10.8 $43,200
Mental Health
Clinic
1 Dual-head
Level 2 60.1* $240,400
South Berkeley
Senior Center
1 Dual-head
Level 2 7.8 $31,200
North Berkeley
Senior Center
1 Dual-head
Level 2 29.6* $118,400
*Already installed or considered for development via EBCE’s Solar + Storage at Critical Municipal Facilities initiative Appendix C provides details about solar PV and/or BES systems at Berkeley facilities and recommendations specific to EV charging needs.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 21 Final Report
Total Cost of Ownership
To determine the total cost of ownership (TCO) for the transition of the light-duty fleet to EVs, four scenarios were created and modeled over an analysis period from 2020 to 2030:
 Scenario 1. Baseline: This scenario assumes that the City’s future fleet purchases maintain their existing light-duty vehicle technology composition, replacing each vehicle with a similar new vehicle at the end of the current vehicle’s useful life. Traditional ICE vehicles powered by gasoline are replaced with new ICE vehicles, standard ICE hybrid vehicles powered by gasoline are replaced with new ICE hybrids, PHEVs are replaced with new PHEVs, etc. Under this scenario, no new DER options are deployed at any fleet location.  Scenario 2. EV Transition: This scenario considers the transition of the light-duty fleet to both BEVs and PHEVs. Infrastructure costs for EV charging are included in this scenario, and electricity costs are based on costs of grid electricity supplied by EBCE.  Scenario 3. EV Transition with Solar PV: Building on Scenario 2, this scenario includes the deployment of solar PV systems at eight City facilities where fleet vehicles are domiciled. Under this scenario, electricity costs for EV charging are largely eliminated through the onsite solar PV generation.
 Scenario 4. EV Transition with Solar PV and BES: This scenario further extends Scenario 3 to include the deployment of BES systems at two City facilities.

Each scenario also assumed vehicle capital and operational costs which were developed from historical operational and cost data provided by the City for each vehicle in the fleet. Replaced vehicles are assumed to maintain the same activity level of the existing vehicle.

The various electrification scenarios assumed the budgeted amounts for purchase and installation of charging infrastructure (in Table 8) and $1,100 per Level 2 charger and $2,500 for the DCFC in annual costs for network services and maintenance. Costs are based on current City contracts for existing Level 2 chargers at Center Street Garage, though it should be noted that the City is not bound to contracting with this provider for future charger deployment, and maintenance and service costs vary significantly depending on the provider.13F
14 DCFC maintenance costs are estimated to be 2% of the cost of capital costs per year.

Solar PV and BES costs were estimated using the capital costs in Table 9 plus straight-line depreciation for the solar PV. It is assumed that BES will need to be replaced before 2030, effectively doubling the capital costs.14F
15 14 Based on Contract 9893B Amendment (Dec 2018) for EVSP services. Average of Y3-Y5 maintenance/network costs. Y1-Y2 include installation costs for new chargers and were therefore excluded. 15 Studies indicate 5-to-7-year useful life for current lithium battery technologies at 50% or greater depth of discharge. Casals et al, “Second life batteries lifespan: Rest of useful life and environmental analysis”, Journal of Environmental Analysis, Vol 232, February 2019, pgs 354-363. Smith et al, “Life Prediction Model for Grid- Connected Li-ion Battery Energy Storage System” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, presented at 2017 American Control Conference, Seattle, WA, May 24-26, 2017.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 22 Final Report
Fleet EVs can generate revenue credits earned through the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program.15F
16 LCFS credit prices vary and the average credit price in 2019 was $196.16F 17 This analysis took a
conservative approach and escalated in future years’ credits using the average consumer price index increase of 2.2% per year.

Table 10 shows that transitioning to EVs increases the LCFS credits the City can generate over the baseline of the current fleet. Because all City fleet facilities currently receive 100% zero-carbon electricity from EBCE, adding solar PV and/or BES does not increase the LCFS credits that the City may earn.

Table 10: Value of LCFS Credits 2021-2029

Scenario 1
Baseline
Scenario 2
EV Transition
Scenario 3
EV Transition +
Solar PV
Scenario 4
EV Transition +
Solar PV + BES
LCFS Credits $59,692 $388,924 $388,924 $388,924

TCO Model Results
The TCO model estimates the cost of the Scenario 1 (Baseline), or business as usual, at $8.34 million over the 2020-2030 analysis period, as shown in Total Value Summary by Scenario. Scenario 2 (EV Transition) cost is estimated at $9.76 million over the same analysis period. The incremental cost of the charging infrastructure (including backup generation) are the primary contributors to the increased cost in this scenario. These costs are partially offset by lower vehicle maintenance costs, incentives, and LCFS program revenues. Additional details are provided in the figures and table below. Scenario 3 adds solar PV systems to Scenario 2 and increases cost by $170,000. This is due to the offset of most of the additional infrastructure expense through reduced grid electricity costs. Scenario 4 adds BES, resulting in a total cost that is approximately $3.0 million greater than Scenario 1 (Baseline). This increased cost assumes BES will need to be replaced before 2030. BES systems do not necessarily reduce operational cost to offset the incremental costs of BES deployment, but may provide resiliency to the City’s fleet instead of requiring diesel generators.

16 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/low-carbon-fuel-standard 17 California Air Resources Board, Credit Activity Reports.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 23 Final Report
Figure 6: Total Value Summary by Scenario

Appendix D provides a detailed analysis of total cost of ownership and the benefits to the City of Berkeley for the transition to EVs and DER.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 24 Final Report
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Annual emissions from each vehicle were estimated using the using emissions factors from the California Air Resources Board’s LCFS program “lookup table” and aggregated to estimate annual GHG emissions for the light-duty fleet considered for EV transition. Because the City uses EBCE’s carbon-free electricity, GHG emissions from BEVs are estimated as zero.

Figure 7 shows that the emissions under Scenario 1 (Baseline) decline from 56.6 to 43.6 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year (MT CO2e/year) by 2030. The 23% decrease in emissions largely comes from increasing fuel efficiency of gasoline and hybrid ICE vehicles. Under Scenario 2 (EV transition), emissions decline from 56.6 to 2.1 MT CO2e/year, or 95% by 2030. The significant reduction in annual emissions between 2025 and 2026 are associated with a substantial number of vehicles slated for replacement in 2026, including all the parking enforcement scooters. The few remaining GHG emissions are associated with seven PHEV SUVs that have a portion of their daily mileage powered by gasoline. By 2030, it is likely that SUV BEVs that meet the City’s duty cycles will be available, effectively allowing the City to achieve a 100% reduction in the GHG emissions for the light-duty fleet considered in this analysis.

Figure 7: Annual GHG Emissions Projections for the City's Light-duty Fleet

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 25 Final Report
Conclusion
This analysis assumes that the City of Berkeley will quickly transition to an all-electric fleet powered by EBCE’s 100% carbon free electricity. EBCE, City staff, and the consultant team collaborated on an implementation plan that enables a fast transition to EVs in the light-duty fleet, calls for prudent evaluation of medium- and heavy-duty electrification options, and increases resiliency. The team also took a fiscally conservative approach to capital and operating costs, especially regarding potential incentives and funding sources, given the uncertainties of these programs.

In addition to reduced GHG emissions, residents and businesses benefit from the fleet EV transition via reduced air pollution and noise, particularly in the instance of medium- and heavy-duty vehicle electrification. The City benefits from a more-predictable fuel cost when using electricity, rather than the more volatile price swings of conventional fuels. Additionally, the City will provide an example of how procuring and operating EVs and charging stations at scale can help reduce overall costs, which may encourage private fleet electrification and charging station deployment at workplaces.

Awareness will grow as more EVs perform essential City services in the public eye. Businesses and residents may be encouraged to choose zero-emission transportation options. As the City becomes a leading example in EV and DER deployment, it will encourage additional sustainable operations to be adopted within Berkeley’s private sector and may attract even more sustainability-focused businesses to the city.

While recognizing Berkeley’s reputation as a leader in local climate action and sustainability, EBCE looks forward to collaborating with the City on building and vehicle electrification efforts. The City can leverage EBCE’s carbon-free electricity and ability to aggregate procurement of DER to reduce emissions and improve air quality, and to lower the upfront costs associated with these technologies. By acting on the recommendations laid out in this report, the City of Berkeley can further build its already well- recognized status as a city leading the way toward a future with improved quality of life for all its residents, businesses, and visitors.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 26 Final Report
Appendix A: Municipal Fleet Assessment
The units that can be transitioned to battery electric vehicles (BEV) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV) were identified by assessing the current fleet composition, identifying applicable electric vehicle models available today and expected to be introduced in the near term, and by using the City Fleet Services’ existing vehicle replacement plan. Development of this report was supported by data provided by the City and supplemental information gathered during meetings and interviews. Table 1 summarizes the City’s municipal fleet as it existed on February 21, 2020. The fleet includes 346 vehicles (excluding vehicles used for emergency services and response and off-road maintenance), of which only about 25% are capable of electrification today.

Table 11: Summary of the City of Berkeley’s Fleet by Vehicle Type and Configuration Vehicle Type Fuel Configuration Number of Vehicles
Cargo Van Gasoline Cargo Van 18
Chassis Cab - Aerial Lift Diesel Aerial Lift 4
Chassis Cab - Box Truck Gasoline Box Truck 1
Chassis Cab - Pickup Diesel Pickup 1
Chassis Cab - Pickup Gasoline Pickup 1
Chassis Cab - Specialized Body CNG Sweeper 2
Chassis Cab - Specialized Body Diesel Chipper 2
Chassis Cab - Specialized Body Diesel Crane Truck 1
Chassis Cab - Specialized Body Diesel Dump 5
Chassis Cab - Specialized Body Diesel Dump/OVHD Loader 1 Chassis Cab - Specialized Body Diesel Road Patching Truck 2 Chassis Cab - Specialized Body Diesel Sweeper 4
Chassis Cab - Specialized Body Diesel Vactor Truck 3
Chassis Cab - Specialized Body Gasoline Container Handler 2 Chassis Cab - Specialized Body Gasoline Dump 5
Chassis Cab - Specialized Body Gasoline Sign Truck 1
Chassis Cab - Stake bed Diesel Stake bed 2
Chassis Cab - Utility Truck Diesel Utility Truck 3
Chassis Cab - Utility Truck Gasoline Utility Truck 22
Cutaway - Box Van Gasoline Box Van 1
Cutaway - Pass Van Gasoline Passenger Van 1
Cutaway - Shuttle Bus Gasoline Shuttle Bus 5
Cutaway - Step Van Gasoline Step Van 1
Cutaway - Van Gasoline Van 2
Passenger Car CNG Passenger Car 1
Passenger Car Gasoline Passenger Car 72
Passenger Van Gasoline Passenger Van 3
Pickup Diesel Pickup 2
Pickup Gasoline Pickup 69
Pickup Gasoline 4x4 1

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 27 Final Report
Vehicle Type Fuel Configuration Number of Vehicles
Scooter EV Scooter (Go 4) 2
Scooter Gasoline Scooter (Go 4) 28
Semi-tractor Diesel Semi-tractor 8
SUV Gasoline SUV 26
Refuse Collection Vehicle CNG Front Loader 4
Refuse Collection Vehicle Diesel Front Loader 6
Refuse Collection Vehicle CNG Rear Loader 7
Refuse Collection Vehicle Diesel Rear Loader 7
Refuse Collection Vehicle CNG Roll-on/Roll-off 2
Refuse Collection Vehicle CNG Side Loader 5
Refuse Collection Vehicle Diesel Side Loader 6
Van Gasoline Van 7
Availability of Electric Vehicles
The City of Berkeley procures vehicles through several negotiated contracts including those from Sourcewell, Climate Mayors EV Fleet Purchasing Collaborative, and Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC). Contracts enable public and private fleets across the country to negotiate discounted rates based upon buying large numbers of vehicles. Table 2 lists the base cost (excluding tax, extra keys, and other fees) of light-duty BEVs and PHEVs available from National Fleet Auto Group, the company that manages many individual negotiated contracts.17F
18 Table 12: EVs and PHEVs at National Fleet Auto Group Make/Model Body Type Technology Type EV Range Total Range Contract Unit Price
Mitsubishi
Outlander PHEV SUV 22 310 $31,219
Chrysler Pacifica PHEV Minivan 32 520 $39,514
Toyota Prius
Prime PHEV Mid-size Sedan 25 640 $26,096
Ford Fusion
Energi PHEV Mid-size Sedan 26 610 $27,968
Kia Niro LX* PHEV Small Station
Wagon 26 560 $25,706
Kia Optima PHEV Mid-size Sedan 29 610 $29,450
Hyundai Ioniq PHEV Mid-size Sedan 29 601 $22,950
Honda Clarity PHEV Mid-size Sedan 47 293 $34,219
Chevrolet Bolt BEV Small Station
Wagon 259 259 $33,98718F
19 Nissan Leaf Plus BEV Mid-size Sedan 226 226 $34,2563 Kia Soul BEV Small Station
Wagon 111 111 $27,762

18 https://www.nationalautofleetgroup.com/
19 Provided by Greg Ellington

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 28 Final Report
Make/Model Body Type Technology Type EV Range Total Range Contract Unit Price
Hyundai Ioniq BEV Mid-size Sedan 124 124 $26,939
VW e-Golf BEV Compact Sedan 125 125 $32,285
*The Kia Niro is also available as a BEV but is not listed on the National Auto Fleet Group contract.

As a point of comparison, the City purchased 15 Toyota Prius Prime PHEVs between October 2019 and January 2020 at a cost of $28,147 each using Climate Mayors EV Fleet Purchasing Collaborative.

Electric medium and heavy-duty trucks for municipal fleet applications, which include pickup trucks and cargo vans, are in earlier stages of commercialization than electric sedans and small wagons. Cities across the U.S. have deployed pilot projects to understand operational requirements of medium and heavy-duty vehicles for fleet use cases that include transit and shuttle buses, cargo vans, refuse trucks, and other types of work trucks, but limited data is yet available on their performance, reliability, and cost of ownership.

Emergency vehicles for police patrol and pursuit, firefighting, and emergency medical services are not available in plug-in models. The Fremont California Police Department is testing a Tesla Model S as a patrol vehicle and reports that it behaved favorably with considerably less downtime than the Ford Explorer Utility Interceptors that are most of the Fremont’s patrol vehicle fleet. The Department reports that it typically purchases Explorers (Utility Interceptors) for $48,114 and expects to purchase the $47,960 Ford Hybrid Explorer Hybrid police purpose-built in the future. However, the base price doesn’t include upfits that can double the cost of a police vehicle.19F 20 Although upcoming EVs like the Ford Mustang Mach E and Tesla Model Y will likely have sufficient interior capacity, battery range, and performance to the Ford police cars currently purchased, these EVs are not pursuit rated and do not have the suspension and security features that are standard on a patrol vehicle, nor are they pre-drilled for mounting lightbars, sirens, and safety equipment. None of the automakers that build police-specific vehicles have announced a plug-in version.20F 21 Rosenbauer, an Austrian company, has a concept EV fire vehicle called the CFT that is smaller than a traditional U.S. firetruck.21F
22 The City of Los Angeles recently ordered a CFT, which will be the first in the U.S. Electric “ambulances” in service and planned are sedans that have been retrofitted to provide aid at an incident; they are not capable of transporting patients in the same way an ambulance transport patients. None of the manufacturers that make firetrucks and ambulances have announced plans to electrify these vehicles.

20 Upfits include lightbars, sirens, computer equipment, ballistic doors, molded rear seats, and a more than a dozen other police-specific features.
21 Ford announced a PHEV patrol sedan but released the car as “special services” sedan not rated for patrol or pursuit.
22 https://innovation.rosenbauer.com/en/concept-fire-truck/

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 29 Final Report
Fleet Electrification Transition
Passenger Sedans and SUVs
As of February 2020, the City’s light-duty fleet of passenger sedans (or cars) and SUVs (excluding vehicles used for emergency services and response) consisted of:
 75 passenger sedans
o 54 gasoline-powered hybrid internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEs) purchased between 2002 and 2017
o 15 PHEVs purchased in late-2019 and early-2020
o 5 gasoline-powered ICEs purchased 1999-2008
o 1 natural gas-powered car purchased in 2003
 24 Ford Escape SUVs purchased 2009-2015
o 7 gasoline-powered hybrid ICEs
o 17 gasoline-powered ICEs
 5 of these have four-wheel drive (4WD)
In February, the City did not use fleet management software or track data about individual vehicle use.

The City’s Equipment Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department planned to implement GPS tracking (telematics) on some vehicles in mid-2020. With this implementation, real-time service alerts and diagnostic information will be available so that departments can understand each vehicle’s daily use, including origin/destination, number of miles traveled, the time parked between uses, and driver behavior that can impact fuel efficiency, including average vehicle speed and amount of idling time.

To identify an EV replacement schedule, the consultant team used data received from the City on the non-emergency passenger sedans and SUVs that shows all except two fleet vehicles have an average daily fuel use of less than one gallon of gasoline, which indicates that vehicles are driven less than 30 miles per day. The two exceptions are Ford Escape SUVs, one from Engineering and one from Meter Repair, that show an average daily fuel use of about 2.5 gallons of gasoline. Of the 97 passenger sedans and SUVs, 75 have a dwell time of 12 hours or longer. Telematics data will help determine if the vehicles are parked overnight or are parked for a few hours between use. In addition, a new Fuel Management System is expected to be installed in all City vehicles beginning in Spring or Summer 2020. It is a passive system that is not dependent on user input and will improve the accuracy of each vehicle’s fuel use data.

The City schedules vehicle replacement 7, 10, or 15 years from the purchase date, although some vehicles are kept longer than planned. Based on the current vehicle replacement schedule, the year-by- year summary transition to EVs is listed in Table 4. It is recommended that each passenger sedan be replaced with a BEV and each SUV be replaced with a PHEV SUV. It is assumed that vehicles purchased in 2020 will be replaced in 2031.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 30 Final Report
Table 13: Procurement Schedule for Passenger Sedans and SUVs Year Number of BEV Passenger
Sedans/Wagons
Number of
PHEV SUVs
2020* 1 0
2021 29 3
2022 10 8
2023 3 1
2024 4 1
2025 4 0
2026 11 0
2027 6 0
2028 3 0
2029 0 0
2030 1 0
*Vehicles the City procured in January and February 2020 or are scheduled to be procured in 2031 do not appear in this table.

Since November 2019, the City added 12 passenger vehicles to its fleet to accommodate growing service needs. Fleet requested that this report assume that the City will use data from the new telematics platform to help each department determine if vehicles could be shared among staff and/or departments without impacting City services and, therefore, guide vehicle procurement and retirement practices that may not result in one-for-one replacements. The goal is to be able to expand City services without adding more vehicles to the fleet.

Based on the limited data available about vehicle use patterns, the consultant team identified the following potential right-sizing opportunities that the City can validate with telematics data and in consultation with interdepartmental leadership:
 Seven pool vehicles are scheduled to be replaced in 2021. All use less than 0.75 gallons of gasoline daily, on average, and could be replaced with a small BEV wagon like the Chevrolet Bolt, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies as a small wagon and can meet the use case of these fleet vehicles. Replacing all seven vehicles with a Bolt would give each vehicle the same cargo capacity.
 The Equipment Maintenance Corp Yard division has two Ford Escape Hybrids scheduled to be replaced in 2021. Both use less than 0.15 gallons of gasoline daily, on average, and are listed as Special Purpose. The City can consider, based on telematics data, whether reducing the number of vehicles to one, or replacing one or both SUVs with a small BEV wagon (Chevrolet Bolt) or BEV sedan (Nissan Leaf) will enable Berkeley to retain the functionality of these vehicle use cases.  In 2021 and 2022, four of the SUVs scheduled to be replaced use less than 0.25 gallons of gasoline daily, on average. These vehicles are used (one each) by the Office of Transportation, Library Services, Parks Facilities, and Engineering. The City can consider, based on telematics data, if replacing the SUVs with a small BEV wagon (Chevrolet Bolt) or BEV sedan (Nissan Leaf) will enable Berkeley to retain the functionality of these vehicle use cases.  Five of the Ford Escape SUVs scheduled to be replaced in 2022 are 4WD. The Mitsubishi Outlander is currently the only 4WD PHEV available in the market. If 4WD is not essential for these vehicles, consider replacing with a Chevy Bolt or Nissan Leaf.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 31 Final Report
 Building and Safety currently operates 10 gasoline-powered hybrid ICE cars that are not dedicated to a special use and each use less than 0.5 gallons of gasoline daily on average. Five of these hybrids are scheduled to be replaced in 2021 and 2022, and the other five between 2024 and 2026. Optimizing vehicle use within the department could allow for the creation of a smaller pool of shared vehicles by 2024, when they are scheduled for replacement.

Table 14 is an itemized list of the passenger sedans and SUVs in the fleet in February 2020 sorted by replacement year and a recommended replacement type. This list does not include the 15 PHEVs already purchased in 2020 and are unlikely to be replaced before 2030. Additionally, six vehicles that are scheduled to be replaced in 2021 (unit numbers 8457, 9103, 9104, 9116, 4110, 9017) will be replaced with Chevy Bolts in 2020, pending approval of a Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) grant application.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 31 Final Report
Table 14: Itemized Vehicle Replacement List
Chassis Unit # Mk Model Type Year Dedicated Use Division Fuel Use EV Fraction Replace In Replace with
Sedan 9102 Hon Civic Hybrid 2003 New Employees Engineering 0.27 100% 2020 BEV sedan Sedan 478 Frd Taurus Wagon 1999 Pool Vehicle Equip Maint Pool 0.37 100% 2021 BEV small wagon Sedan 489 Frd Taurus Wagon 1999 Pool Vehicle Equip Maint Pool 0.67 100% 2021 BEV small wagon Sedan 4011 Toy Prius Hybrid 2011 Special Purpose Bldg & Safety 0.11 100% 2021 BEV sedan Sedan 4108 Toy Prius Hybrid 2009 DHS Admin 0.15 100% 2021 BEV sedan Sedan 6404 Frd Fusion 2011 Comm Collection 0.13 100% 2021 BEV sedan Sedan 6900 Hon Civic CNG 2003 Marina
Operations 0.60 100% 2021 BEV sedan
Sedan 8192 Hon Fit 2008 Special Purpose Portable Meals 0.24 100% 2021 BEV sedan Sedan 8457 Hon Civic Hybrid 2003 Special Purpose FYC PROGAM 0.11 100% 2021 BEV small wagon Sedan 8518 Frd Focus 2001 South Berkeley
Senior 0.51 100% 2021 BEV sedan
Sedan 9011 Toy Prius Hybrid 2002 Equip Maint Pool 0.52 87% 2021 BEV small wagon Sedan 9013 Hon Civic Hybrid 2003 Equip Maint Pool 0.81 55% 2021 BEV small wagon Sedan 9103 Hon Civic Hybrid 2003 Pool Vehicle Equip Maint Pool 0.37 100% 2021 BEV small wagon Sedan 9104 Hon Civic Hybrid 2003 Special Purpose Housing Code Enforcement 0.18 100% 2021 BEV small wagon
Sedan 9106 Toy Prius Hybrid 2006 Code
Enforcement
Housing Code
Enforcement 0.16 100% 2021 BEV sedan
Sedan 9107 Toy Prius Hybrid 2006 Comm/ Radio's 0.50 90% 2021 BEV sedan Sedan 9108 Toy Prius Hybrid 2006 Equip Maint
Corpyrd 0.30 100% 2021 BEV sedan
Sedan 9109 Toy Prius Hybrid 2006 Equip Maint Pool 0.42 100% 2021 BEV small wagon Sedan 9110 Toy Prius Hybrid 2006 Equip Maint Pool 0.26 100% 2021 BEV small wagon Sedan 9111 Toy Prius Hybrid 2006 Parking
Enforcement 0.31 100% 2021 BEV sedan
Sedan 9112 Toy Prius Hybrid 2006 Inspector Building & Safety 0.16 100% 2021 BEV sedan Sedan 9116 Toy Prius Hybrid 2010 Neighborhood
Svc's 0.20 100% 2021 BEV small wagon
Sedan 9117 Toy Prius Hybrid 2011 DHS Admin 0.27 100% 2021 BEV sedan

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 32 Final Report
Chassis Unit # Mk Model Type Year Dedicated Use Division Fuel Use EV Fraction Replace In Replace with
SUV 1966 Frd Escape Hybrid 2009 Fire Training 0.87 55% 2021 PHEV SUV SUV 2906 Frd Escape Hybrid 2009 Special Purpose Equip Maint Corpyrd 0.13 100% 2021 BEV small wagon
SUV 4110 Frd Escape Hybrid 2008 Equip Maint Pool 0.62 79% 2021 BEV small wagon SUV 6889 Frd Escape 2008 Street Light Maint 1.34 72% 2021 PHEV SUV SUV 6890 Frd Escape Hybrid 2009 Special Purpose Equip Maint Corp Yard 0.06 100% 2021 BEV small wagon
SUV 9017 Frd Escape 2009 Engineering 2.50 39% 2021 BEV small wagon SUV 9115 Frd Escape Hybrid 2009 Assigned Engineering 0.21 100% 2021 BEV small wagon SUV 9604 Frd Escape 2013 Trans/Disp Svc's 1.02 95% 2021 BEV small wagon SUV 9605 Frd Escape 2014 Special Purpose Office of Trans. 0.16 100% 2021 BEV small wagon Sedan 4805 Toy Prius Hybrid 2012 Comm/ Radio's 0.32 100% 2022 BEV sedan Sedan 8506 Toy Prius Hybrid 2012 Building & Safety 0.32 100% 2022 BEV sedan Sedan 8507 Toy Prius Hybrid 2012 Building & Safety 0.46 99% 2022 BEV sedan Sedan 8508 Toy Prius Hybrid 2012 Building & Safety 0.30 100% 2022 BEV sedan Sedan 8509 Toy Prius Hybrid 2012 Building & Safety 0.54 84% 2022 BEV sedan SUV 1973 Frd Escape 2013 Fire Fire Prev/Insp/
Invest 0.50 100% 2022 PHEV SUV
SUV 1974 Frd Escape 4WD 2013 Fire Operations 0.59 100% 2022 PHEV SUV SUV 1975 Frd Escape 2013 Fire/Supp/Rescue
/Haz 1.10 88% 2022 PHEV SUV
SUV 1976 Frd Escape 4WD 2013 Fire Operations 1.88 51% 2022 PHEV SUV SUV 1977 Frd Escape 4WD 2013 Fire Operations 1.69 57% 2022 PHEV SUV SUV 2909 Frd Escape 2013 Meter Repair
Admin 2.55 38% 2022 PHEV SUV
SUV 8519 Frd Escape 4WD 2013 Building & Safety 0.71 100% 2022 PHEV SUV SUV 8520 Frd Escape 4WD 2013 Inspector Building & Safety 0.48 100% 2022 PHEV SUV SUV 9004 Frd Escape Hybrid 2012 Corp Yard Mgmt.

Office 1.35 36% 2022 BEV small wagon
SUV 9019 Frd Escape Hybrid 2012 Parks Facilities 0.27 100% 2022 BEV small wagon

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 33 Final Report
Chassis Unit # Mk Model Type Year Dedicated Use Division Fuel Use EV Fraction Replace In Replace with
SUV 9021 Frd Escape 2013 Library Services 0.34 100% 2022 BEV small wagon SUV 9119 Frd Escape 2013 Engineering 0.99 98% 2022 BEV small wagon SUV 9120 Frd Escape 2013 New Employees Engineering 0.41 100% 2022 BEV small wagon Sedan 8006 Toy Prius Hybrid 2008 ASP 0.64 71% 2023 BEV sedan Sedan 8007 Toy Prius Hybrid 2008 ASP/Crisis 0.63 72% 2023 BEV sedan Sedan 9123 Toy Prius Hybrid 2013 Special Purpose Vector Control II 0.11 100% 2023 BEV sedan Sedan 2381 Frd Escape 2014 Special Purpose Sewer Maint 0.36 100% 2023 BEV small wagon Sedan 8510 Toy Prius Hybrid 2014 Building & Safety 0.43 100% 2024 BEV sedan Sedan 8511 Toy Prius Hybrid 2014 Building & Safety 0.39 100% 2024 BEV sedan Sedan 9113 Toy Prius Hybrid 2009 Special Purpose IT ADMIN 0.10 100% 2024 BEV sedan Sedan 9126 Toy Prius Hybrid 2015 Meter Repair 0.20 100% 2024 BEV sedan SUV 4114 Frd Escape 2015 Bldg Maint 0.66 100% 2024 PHEV SUV Sedan 1595 Frd Fusion Hybrid 2016 Parking
Enforcement 0.24 100% 2025 BEV sedan
Sedan 8009 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2015 ASP/FSP 0.80 56% 2025 BEV sedan Sedan 8010 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2015 ASP/FSP 0.71 64% 2025 BEV sedan Sedan 8521 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2015 Building & Safety 0.36 100% 2025 BEV sedan Sedan 8011 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2016 ASP 0.59 76% 2026 BEV sedan Sedan 8012 Toy Prius Hybrid 2016 ASP/Crisis 0.32 100% 2026 BEV sedan Sedan 8013 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2016 ASP/FSP 0.70 64% 2026 BEV sedan Sedan 8014 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2016 Mental Health 0.73 62% 2026 BEV sedan Sedan 8015 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2016 Special Purpose FYC PROGAM 0.19 100% 2026 BEV sedan Sedan 8016 Toy Prius Hybrid 2016 Mental Health 0.40 100% 2026 BEV sedan Sedan 8232 Toy Prius Hybrid 2016 Tuolumne Camp
Trk. 0.48 93% 2026 BEV sedan
Sedan 8512 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2016 Building & Safety 0.31 100% 2026 BEV sedan Sedan 8522 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2016 Building & Safety 0.51 88% 2026 BEV sedan Sedan 9024 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2016 Building & Safety 0.25 100% 2026 BEV sedan

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 34 Final Report
Chassis Unit # Mk Model Type Year Dedicated Use Division Fuel Use EV Fraction Replace In Replace with
Sedan 9025 Toy Prius Hybrid 2016 Special Purpose Neighborhood Services 0.07 100% 2026 BEV sedan
Sedan 6406 Toy Prius Hybrid 2016 ZW Admin 0.17 100% 2027 BEV sedan Sedan 8017 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2017 ASP/Crisis 0.66 68% 2027 BEV sedan Sedan 9026 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2017 Special Purpose Toxics Management 0.13 100% 2027 BEV sedan
Sedan 9118 Toy Prius Hybrid 2012 Special Purpose FYC Program 0.13 100% 2027 BEV sedan Sedan 9121 Toy Prius Hybrid 2012 ASP/Crisis 0.21 100% 2027 BEV sedan Sedan 9122 Toy Prius Hybrid 2012 ASP/FSP 0.78 58% 2027 BEV sedan Sedan 9022 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2014 Inspector Health
Inspections 0.20 100% 2028 BEV sedan
Sedan 9023 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2014 Special Purpose Toxics Management 0.11 100% 2028 BEV sedan
Sedan 9125 Toy Prius V Hybrid 2014 Vector Control 0.24 100% 2028 BEV sedan Sedan 8008 Toy Prius Hybrid 2015 ASP/Crisis 0.37 100% 2030 BEV sedan

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 35 Final Report
Budgeting Considerations for Light-Duty Passenger Vehicles Based on the negotiated contract rates from National Auto Fleet Group, Table 15 lists the estimated price for EVs, including 9.25% sales tax, additional keys, and other fees and rounded to the nearest dollar, based on the City’s stated preference to standardize on the Nissan Leaf Plus and Chevy Bolt, and includes three options for a PHEV SUV replacement.

Table 15: Average Contract Rates for EVs
Technology
Type Body Type Make and Model NAFG Est. Price
EPA Rated
All-electric
Range
Battery Size
(kWh)
BEV Sedan Nissan Leaf Plus $37,934 226 62
BEV Small Wagon Chevy Bolt $37,577 259 60
PHEV SUV Kia Niro LX PHEV $31,505 26 9
PHEV SUV Mitsubishi
Outlander 4WD $40,061 22 12
PHEV Minivan Chrysler Pacifica $43,578 32 16
Currently, the City is eligible to claim a Clean Vehicle Rebate Program (CVRP) rebate from the State of California for up to 30 EVs per year.22F
23 It is important to note that CVRP rebates are first-come, first- served and the program’s rebate funding amount must be reauthorized by the state legislature every year. Historically, legislature has annually authorized funding and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has allocated money to rebate applications that were waitlisted in the previous fiscal year, which reduces the amount of funding for new applications. It is important to note that in the coming years the legislature may allocate less or no funding for CVRP, or only enough funding for the waitlist.

In 2020, BEVs are eligible for a $2,000 per vehicle rebate and some PHEVs are eligible for a $1,000 rebate. The Mitsubishi Outlander is not eligible for the rebate because it does not meet the minimum requirement for electric range,23F
24 however the Kia Niro crossover PHEV and the Chrysler Pacifica minivan are eligible for CVPR. The three vehicles are shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Kia Niro, Chrysler Pacifica, Mitsubishi Outlander

23 https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/fleet
24 https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/faqs/why-don%E2%80%99t-i-see-my-vehicle-eligibility-list-0

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 36 Final Report
Table 16 estimates the cost for replacement vehicles in 2020 through 2025 as recommended in Table 14 for each budget year with the current estimated contracted prices as shown in Table 15. Note that the actual budget will vary based on the contract used, vehicle price, additional options, and changes in sales tax rates.

Between 2023 and 2025 a total of 13 City vehicles are expected to be replaced and it is likely that negotiated contracts will include more EV makes and models at that time. Vehicle costs will continue to be approximately $30,000-$35,000 because OEMs are focused on extending battery range rather than incrementally reducing vehicle cost. The consultant team recommends BEVs to replace existing passenger sedans due to the small price difference between PHEV and BEV sedans.

The consultant team recommends PHEVs to replace most ICE SUVs. Gasoline use indicates that most SUVs drive fewer than 30 miles a day, which will be confirmed by telematics data. SUVs will primarily travel on the electricity available from the PHEVs’ batteries, however, the gasoline engine provides flexibility and resiliency needed by these vehicles for emergency response and disaster preparedness.

CARB’s most-recent Three-Year Plan for CVRP24F
25 indicates that the existing rebate program may end by 2022 as CARB shifts funding to new, more-targeted equity programs that include Clean Cars 4 All, Financing Assistance for Lower-Income Consumers, and Clean Mobility Voucher Program. Although CVRP rebates may be renewed when CARB updates the Three-Year Plan for CVRP in 2021, the consultant team took a conservative approach and did not include the rebates starting in 2023 in Table 7. With that in mind, the City should track the status of CVRP and consider purchasing the four 2023 replacement EVs in 2022, if it appears CVRP rebates will be reduced or concluded in 2022.

As previously noted, the City can currently obtain a maximum of 30 rebates annually through CVRP. The City’s vehicle replacement schedule calls for replacing 32 vehicles in 2021, three of which are potentially Mitsubishi Outlander PHEVs that are not eligible for the rebate but are the only currently available 4WD PHEV SUV.

Table 16: Year-by-Year Budget Estimates to Replace Existing ICE vehicles with EVs Year
Nissan Leaf
Plus @
$37,934
Chevy Bolt @
$37,577
Mitsubishi
Outlander PHEV
@
$40,061
Potential CVRP
rebate
Total
Estimated
Vehicle Cost
2020 $37,934 (1) ($2,000) $35,934
2021* $455,208 (12) $638,809 (17) $120,183 (3) ($58,000) $1,156,200 2022 $189,670 (5) $187,855 (5) $320,488 (8) ($20,000) $678,043 2023 $113,802 (3) $37,577 (1) $151,379
2024 $151,736 (4) $40,061 (1) $191,797
2025 $151,736 (4) $151,736
*if awarded the BAAQMD grant, six vehicles schedule to be replaced in 2021 will be replaced in 2020 and will not need to be included in the 2021 budget.

25 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aqip/fundplan/fy1920fundingplan -appc-rev.pdf

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 37 Final Report
In its Annual Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Agency projects that 300-mile-range BEVs will be upper-tier of the EV market by 2025.25F
26 By 2024, the City will have been acquiring data from the telematics system installed in March 2020 for four years. Data collected on vehicle use patterns and parking behavior will inform and support City and Fleet Services’ EV decisions to procure lower-cost BEVs with 100-to-150-mile range for certain use cases or BEVs with 300-miles or more range at a higher price point for other uses cases. Longer-range BEVs may be applicable for municipal sites where deployment of charging infrastructure could be difficult due to space constraints (e.g., BEVs could share charging stations).

Parking Enforcement Scooters
The City operates 30 Westward Industries’ gasoline powered GO-4 scooters for parking enforcement activities. During development of this assessment, City staff indicated that the scooters, which have a seven-year lifespan, are easy to maneuver and safely operate. Few companies make vehicles for parking enforcement, and Westward Industries is the only OEM working on an all-electric model. In 2017, the City took delivery of two all-electric GO-4 models. However, after using them in the field, staff found them unsuitable, as reported to City Council on May 14, 2019.26F 27 Therefore, the City recently purchased
and put into service 15 gasoline-powered GO-4 scooters to replace older models that were scheduled for retirement.

The two electric GO-4 scooters were reconditioned by the manufacturer, and the City is testing the scooters to gauge their suitability. Scooters will not need to be replaced until 2026, and by then, it is anticipated the all-electric GO-4 will be further in its market development and other electric scooters may be available for this application.

City staff requested a summary of other local government experiences with all-electric vehicles for parking enforcement and security. Two EVs that cities tested, the FireFly scooter and the Mercedes Smart EV, are no longer available. Polaris offers a public safety package for its GEM neighborhood EV that includes an overhead beacon light and lockable trunk storage on the two and four-seat models. City staff previously researched this option and found it unsuitable for City needs.

Cities are also evaluating BEVs in their police fleets primarily for non-pursuit purposes. The City of Los Angeles uses BMW i3 hatchbacks for sworn officers on routine assignments, the City of Huntsville (MD) has two Chevy Bolts for traffic control officers, and the Cities of Pasadena and San Jose leased Chevy Bolts for civilian and sworn officers to use for safety meetings and injury investigations. None of the cities the consultant team spoke with indicated that they purchased or leased EVs specifically for parking enforcement.

26 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
27 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/05_May/City_Council__0 5-14-2019_- _Regular_Meeting_Agenda.aspx

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 38 Final Report
Medium-duty Vehicles
The City fleet includes 72 medium-duty pickup trucks, mostly Ford F-150, F-250, and Rangers. Of the 72 trucks, 60 pickups may be able to be replaced with an upcoming all-electric Ford F-150 EV. In mid-March 2020, Ford announced will arrive in the U.S. market late-2021 to early-2022. Ford also announced it will have an F-150 PHEV by late-2020, however, the battery is intended to be used for accessories and not motive power.27F
28 It's unknown If the F-150s will have a utility body application, but companies like Motiv Power Systems produce an EV chassis that can be upfitted with a utility body. Motiv’s EV-450 is larger than the F-250 and Rangers the City operates today.

In 2019, the City purchased an F-150 for $39,000. It is likely that the F-150 EV will have a higher price point than its gasoline counterpart, but Ford has not announced pricing. Other pickup trucks are also in development and expected to arrive in 2021-2022, but those are aimed at the luxury market and have MSRPs starting at $70,000 or re being developed by start-up companies.

As the F-150 EV becomes available, and if incentives bring the cost of the BEV pickups in line with gasoline-powered ICE trucks, the consultant team recommends that the City evaluate up to three BEV pickups on different duty cycles to determine performance, suitability to task, and total cost of ownership.

The City also operates 16 cargo vans, primarily Ford E-250/350 and Connect Transit vans, two of which include a genset for camera operation. Ford, Mercedes, Nissan, and Volkswagen all introduced electric cargo and passenger vans in Europe in 2020 and intend to launch U.S. versions in 2023. Table 17 shows electric vans (passenger and cargo) that are currently available. Production, however, has not kept pace with orders and supplies are very limited.

Lightening Systems vans start at about $100,000, although incentives can cut the price by half. The Hybrid Voucher Incentive Program (HVIP),
28F
29 which provides incentives for medium- and heavy-duty EVs, has incentives up to $50,000 for zero emission vans, however, the HVIP funds for 2019-2020 have been depleted and new voucher requests are not currently being accepted.29F 30 28 Other companies have announced BEV pickups with starting prices in the $70,000 range and are aimed at a luxury market. The consultant team did not consider these trucks for fleet use. 29 https://www.californiahvip.org/how-to-participate/#Eligible-Vehicle-Catalog 30 https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CARB/bulletins/2699f43

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 39 Final Report
Table 17: HVIP Incentives for Panel Vans
Model Make
HVIP
Eligible
Funds
GVWR Type Body Type Battery
Size
Chassis
Type
C-Series Logistics Envirotech N/A
Class 3
(10,001-
14,000 lb)
BEV
Logistics,
Standard
and Low
Roof
106 kWh Van
Ford Transit
LEV60/120
Passenger Van
Lightning
Systems $50,000
Class 3
(10,001-
14,000 lb)
BEV
Ford
Transit
350HD
Passenger
Wagon,
148"
43 kWh Van
Ford Transit
LEV60/120
Passenger Van
Lightning
Systems $50,000
Class 3
(10,001-
14,000 lb)
BEV
Ford
Transit
350HD
Passenger
Wagon,
148"
86 kWh Van
Ford Transit LEV
Cargo
Lightning
Systems $50,000
Class 3
(10,001-
14,000 lb)
BEV
Ford
Transit
350HD
Cargo Van,
148"
43 kWh Van
Ford Transit LEV
Cargo
Lightning
Systems $50,000
Class 3
(10,001-
14,000 lb)
BEV
Ford
Transit
350HD
Cargo Van,
148"
86 kWh Van
eSprinter Mercedes
Benz N/A
Class 2
(6,001-
10,000 lb)
BEV Delivery 35, 55 kWh Van
Ford Transit SEA Electric N/A
Class 3
(10,001-
14,000 lb)
BEV

SEA-DRIVE
70a
powertrain
88 kWh Van
Electric Shuttle Van Zenith
Motors
Delisted
1/30/2020
Class 3
(10,001-
14,000 lb)
BEV Passenger
van 51.8 kWh Van
Electric Shuttle Van Zenith
Motors
Delisted
1/30/2020
Class 3
(10,001-
14,000 lb)
BEV Passenger
van 62.1 kWh Van
Electric Shuttle Van Zenith
Motors
Delisted
1/30/2020
Class 3
(10,001-
14,000 lb)
BEV Passenger
van 69 kWh Van

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 40 Final Report
Model Make
HVIP
Eligible
Funds
GVWR Type Body Type Battery
Size
Chassis
Type
Electric Cargo Van Zenith
Motors
Delisted
1/30/2020
Class 3
(10,001-
14,000 lb)
BEV Cargo Van 51.8 kWh Van
Electric Cargo Van Zenith
Motors
Delisted
1/30/2020
Class 3
(10,001-
14,000 lb)
BEV Cargo Van 62.1 kWh Van
Electric Cargo Van Zenith
Motors
Delisted
1/30/2020
Class 3
(10,001-
14,000 lb)
BEV Cargo Van 69 kWh Van
The consultant team recommends that the City use findings from telematics data to identify cargo vans that might be transitioned to PHEV SUVs, and possibly the Ford F-150 PHEV that may be able to provide power for camera operation without requiring a genset. The team also recommends the City consider evaluating the suitability of an electric cargo van when one becomes available at a price (with HVIP or a similar incentive program) that is cost-competitive with a comparable gasoline-powered ICE vehicle.

Heavy-duty Vehicles
The City fleet has 98 heavy-duty vehicles (Class 3 or higher) that range from special-purpose vehicles like street sweepers and refuse trucks to a variety of utility vehicles and flatbed trucks. Fleet is already implementing electrification for vehicles as it is available, including liftgates, dump beds, and electric power take off systems (ePTOs) that use an electric motor and battery to power onboard equipment like aerial lifts and booms.

The City operates three Ford E450 20-passenger buses for the South Berkeley Senior Center. Several OEMs offer EV shuttle buses that are equipped for paratransit and have up to 120 miles of range, although range is dependent upon several factors including accessories (e.g., wheelchair lifts), operating terrain (e.g., up and down hills), and climate (running the heat or air conditioning.) Lion, an electric school bus OEM, also has an “urban midi bus” in development. The fleet inventory list supplied by the City shows that one shuttle will be replaced in 2020 and two in 2026.

Sacramento Regional Transit purchased nine GreenPower shuttles in partnership with Electrify America at a cost of $270,000 to $320,000 each depending on wheelchair lift configuration.30F 31 The consultant
team recommends that the City replace existing ICE shuttles with EVs. As previously noted, the HVIP program31F
32 provides incentives for medium and heavy-duty EVs. These include up to $90,000 in incentives for zero emission shuttles, as shown in Table 18. HVIP funds for 2019-2020 have been depleted and new voucher requests are not being accepted.32F 33 Alternatively, the City may consider a

31 March 1 interview with Will Berry from Electrify America 32 https://www.californiahvip.org/how-to-participate/#Eligible-Vehicle-Catalog 33 https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CARB/bulletins/2699f43

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 41 Final Report
grant program like the upcoming Clean Mobility Voucher Program with CALSTART and GRID Alternatives.33F
34 Table 18: HVIP Incentives for Shuttle Buses
Model OEM Vehicle
Incentives Battery Model Years GVWR
Gillig 29' ePlus
Battery
Electric Low
Floor Bus
Gillig $90,000 296 kWh 2018 Bus < 30'
GreenPower
EV Star All-
Electric Min-
eBus
GreenPower
Motor
Company
$90,000 95 kWh 2018-19 Bus < 30'
Lightning
Systems Ford
Transit 350HD
Passenger Bus
- 120 Mile
Range
Lightning
Systems $80,000 86 kWh 2018-2019 Bus 20' - 24'
Lightning
Systems Ford
Transit 350HD
Passenger Bus
- 60 Mile
Range
Lightning
Systems $80,000 43 kWh 2018-2019 Bus 20' - 24'
Micro Bird D-
Series Electric
Shuttle Bus
Micro Bird $80,000 88 kWh 2019 < 14,000,
Bus < 30'
Phoenix Motor
Cars ZEUS 300
Passenger
Shuttle
Phoenix $80,000 105 kWh 2018-2019
14,000 -
26,000,
Bus < 30'
Phoenix Motor
Cars ZEUS 400
Passenger
Shuttle
Phoenix $80,000 105 kWh 2019
14,000 -
26,000,
Bus < 30'
SEA E-450 EV* SEA Electric $80,000 100 kWh 2020 14,000 - 26,000
SEA F-450 EV* SEA Electric $80,000 136 kWh 2020 14,000 - 26,000
SEA F-550 EV* SEA Electric $80,000 136 kWh 2020 14,000 - 26,000
SEA F-650 EV* SEA Electric $90,000 160 kWh 2020 14,000 - 26,000

34 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/lct/pdfs/cmo-voucher.pdf

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 42 Final Report
*SEA vehicles can also be configured as a large cargo van or delivery truck.

The fleet inventory list supplied by the City’s Fleet shows 16 refuse and dump trucks that are scheduled to be replaced in 2020 and 2021. Electric models of these vehicles are currently available in limited supply. For an estimate of the cost, the City of Seattle procured two BYD refuse trucks at $320,000 each.

Furthermore, Fleet staff have feedback from other agencies that the limited range of and long charging time of current EV refuse trucks will not be practical or acceptable for City operations, which includes multiple 88-mile round trips to the Livermore landfill every day.

Table 19 lists the HVIP incentives available for this category of vehicle. As noted above, HVIP funds for 2019-2020 have been depleted and new voucher requests are not being accepted.34F 35 The consultant
team recommends that the City prepare to evaluate one refuse truck and/or one dump truck when the Transfer Station is complete and when HVIP funding is replenished or a similar incentive is available.

Table 19: HVIP Incentives for Refuse and Dump Trucks
Model OEM Vehicle
Incentives Battery Model
Years GVWR
BYD 8R Class 8 Refuse
Truck BYD Motors $150,000 295 kWh 2018-2019 > 26,000
Phoenix Motor Cars
ZEUS 500 Flat Bed Truck Phoenix $80,000 105 kWh 2018-2019 14,000 - 26,000 SEA NPR EV* SEA Electric $80,000 136 kWh 2020 14,000 - 26,000 SEA 195 EV* SEA Electric $80,000 136 kWh 2020 14,000 - 26,000 SEA ACMD 8 EV* SEA Electric $150,000 216 kWh 2020 > 26,000 SEA EXPEDITOR EV* SEA Electric $150,000 216 kWh 2020 > 26,000 *Several of the SEA models can be configured for different uses.

Other HVIP-eligible vehicles include transit and school buses, delivery and drayage trucks, and food trucks that do not match the needs of the City’s fleet.

For the City’s heavy-duty municipal fleet vehicle use cases, cost-effective EVs are eight-to-ten years in the future, even when accounting for incentives. The consultant team recommends that the City continue to fuel medium- and heavy-duty diesel engine vehicles with renewable diesel. Renewable diesel is produced from plant, animal or other waste products and according to CARB, the full lifecycle emissions of carbon from renewable diesel produced from sustainable sources, which the City is procuring, are more than 60 percent lower than either petroleum diesel or B20 biodiesel. The City’s fleet of on and off-road vehicles and equipment consumes about 265,000 gallons of renewable diesel fuel a year, which has enabled the City to reduce its GHG footprint from petroleum diesel by approximately. 74% percent.35F
36 35 https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CARB/bulletins/2699f43 36 Calculated from U.S. EPA Lifecycle GHG Emissions By Feedstock https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration- reporting-and-compliance-help/lifecycle-greenhouse-gas-results

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 43 Final Report
In addition, the City operates 17 vehicles (15 refuse trucks and two street sweepers) that run on natural gas Clean Energy, a distributor of natural gas and operator of natural gas fueling stations, is distributing its Redeem renewable natural gas (RNG) to cities that include Santa Monica, Santa Clarita, Midway City, Redondo Beach, Sacramento, Ontario and San Jose. RNG is derived from capturing biogenic methane that is produced from the decomposition of organic waste from dairies, landfills, and wastewater treatment plants. Until the refuse trucks can be replaced, the City might consider procuring RNG.

The consultant team also recommends the City continue to procure vehicles with electric power take off systems (ePTOs) that use an electric motor and battery to power onboard equipment like aerial lifts and booms until low and zero-emission vehicle technologies for this segment are more mature and prices are more competitive.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 44 Final Report
Appendix B: Electrical Needs and Charging Infrastructure Summary This report documents existing parking and electrical service conditions at 15 facilities at which the City of Berkeley’s fleet vehicles are domiciled (parked overnight) and recommends charging equipment and cost estimates to implemented in the near term (two-to-five years). Eventual electrification of medium- duty, heavy-duty, emergency response vehicles, and other specialized equipment is treated in more general terms
Similarly, for facilities that are planned for reconstruction in the medium-to-long-term, such as the Transfer Station, this report provides near-term recommendations for light-duty vehicle charging infrastructure and assumes that medium- and heavy-duty vehicle charging will be accommodated when the facilities are rebuilt or relocated.

For each domicile, the consultant team assessed that parking capacity and layout, the location and capacity of existing electrical service, and any anticipated site-specific constraints to future charging infrastructure installation. Table 20 summarizes near-term recommendations for each site evaluated. To provide back-up power for resiliency, the consultant team included cost estimates for diesel generators at crucial sites, which would be powered by the City’s supply of renewable diesel. However, resiliency could be met with on-site solar energy production and storage batteries.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 45 Draft for Berkeley
Table 20: Near-term Recommendations for Charging
Facility Name Facility
Location
Energy Needs
(kWh/day)
Light -
duty
Vehicles
Chargers New
Service
Req’d
Preliminary Build -Out Costs
LDV C1 L2 (Dual
Head) /DCFC
Option 1
Level 2 Only
Option 2
Mobile
Only*
Backup
Generator
Corp Yard 1326
Allston Way 112.74 7 9
4 and
1 DCFC
Yes $354,000
(includes 1 DCFC) - $487,000
Berkeley
Transfer
Station (prior
to rebuild)
1201
Second St 49.64 2 3 2 No $87,000 - $34,000
Berkeley
Marina
125/127
University
Ave
296.07 33 4 Yes $290,000 - $204,000
Adult Mental
Health Clinic
1521
University
Ave
156.74 13 3 Yes $135,000 -
Mental
Health Clinic
1890
Alcatraz
Ave/ 3282
Adeline St

33.29 6 1 or 1 Mobile Yes $147,000 $45,000 $34,000
Center Street
Garage
2025 Center
St 247.81 27 9 28 Dual, 1
Single NA
Currently
installed/Public
access
- -

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
P a g e | 46 Draft for Berkeley
Facility Name Facility
Location
Energy Needs
(kWh/day)
Light -
duty
Vehicles
Chargers New
Service
Req’d
Preliminary Build -Out Costs
LDV C1 L2 (Dual
Head) /DCFC
Option 1
Level 2 Only
Option 2
Mobile
Only*
Backup
Generator
Central
Library
Parking Lot
2031
Bancroft
Way

3.38 1 1 Yes $149,000 - $34,000
Public Safety
Building
2100 MLK Jr
Way 16.54 2 1 No $42,000 - -
Civic Center 2180 Milvia
St 7.19 1 2 No $65,000 - -
Mental
Health Clinic
2636/2640
MLK Jr Way 55.66 8 1 NA
$40,000 1 In
Progress/1
Future
- -
S. Berkeley
Senior
Center
2939 Ellis St 7.33 2 1 Yes $82,000 - $34,000
N. Berkeley
Senior
Center
1901 Hearst
Ave 11.84 2 1 NA $45,000 In
Progress - -
Total cost $1,216,000 $180,000 $827,000
*Note: LDV=Light Duty Vehicle (passenger sedans). Class 1 (C1) includes any vehicle on a truck-style frame with a GVWR of 6,000 lbs or less including SUVs.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 47
Charging Strategy Options
Analysis of the City’s existing fleet found that most light-duty vehicles drive between 3 and 63 miles per day with an average usage of 27.1 miles. Considering the relative efficiency difference between gasoline-powered ICE vehicles and BEVs, this translates into approximately 80-kWh of electricity per day on average. In addition, most vehicles are driven during the day and parked overnight at City facilities, which provides ample dwell time for battery charging. The City’s stated intention is to standardize its fleet on the Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf Plus, which have a 60- and 62-kWh battery, respectively, and well over 200 miles of range. Due to these minimal power requirements coupled with long dwell times for most vehicles domiciled at the City facilities, light-duty BEVs could share chargers or share power loads via a power load management strategy.

Current Charging Options
Currently available charging technologies appropriate to the City of Berkeley’s light-duty vehicle fleet needs include the strategies discussed below and summarized in Table 21. The recommended strategies for each site are listed in Table 22.

Dedicated Chargers
The basic way to charge a fleet is with individual chargers dedicated to each vehicle in the fleet. This approach to charging typically requires each fleet vehicle be assigned a parking stall and that each parking stall be equipped with its own charger. Fleets typically use Level 2 chargers to provide greater range and deploy smart chargers to track electrical use by vehicle or department, similar to tracking gasoline consumption. In cases where vehicle use is minimal, BEVs have long-range batteries, and/or long dwell times, Level 1 charging may be an option.

Vehicle operators pick up the vehicle at the assigned stall, manually disconnect the charger before using the vehicle, and later return the vehicle to the assigned stall and reconnect the charging cord. For fleet facilities with on-site staff or an automated parking management system, vehicles could be rotated between stalls because all stalls would be comparably equipped with chargers. For example, the City could potentially implement this approach at the Center Street Garage, which is currently equipped with more chargers than planned fleet EVs; however, the chargers assigned to City vehicles would not be available for public use under this scenario.

Benefits: The primary benefit of this approach is its simplicity and predictability for fleet operators and drivers. It also provides flexibility due to the relative abundance of chargers, allowing for future expansion via implementation of load management systems or other options.

Disadvantages: A ratio of one charger per parking stall or per EV requires numerous charger installations, which is generally inefficient and can potentially be a more-costly approach due to the expense of procuring and installing36F
37 each charger. In addition to the cost, the parking facility is more heavily impacted during the charging infrastructure construction period.

37 Installation costs typically include design, permitting, and electrical service upgrades.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 48
With a one-EV-to-one-charger ratio, the capacity to charge other vehicles is wasted for two reasons: 1) the charger sits idle while the dedicated vehicle is in use, and 2) a fully charged EV in the assigned parking space blocks other vehicles from using the charger.

Operational costs of dedicated chargers can be higher as well. Simultaneously charging multiple EVs at fleet facilities, without managed charging or energy storage incorporated into the system, could result in costly demand charges. This expense is included in PG&E’s electricity delivery fees component of customer bills. This cost is different from EBCE’s electric generation charge, which helps save the City money on its operating costs while maximizing the utilization of renewable energy.

Network and data costs can also add up over time when smart chargers or third-party load management systems are deployed, and ongoing charger maintenance costs are usually proportionate to the quantity of chargers installed.

General Recommendations: Dedicated chargers generally make the most sense in the following circumstances:
 Locations, such as the Center Street Garage, that are currently equipped with significant quantities of chargers that could be dedicated to a unique parking space/fleet EV. These chargers, however, would not be available to the public when in use by the City’s fleet.  Facilities at which a limited number of EVs are domiciled and ample electrical capacity is available, such as the Central Library parking lot.
 When funds are not constrained.

Dedicated Chargers with Load Management
Load splitting, balancing, or management systems can reduce the maximum power load to avoid or reduce needed electrical service upgrades or utility demand charges. These systems enable fleet operators to control when and how each fleet EV charges.

For example, the company Cyber Switching has a control unit called the EVMC that switches power to multiple chargers in a “round-robin” scenario. A single electrical line can feed multiple chargers and incrementally rotate the current to each charger on a programmable timed basis. The EVMC first polls an individual EV to check its battery status, and if charged, moves on to the next EV in line. Another example, Powerflex, includes sophisticated Adaptive Load Management that incorporates driver inputs and real-time electrical load monitoring to determine which EV will receive a determined amount of electricity and when.

These systems can be paired with Level 2 chargers that are not networked (“dumb” chargers) to upgrade their functionality. Cyber Switching’s EVMC spreads the power typically allocated to a single charger to up to four chargers. Powerflex can manage a series of up to 100 chargers while monitoring building loads by reading the power currently in use by all the building's electrical circuits. If additional electric capacity is available, Powerflex will redirect excess electrical capacity to the chargers.

Additionally, some charging networks like ChargePoint and Greenlots have dedicated software with customizable algorithms to intelligently share power among networked (“smart”) chargers so every EV charges as fast as possible without exceeding the site’s rated electrical capacity.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 49
Benefits: The primary benefit of load management is reduction of peak electrical load to reduce or avoid costly electrical service upgrades and PG&E’s demand charges.

Disadvantages: Load management requires networked smart chargers, which may have higher capital and/or operating costs and depends on the individual system and quantity of chargers. Third-party load splitting or management systems can operate with non-networked dumb chargers, but the equipment and service require additional capital and data costs.

General Recommendations: Adding load management to dedicated chargers generally makes the most sense in parking facilities with limited power supply where large numbers of heavily utilized EVs with long dwell times are domiciled. This does not apply to most of the City’s domicile locations; however, as the City adds more EVs to the fleet, the circumstance could change.

Shared Chargers
At facilities with shared chargers, a minimum number of Level 2 chargers are installed to serve all the fleet EVs domiciled by rotating charger use. This is generally feasible for the City because most fleet vehicles travel relatively few miles per day and are parked and available for charging for at least 14 hours. Not needing to charge their batteries every night means the City’s fleet EVs could share chargers by taking turns based on a schedule or depending on a vehicle’s state of charge. Additionally, a shared DCFC could supplement shared Level 2 chargers at large City facilities with multiple light, medium and heavy-duty vehicles such as the Corp Yard. In cases where dwell times are limited to only four hours, the anticipated duration of charging would still be sufficient to charge the relatively small number of EVs.

Benefits: The primary benefit of sharing EV chargers is cost reduction. The City can purchase and install a minimum number of chargers and avoid the need to increase facility electrical capacity. An additional benefit is reduced construction related disruption at facilities during charger installation.

Disadvantages: Sharing chargers requires careful management of fleet EVs to ensure that all vehicles maintain a sufficient state of charge for their intended daily use. As more EVs are added to the fleet, it is likely that the City will need to procure and install additional chargers.

General Recommendations: Sharing chargers makes the most sense under the following circumstances:
 Facilities that serve fleet EVs that typically drive less than 40 miles a day and have dwell times longer than eight hours, such as the Corp Yard and Mental Health Clinics.  Facilities with limited available electrical capacity to avoid the expense of electrical service upgrades.

Shared Chargers with Load Management
This is a variation on shared chargers that incorporates load management to provide flexibility. This could be achieved by networked smart chargers with integral load management or by a third-party add- on system.

Benefits: The primary benefit is to reduce PG&E peak demand charges, potential electric service upgrades costs, and initial investment costs associated with the procurement and installation of

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 50
chargers generally (e.g., reduced number of individual units required). This approach is also useful to leverage the constrained electrical capacity of certain sites to install more chargers that would share available electrical load.

Disadvantages: It requires active parking/charging management by City staff and poses a potential risk that fleet EVs may not be sufficiently charged if not managed properly.

General Recommendations: Adding load management to shared chargers makes the most sense at locations like the Transfer Station at which a load management system can serve the four chargers needed near term with a relatively small 40-amp electrical capacity.

Mobile Charging
Mobile or semi-mobile charging is an alternative or complement to fixed EV chargers. These consist of energy storage systems that draw power from the grid then dispense the electricity to EVs when needed. Examples are from Freewire Technologies, which has two mobile charging units, Mobi and Boost; and Danner, which has the Mobile Power Station (MPS). The MPS and Mobi units are equipped with wheels and operator controls, while the Boost is stationary and hard-wired but can be easily disconnected for re-location to another facility.

Each Mobi can charge up to eight light-duty EVs per shift and can be equipped with an optional Hydra unit that simultaneously charges seven vehicles (charging is at Level 1 speed). Boost is a larger unit that has 160 kWh of battery capacity and 120 kW output capable of charging 25 light-duty EVs per shift at 100kW.

Dannar’s MPS can charge multiple types of batteries and replicate the function of a mobile generator.

The DANNAR 4.00 base configuration comes standard with three 42 kWh Li-Ion battery packs (126 kWh total) and can be easily upgraded with up to nine additional packs for a total of 504 kWh of on-board electricity.

Another example, SparkCharge, is an innovative startup that produces a highly portable, modular DCFC.

Its battery-powered chargers snap together like Lego blocks, and provide up to 20 miles of range per battery module. Fleets can use SparkCharge modules to augment short-range EVs or rescue EVs that run out of charge, which avoids the need to be towed to a charger.

Benefits: By being able to accept power from the grid at low voltage and/or during times when electrical demand is low or during the day when grid renewables and/or onsite solar (depending on the City facility) generation is high, mobile energy storage platforms can help to avoid PG&E’s demand charges.

Other benefits include the ability to:
 Charge additional fleet EVs than the facility’s existing power capacity may support.  Provide backup energy to fleet vehicles during power outages.  Charge multiple EVs at the same site by moving the charger, rather than moving the vehicles.  Relocate the charger from one facility to another to address changing needs or to provide flexible charging capacity at non-City owned facilities where fleet EVs may be domiciled.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 51
The Danner Mobile Power Stations can also be outfitted with auxiliary equipment such as lifts or loaders, allowing these units to function as fully electric off-road equipment. Both the Danner and Mobi can also perform the function of a generator by powering electrical equipment where no power outlets are available.

Disadvantages: The main disadvantage of this option is the large upfront costs. Using mobile charging units also requires active parking/charging management by City staff who will need to move the charger to individual fleet EVs and manually connect them. Mobile chargers take up space in the parking lot and staff may not be able to get the unit close enough to the EV in a crowded parking facility. Theft and vandalism may also be a concern at facilities lacking site security.

General Recommendations: Using mobile charging units as an option may make sense at:
 Facilities where power upgrades may be significant due to large numbers of EVs and/or has space constraints make installation of multiple individual chargers difficult. (e.g., Berkeley Marina at 125/127 University Ave)
 Facilities that are leased (e.g., Adult Mental Health Clinic at 1521 University Avenue).  Facilities where fixed charging infrastructure near term is needed but may not be fiscally responsible because of site redevelopment plans in the future (e.g, Transfer Station) or that will be redeveloped.

The Mobi and the Danner units qualify for a 50% rebate under CARB’s CORE37F 38 program.

38 http://californiacore.org/

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 52
Table 21: Charging Strategy Summary

Dedicated
chargers
Dedicated
chargers with
load
management
Shared
chargers
Shared
chargers with
load
management
Mobile
charging
Strengths:

Convenience and
simplicity Yes Yes No No Yes
Capacity for future
fleet expansion Yes Yes No No Yes
Reduces peak demand
and resulting service
upgrades
No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Reduces capital
expenditure from
fewer chargers
purchased and
installed.

No No Yes Yes Depends on
facility scale
Challenges:

Costs for hardware
purchase, installation
and load upgrades.

Yes Yes No No
More cost
effective for
larger facilities
Initial cost of system
plus data charges No Yes No Depends on
provider Yes
Requires active
parking/charging
management by City
staff
No No Yes Yes Yes
Risk of vehicles not
being charged No No Yes Yes Yes

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 53
Table 22: Facility Recommendation Summary
Domicile Dedicated
connectors
Dedicated
connectors with
load
management
Shared
connectors
Shared
connectors
with load
management
Mobile
charging
Corporation Yard 8 L2 + 1
DCFC
Berkeley Transfer
Station 4 L2 1 Mobile
Berkeley Marina 8 L2
Possible
option: 1
Mobile
Adult Mental
Health Clinic 3 Mobile
Mental Health
Clinic 2 L2
Possible
option: 1
Mobile
Center Street
Garage
35 L2
(connectors
from
existing
chargers
currently
assigned to
fleet)

Central Library
Parking Lot 2 L2
Public Safety
Building 2 L2
Civic Center
Building 4 L2
Mental Health
Clinic 2 L2
South Berkeley
Senior Center 2 L2
North Berkeley
Senior Center 2 L2
Future Charging Technologies
The City should monitor emerging charging technologies and plan for pilot programs/evaluation as these become market ready.
 Inductive charging which can wirelessly charge an EV
 Automated charging which pairs with autonomously operated vehicles are paired with robotic or wireless chargers
 Bi-directional charging provides vehicle-to-grid (V2G), vehicle-to-building (V2B), and vehicle-to- vehicle (V2V) electrical flow.