Berkeley City Council
April 12, 2022

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 54
 V2G would enable surplus EV battery capacity to be sold back to the grid in times of peak grid electrical demand, thereby creating a potential source of revenue for fleets.  V2B would facilitate sharing of power between the buildings co-located with the fleet parking facility and the vehicles that charge there, allowing buildings to borrow stored electricity from the EV batteries at times of peak building electrical demand, thereby avoiding PG&E’s demand charges.
 V2V would allow EVs to transfer power to and from each other’s batteries. Since utilization by most City fleet vehicles is well within the battery range of currently available EVs, a substantial surplus power is typically available. This power could be shuffled between vehicles on an as-needed basis, reducing demands on fleet charging infrastructure as well as on the grid.

As these technologies come to market, the costs will be higher than with traditional charging recommended in this report yet may reduce staff time needed to manage charging and, with bi- directional charging, may help balance utility costs.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 55
Appendix C: Distributed Energy Resources Analysis
The purpose of this report is to summarize the potential areas for distributed energy resources (DER) deployment at each of the City of Berkeley’s fleet domiciles. DER is defined as onsite solar photovoltaics (solar PV), battery energy storage (BES) and electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. The analyses represent an initial screening that implies the DER deployments identified are favorable and reasonably sized compared to the proposed EV fleet’s needs. Performance and costs are meant to be budgetary level, and firm quotes and scopes of work for each location are encouraged to determine the actual capital needs required.

Summary of Recommendations
Twelve domicile location were examined for solar PV and BES deployment, to balance the electrical load from EV charging. Based on our findings, the consultant team recommends that the City consider deploying solar PV and BES systems at the eight locations listed in Table 23.

Table 23: 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 $782,100
Center Street
Garage
28 Dual-head
Level 2 and 1
Single-head
Level 2
168.9*
63 kW / 250 kWh $375,000
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
S. Berkeley
Senior Center
1 Dual-head
Level 2 7.8 $31,200
N. Berkeley
Senior Center
1 Dual-head
Level 2 29.6* $118.400
*Already installed or being considered for development via EBCE’s Solar + Storage at Critical Municipal Facilities initiative (see below) Of the recommended locations, five 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 grant.

The goal of this complementary 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.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 56
Three domicile locations, the Adult Mental Health Clinic, Mental Health Clinic, and Civic Center, were excluded from solar PV and BES deployment due to constraints specific to each location discovered during the assessment. The Transfer Station was evaluated to support the LD fleet only, however Solar PV for this size fleet only not recommended. Solar PV and BES should be re-evaluated when the site is rebuilt, and impact of the heavy-duty fleet is assessed at that time.

Solar Potential at City Sites
To offset the electricity consumption of Berkeley’s EV fleet, the solar PV potential for each of the primary facilities where vehicles are domiciled was evaluated. Eight of the 12 facilities were found suitable for solar PV for EV fleet charging, while four were found to have site specific constraints precluding solar PV deployment. Solar PV arrays consist of multiple modules, each approximately 17.8 square feet (SF) (5.5-feet x 3.25-feet) and weighing about 40 lbs. The exact size, weight, and electricity output of PV modules will vary by manufacturer however the average electricity output is 300 watts (W) which will produce approximately 16.5 W/SF of area. Panels with more surface area and higher outputs of 350–400 watts (W) are available, but these panels have an equivalent area normalized output of 16.5 W/SF. Roof locations where solar PV are mounted must be able to support the weight of the proposed PV array, which ranges from 650 pounds for a five-kilowatt (kW) array to more than 2,000 pounds for a 15-kW array. Array that use mounting racks must be designed to resist wind-lift, and the underlying roof structure must be more resistant. No structural load analysis was conducted for this project.

At each domicile location, the consultant team analyzed building rooftop and parking carport opportunities.38F
39 This potential is dictated by the overall unobstructed area available to install the solar PV system and orientation of the system to the sun throughout the day with south, southwestern and west facing facades yielding the greatest electricity production. Surface areas with shading caused by architectural details and mechanical equipment and adjacent trees or buildings are not suitable for solar PV systems.

This methodology resulted in array sizing that matched the existing solar PV design at two projects at the Mental Health Clinic at 2636/2640 MLK Jr Way and the North Berkeley Senior Center, resulting in consistency with work previously performed. Once the geometry constraints of the available roof areas were determined, the configuration was entered in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) PVWatts Calculator.39F
40 Output from PV Watts was exported as hourly data to combine the performance of the multiple solar PV arrays simulated for each location. The results are summarized in the following sections.

Annual Solar PV Generation
The following provides a brief summary of the conditions for each location where the City’s EV fleet will be domiciled, and the result of the solar PV screening. The total generation potential for all sites based on the resources identified is 419.2 kW of solar PV, with 231.3 kW of new capacity recommended. The

39 This analysis did not assess whether roof or other structural upgrades woul d be necessary at City sites, or approximate costs for those potential upgrades.
40 https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 57
solar PV resource generates an average of 1,753 kWh/day. The current fleet electrification 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, as shown in Table

24.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 58
Table 24: Solar PV Sizing Results and Daily Generation
Facility Name Facility Location Overall Assessment
Total Solar PV
Capacity
(kW DC)
Average Daily
Generation
(kWh/day)
Average Daily EV
Charging Need
(kWh/day)
Corp Yard 1326 Allston Way
Replacement of the existing 19 kW solar array with a

30.6 kW using higher output panels.

Install new 16.1 kW array over the fuel island, and

6.0 kW covered parking array in the yard parking
area.

52.7 195.3 112.74
Berkeley
Transfer
Station
1201 Second St Defer array design until site redeveloped. Charging need based on near-term light-duty fleet. 0 0 49.64
Berkeley
Marina
125/127 University
Ave
Suitable for one rooftop array and one parking lot
array. 70.5 297.6 298.93
Adult Mental
Health Clinic 1521 University Ave Existing array is not property of the city. No further solar PV can be deployed. n/a n/a 156.74
Mental Health
Clinic
1890 Alcatraz Ave/
3282 Adeline St
No solar PV recommended due to insufficient roof
area. 0 0 33.29
Center Street
Garage 2025 Center St Existing 168.9 kW rooftop solar PV array installed. No further solar PV recommended. 168.9 732.4 247.81
Central Library
Parking Lot 2031 Bancroft Way Suitable for one rooftop solar PV array. 18.8 71.0 3.38 Public Safety
Building 2100 MLK Jr Way Suitable for one rooftop solar PV array. Parking areas substantially shaded and not recommended. 10.8 40.8 16.5 Civic Center 2180 Milvia St Roof structurally unsuitable for deployment. No solar PV recommended. 0 0 6.17
Mental Health
Clinic
2636/2640 MLK Jr
Way
A 60.1 kW solar PV array has already been designed
for the facility. No further solar PV recommended. 60.1 258.7 64.94 S. Berkeley
Senior Center 2939 Ellis St Suitable for one rooftop solar PV array. 7.8 33.6 7.33 N. Berkeley
Senior Center 1901 Hearst Ave
A 29.6 kW solar PV array has already been
designed for the facility. No further solar PV
recommended.

29.6 127.8 11.84
Total 419.2
(231.3 new) 1752.7 1,009.3

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 59
Changes in Utility Tariffs and Coincidence of DER Loads Per California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Decision 18-08-013,40F 41 PG&E will phase out legacy tariff
series “A” and “E,” and replace each tariff with a “B” series that reflects the current costs of transmission. Every account will be migrated to the corresponding “B” series rate by March 2021 (e.g., accounts on the A-1 rate will be migrated to B-1; accounts on E-19 will be migrated to B-19, etc.). All ECBE accounts, including those for the City will be impacted by these changes. Table 25 compares the difference in the peak periods from the tariff revision. The “B” rates shift the peak period from midday to late afternoon and early evening, and the peak period will apply year-round.

Table 25: Changes in Peak Utility Period from Tariff Update Period “A” & “E” Rates (Current) “B” Rate (Future)
Summer Period May 1 – Oct 31 June 1 – Sep 30
Peak 12:00 PM – 6:00 PM M-F 4:00 PM – 9:00 PM All days
Part-peak 8:30 AM – 12:00 PM M-F
6:00 PM – 9:30 PM M-F
2:00 PM – 4:00 PM All days
9:00 PM – 11:00 PM All days
Off-peak All other hours
All other hours
Super Off-peak None None

Period “A” & “E” Rates (Current) “B” Rate (Future)
Winter Period Nov 1 – Apr 30 Oct 1 – May 31
Peak None 4:00 PM – 9:00 PM All days
Part-peak 8:30 AM –9:30 PM M-F None
Off-peak All other hours All other hours
Super Off-peak None 9:00 AM – 2:00 PM All days
March – May only
Every rate class has a varying energy charge ($/kWh) for each of the time periods in Table 3, with the energy rate in the peak period being approximately 30% higher than the off-peak period during the summer months and 15% higher during the winter months. The variation between on-peak and off- peak energy costs in the “B” series tariffs is not substantially different from the current “A” and “E” tariffs in place today, only the time of the on-peak period has changed.

41 https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/adviceletter/ELEC_5499-E.pdf

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 60
The rate classes of B-10 and B-19 (for larger facilities) have demand charges in addition to the energy charges for each period. Demand is based on the highest rate of energy consumption in a specified 15- minute period and is charged at a cost per kW ($/kW). Best management practices to manage this demand from EV fleet charging can include scheduled charging, smart charging (auto scheduling), and discharge from a battery energy storage system coincident with EV charging. These methods can be successful in lowering, but not eliminating the resulting demand charge, and are most effective when applied against fleet charging that occurs on a regular, controlled schedule. Intermittent charging, and locations that support both fleet charging and public charging can have substantial financial impact from demand charges.

Tariff B-10 has one monthly demand charge assessed for the peak power consumption on any 15- minute interval. Tariff B-19 has up to three demand charges separately assessed monthly and added together: one for the peak period, one for the part-peak period, and one for any 15-minute interval in the month. Tariffs B-1 and B-6 do not have demand charges. Table 26 summarizes the peak for each tariff.

Table 26: Tariffs with Demand Components
Demand
Component in
Tariff
B-1 B-6 B-10 B-19
Peak No No No Yes
Part-peak No No No Yes
Any-hour No No Yes Yes
The impact of all the above components must be considered when determining the value of the solar PV and BES. For simplicity, assumptions are grouped by rate structure. Due to the impending rate change, the consultant team evaluated each deployment by using the corresponding new “B” tariff and ECBE supply rates, rather than the current utility rate. Under the new delivery tariff, ECBE would continue to provide the City with its carbon-free electricity supply product, Brilliant 100. Table 27 summarizes the assumptions used to model rates at each fleet domicile location.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 61
Table 27: Utility Modeling Assumptions
Rate Buildings Rate Modeling Assumptions
B-1
Berkeley Marina
Adult Mental Health Clinic (1890 Alcatraz)
Mental Health Clinic
 No demand component in rate.
 Solar PV generation and EV charging impacts
energy consumption in the period it occurs.
 Addition of EV unlikely to push facility above 75
kW threshold needed to stay on rate B-1.

B-6 S. Berkeley Senior Center
 No demand component in rate.
 Solar PV generation and EV charging impacts
energy consumption in the period it occurs.
 Addition of EV unlikely to push facility above 75
kW threshold needed to stay on rate B-6.

B-10
Corp Yard
Berkeley Transfer Station
Central Library Parking Lot
Mental Health Clinic (2636/2640 MLK)
N. Berkeley Senior Center
 Solar PV reduces any-hour monthly demand.
 EV charging does not impact demand.

B-19 Public Safety Building
Civic Center
 Solar PV reduces the any-hour monthly demand
typically occurring mid-day.
 EV charging impacts peak and part-peak demand.
 EV charging does not impact the any-hour
demand typically occurring mid-day.

B-19 Center Street Garage

 Due to observed load building shape, Solar PV
does not reduce the any-hour monthly demand
that occurs at approximately 8:00 PM.
 EV charging impacts peak and part-peak demand
 EV charging impacts the any-hour demand due to
building load shape.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 62
Figure 9 displays the impacts of these assumptions using actual data for the Corp Yard and the stipulated EV charging profile. The Corp Yard peak power occurs at 7:00 AM and decreases throughout the day as the existing solar PV array provides generation. Under the new B-10 rate, the facility has only a single demand charge, which would be largely unchanged from the addition of EV charging. Part-peak and peak-period energy increases from EV charging would occur, as well as off-peak charging for the balance of the evening. Figure 10 shows that under the new tariff, most of the solar PV generation is during the off-peak hours.

Figure 11 shows the impact of EV charging on the Center Street Garage. This facility already has a sizable solar PV array, and limited additional solar PV can be reasonably accommodated. In the original design, there was space for 20 additional panels to be added totaling 7.5 kW DC (4%) additional capacity, however pursuing this capacity should be secondary to establishing solar PV at the other identified locations. This facility will be adversely impacted by the transition to the B-19 tariff. The facility peak occurs during the new peak period, even before EV charging is added. EV charging contributes to the peak-period demand and the part-peak demand. Additionally, the impact of public charging, which may be highly coincident with the new time-of-use peak period is not considered in this study. The Center Street Garage is adjacent to the Theatre District, and therefore may be subject to substantial evening public charging.

Fleet modeling was performed using charging profiles beginning at 6:00 PM each day, to provide a conservative baseline for EV charging costs. The selected examples illustrate the need for smart charging controls or a load management system to regulate the timing of charging outside of the peak period and demonstrates the opportunity to control costs via a BES system. The City should continue to explore these options, as well as coordinate with ECBE to secure further alternatives for energy supply options and demand mitigation throughout the transition of the tariffs.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 63
Figure 9: Corp Yard Current Electric Load and Impact of EV Charging (Tariff B-10)

Peak
Part
Peak
Part
Peak

Peak
Part
Peak
Part
Peak

Peak
Part
Peak
Part
Peak

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 64
Figure 10: Proposed PV System Performance – Corp Yard (Tariff B-10)

Peak
Part
Peak
Part
Peak

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 65
Figure 11: Center Street Garage Current Electric Load and Impact of EV Charging (Tariff B-19) (3/10/2019 – 2/20/2020)

Peak
Part
Peak
Part
Peak

Peak
Part
Peak
Part
Peak

Peak
Part
Peak
Part
Peak

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 66
With a large City fleet and public charging potential and substantial deployed solar PV, the rate options for the Center Street Garage should investigated more deeply. Two rate options are available for this building and have dramatic impact on utility charges. Option R is for buildings with less than 15% of annual generation produced by on-site solar; and Option S is for buildings with battery storage sized to 10% or greater of peak demand. These options are only available for facilities on the B-19 rate.

These rate options trade lower demand charges during the peak and part-peak period for higher energy charges in those periods. Option S takes the demand/energy trade-off further by introducing an “as- used-daily-demand” charge. This allows the facility to capitalize on days when BES can limit demand without substantial penalty for missing a day of demand reduction.

Modeling these rate options showed little impact on the cost of charging, however, the influence of the building energy use profile must also be considered. A full load shape study incorporating interval data of the building, and temporary metering data for all EV charging circuits (public or City fleet) should be performed prior to exercising either rate option. The City should continue to engage with ECBE to investigate these rate and load profile studies to ensure the most beneficial rate structures are being utilized.

Value of Solar PV
The value of the solar PV systems modeled was calculated using the applicable ECBE rate for the location and incorporated the impacts of demand and time-of-use costs of energy, where applicable.

The time-of-day variation and potential for demand reduction from the prevailing utility rate structure was used to determine the value of the electricity produced from solar PV. This results in the energy generated from solar PV having a much higher value on a $/kWh basis than the comparable average cost of energy of the baseline building evaluated. The underlying energy profile of the host account was not considered in determining the value of the solar PV generation, nor was limiting the solar PV output in the case of grid constraint or curtailment.

Installation costs for the proposed solar PV arrays were based on typical values for small- to medium- sized systems deployed in the Bay Area. A normalized cost of $4.00/watt DC was applied to the rooftop arrays, and $7.00/watt DC was applied to the parking area arrays. Table 28 lists the economic potential from solar PV generation if the electricity is used at the time of generation either as EV charging or as displaced building import energy. Note that all costs are budgetary and need verification from actual scope and industry price quotes prior to proceeding. The City should continue to work with EBCE for all available program dollars and maximize the value of bulk purchase arrangements to reduce this value to the extent possible.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 67
Table 28: Economic Potential from PV Generation
Facility
Name
Facility
Location Prevailing Rate Annual Value of Solar
PV Generation
Solar PV
System
Budget Cost 41F
42 Calculated Payback
(years)
Corp Yard
1326
Allston
Way
B-10SX Brilliant
100 $16,833 $228,800 13.6
Berkeley
Transfer
Station
1201
Second St
B-10SX Brilliant
100 n/a n/a n/a
Berkeley
Marina
125/127
University
Ave
B-1X Brilliant 100 $26,219 $332,100 12.7
Adult
Mental
Health Clinic
1521
University
Ave
B-1X Brilliant
100** n/a n/a n/a
Mental
Health Clinic
1890
Alcatraz
Ave/ 3282
Adeline St
B-1X Brilliant 100 n/a n/a n/a
Center
Street
Garage
2025
Center St
B-19S Bright
Choice n/a n/a n/a
Central
Library
Parking Lot
2031
Bancroft
Way
B-10SX Brilliant
100 $6,120 $75,200 12.3
Public
Safety
Building
2100 MLK
Jr Way
B-19S Bright
Choice $4,269 $43,200 10.1
Civic Center 2180
Milvia St
B-19S Bright
Choice n/a n/a n/a
Mental
Health Clinic
2636/2640
MLK Jr
Way
B-10SX Brilliant
100 $22,445 $240,400 10.7
S. Berkeley
Senior
Center
2939 Ellis
St B-6 Brilliant 100 $2,814 $31,200 11.1
N. Berkeley
Senior
Center
1901
Hearst Ave
B-10SX Brilliant
100 $11,043 $118,400 10.7
Total*
(new only) $89,743 $1,069,300 11.9
*Existing systems not included in total
** Account not owned by the City of Berkeley

42 Add 25% for engineering and 25% for soft costs if a detailed engineering analysis is needed

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 68
Fleet Charging Costs
Costs for fleet charging were computed using the applicable utility rate and the stated assumptions for impact on demand charges. Table 29summarizes the cost of charging the EV fleet per domicile location, without the support from beneficial solar PV and BES systems. Total electrification of the light duty fleet by 2030 would have a present-day charging cost of $78,795 at 21.4¢/kWh, calculated from the sum of the EV charging energy (kWh) and the cost of charging ($) under the governing utility rate for each domicile location.

Table 29: Annual Cost of EV Fleet Charging
Facility Name Facility Location Annual EV Energy
(kWh/year)
Cost of EV Charging
($/year)
Average Cost of
Fleet Electricity
($/kWh)
Corp Yard 1326 Allston Way 41,149 $6,272 $0.152
Berkeley Transfer
Station (near-term
light-duty fleet)
1201 Second St 18,119 $2,906 $0.160
Berkeley Marina 125/127 University
Ave 109,109 $26,994 $0.247
Adult Mental Health
Clinic 1521 University Ave 57,212 $14,098 $0.246
Mental Health Clinic 1890 Alcatraz Ave/
3282 Adeline St 12,149 $2,993 $0.246
Center Street
Garage 2025 Center St 90,451 $19,449 $0.215
Central Library
Parking Lot 2031 Bancroft Way 1,234 $200 $0.162
Public Safety
Building 2100 MLK Jr Way 6,036 $690 $0.114
Civic Center 2180 Milvia St 2,626 $396 $0.151
Mental Health Clinic 2636/2640 MLK Jr
Way 23,702 $3,516 $0.148
S. Berkeley Senior
Center 2939 Ellis St 2,675 $627 $0.235
N. Berkeley Senior
Center 1901 Hearst Ave 4,320 $655 $0.152
Total 368,782 $78,795 $0.214

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 69
Battery Energy Storage Options
Battery energy storage (BES) systems allow for energy from daytime solar PV generation to be time- shifted for use during the evening and nighttime hours. This allows either on-site generated electricity from solar PV or ECBE’s carbon-free electricity to be provided during periods when solar PV is not providing generation. BES systems can also be sized for fleet resilience, providing 100% of the fleet's energy needs over the course of a one-day grid outage. Alternatively, a BES system can be downsized to offset EV charging loads only during the peak and part-peak periods to save the City operational costs.

Additional BES capacity larger than that needed to meet the EV charging requirements can be installed to meet building resiliency loads, or to participate in a utility resource adequacy (RA) program. The City should work with ECBE to investigate these options as programs develop.

BES systems are an evolving technology, and new standards in battery chemistry and technology are emerging each day. Presently the standard for battery technology is centered on the lithium-ion (Li-Ion) technology as a widely available, robust energy storage medium. Current best-in-class Li-ion BES technologies have storage durations of approximately four hours, also known as a four-hour resource.

Longer duration storage of six-to-eight hours is under development for utility system support, but not currently available as a behind-the-meter resource. This analysis focuses on the four-hour resource.

BES systems are typically installed as either a packaged containerized system or require a dedicated outdoor shelter. The typical footprint of a BES system is approximately 0.17 sf/kWh. A 25 kW / 100-kWh unit would therefore occupy a 170-sf area, plus applicable clearances around the BES system as required by NFPA and local code enforcement, which generally doubles the area needed.

Fleet charging typically starts at the end of staff shifts and persists across the vehicle dwell time or until the EV is fully charged. The start time of charging will need optimization based on the prevailing utility rate structure. With new utility rates dedicated to EV charging, the City should work with ECBE to choose the optimum rate structure for each location and adapt fleet charging times, when feasible, to ensure the most cost-effective charging configuration.

Based on the daily solar PV generation and EV charging needs, Table 30 provides the required BES system sizing and resulting cost to meet 100% of fleet needs with BES for resilience.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 70
Table 30: BES Sizing and Cost – BES Sized for EV Resiliency Meeting 100% of Daily EV Electricity Need Facility Name Facility Location BES Size Required*
Daily Average
EV Need
(kWh/day)**
BES Potential Cost
Corp Yard 1326 Allston Way 33 kW / 130 kWh 112.74 $195,000 Berkeley
Transfer
Station
1201 Second St To be added during rebuild. 49.65 $0
Berkeley
Marina
125/127 University
Ave 75 kW / 300 kWh 298.93 $450,000
Adult Mental
Health Clinic
1521 University
Ave Insufficient space to site BES. 156.74 $0
Mental Health
Clinic
1890 Alcatraz Ave/
3282 Adeline St Insufficient space to site BES. 33.29 $0 Center Street
Garage 2025 Center St 63 kW / 250 kWh 247.81 $375,000
Central Library
Parking Lot
2031 Bancroft
Way 2.5 kW / 10 kWh 3.38 $15,000
Public Safety
Building 2100 MLK Jr Way 5 kW / 20 kWh
(EVs only) 16.5 $30,000
Civic Center 2180 Milvia St 2.5 kW / 10 kWh 6.17 $15,000 Mental Health
Clinic
2636/2640 MLK Jr
Way 20 kW / 80 kWh 64.94 $120,000
S. Berkeley
Senior Center 2939 Ellis St 2.5 kW / 10 kWh 7.33 $15,000 N. Berkeley
Senior Center 1901 Hearst Ave 3 kW / 12 kWh 11.84 $18,000 Total 258 kW / 1032 kWh $1,233,000
*BES sizing based on 4-hour resource
** Daily Average EV need determined in Fleet Assessment and Charging Infrastructure Analysis The cost of charging in Table 7 is useful for prioritizing the importance of BES deployment at each location where fleet EVs are domiciled. Domicile locations with substantial annual charging costs and higher average costs of energy should be prioritized for initial BES deployment. These locations will benefit the most from the added operational flexibility and the protection from demand charges that BES provides. The Corp Yard, Berkeley Marina, and Center Street Garage all have substantially more charging load and higher costs of energy than the other domicile locations. Facilities with annual charging costs of less than $3,000 are unlikely to be cost effective for BES deployment, unless the EVs at these locations are critical to providing community services in times of emergency. Table 31 summarizes the locations recommended for BES deployment.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 71
Table 31: BES Sizing and Cost – Recommended Locations
Facility
Name
Facility
Location BES Size Recommended
Daily Average
EV Need
(kWh/day)
BES Potential Cost
Corp Yard
1326
Allston
Way
33 kW / 130 kWh 112.74 $195,000
Berkeley
Marina
125/127
University
Ave
75 kW / 300 kWh 298.93 $450,000
Center
Street
Garage
2025
Center St 63 kW / 250 kWh 247.81 $375,000
Total 170 kW / 680 kWh $1,020,000
Combined Value
The consultant team recommends installing solar PV at the eight locations identified, 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 during the day for use during the new evening peak period hours. The Corp Yard and Berkeley Marina, savings from the BES systems assume that all energy from the BES comes from excess on-site solar PV and has a value equal to the grid purchased energy it displaces at the time of use, including applicable demand charge assumption listed in Table 27. Inter-day arbitrage may be possible at the Center Street Garage using the Option S rate rider, however a deeper study into that rate incorporating the impact of the building profile is needed, and the probability of increased savings is uncertain.

Overall, solar PV and BES systems to support EV fleet charging has a total cost of $2,089,300 as shown in Table 32.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 72
Table 32: Recommended Solar PV + BES Summary
Facility Name Facility Location Annual Savings Solar PV Cost BES Cost Payback (years)
Corp Yard 1326 Allston Way $13,390 $228,800 $195,000 31.7 Berkeley Transfer
Station 1201 Second St $4,295 $0 $0 n/a
Berkeley Marina 125/127
University Ave $26,994 $332,100 $450,000 29.0
Adult Mental
Health Clinic
1521 University
Ave $0 $0 $0 n/a
Mental Health
Clinic
1890 Alcatraz
Ave/ 3282
Adeline St
$0 $0 $0 n/a
Center Street
Garage 2025 Center St $19,449 $0 $375,000 19.3
Central Library
Parking Lot
2031 Bancroft
Way $6,120 $75,200 $0 12.3
Public Safety
Building 2100 MLK Jr Way $4,269 $43,200 $0 10.1
Civic Center 2180 Milvia St $0 $0 $0 n/a
Mental Health
Clinic
2636/2640 MLK
Jr Way $22,445 $240,400 $0 10.7
S. Berkeley
Senior Center 2939 Ellis St $2,814 $31,200 $0 11.1
N. Berkeley
Senior Center 1901 Hearst Ave $11,043 $118,400 $0 10.7
Total $110,820 $1,069,300 $1,020,000 19.3

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 73
Appendix D: Total Cost of Ownership
This report estimates the total cost of ownership (TCO) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the City from 2020 to 2030 under four electrification scenarios. Four scenarios form the basis of the TCO analysis presented in this report. All scenarios are modeled over an analysis period from 2020 to 2030 for the light-duty fleet.
 Scenario 1. Baseline: This scenario assumes that the City’s future light-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 internal combustion engine (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, or Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE), 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 City facilities where fleet vehicles are domiciled.42F 43 Under this
scenario, demand costs for EV charging are largely eliminated because the solar PV is generating enough power to offset the vehicle energy need. (This assumes that all solar PV power is for the EVs and none for the building.)
 Scenario 4. EV Transition with Solar PV and BES: This scenario further extends Scenario 3 to include the deployment of BES systems at City facilities described in the Task 2.1 report.

43 As described in the Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Suitability Analysis report.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 74
TCO Methodology and Assumptions
Prior chapter reports are based on an analysis of the City’s existing light-duty fleet on a vehicle-by- vehicle basis and projections of the aggregated electrical loads for each fleet facility, considering the specific vehicles domiciled at each facility. The TCO analysis continues this approach, calculating fleet costs on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis and infrastructure costs on a facility basis. Specific cost components included in the TCO analysis and the basis for their estimated values are discussed below.

Vehicle Costs
Vehicle costs have been developed from historical operational and cost data provided by the City for each vehicle in the fleet. Wherever possible, future replacements of existing vehicles are assumed to maintain the same activity level of the existing vehicle. In some cases, recently deployed vehicles do not have any significant historical operational data upon which to develop activity assumptions. For these vehicles, an average of operational data from similar vehicles domiciled at the same facility is used as the baseline activity data.

Capital and Operational Costs
A description of each cost assessed in the vehicle cost model and the basis for projecting future costs is described below.

Capital Costs (CapEx) – The purchase cost of the vehicle (inclusive of taxes), extended warranties, and additional keys are included. The baseline purchase cost is determined by vehicle type and technology.

Costs are estimated using recent procurement prices and estimates reported by the City. For gasoline powered ICE vehicles, compressed natural gas (CNG) sedans and gasoline powered ICE SUVs, no recent purchase price data were available from the City as the City has not bought these vehicles in five years or more. Instead, estimates made are based on escalated prices from prior years. Prices for PHEVs and BEVs are consistent with pricing reported in the Fleet Assessment report. Future year prices are estimated using year-over-year percentage changes from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook.43F
44 EIA does not project prices for traffic enforcement scooters. Instead, the year-over-year percentage changes for sedans are used as a surrogate for scooter pricing. This recognizes that the City may transition scooters to sedans or small wagons if suitable BEV versions of scooters do not become available before the current fleet of scooters is due for replacement. Prices for CNG SUVs, CNG scooters, HEV scooters, PHEV scooters, and BEV SUVs are not estimated as none of these vehicles are proposed for deployment.

44 US EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2020, “Table 52. New Light-Duty Vehicle Prices”. BEV projections based on “200- mile Electric Vehicle” category. PHEV projections based on “Plug-in 40 Gasoline Hybrid” category. SUV projections are based the “Small Crossover Car” subcategory and Sedans are based on the “Compact Cars” subcategory.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 75
Table 33. 2020 Vehicle Purchase Price Assumptions
Technology Sedan Scooter SUV
Gasoline ICE $23,000 $46,622 $27,000
CNG $23,000 N/A N/A
Gasoline Hybrid ICE $29,876 N/A $33,387
PHEV $28,147 N/A $36,295
BEV $34,256 $57,218 N/A
Operating Costs (OpEx) – This category refers primarily to maintenance and repair costs as other operational costs (fuel, insurance, and registration) are identified separately in this report. Maintenance cost data provided by the City does not show a strong dependence on vehicle technology type or annual mileage. This is not unexpected as most of the City’s vehicles considered in this analysis have low daily mileages, meaning that maintenance costs are based primarily on calendar time rather than accumulated mileage. Because gasoline powered hybrids and PHEVs have internal combustion engines, preventative maintenance related to engine fluids is not eliminated in the way that such maintenance would be eliminated in a BEV. These results are consistent with other municipal fleets. For example, the City of New York reported reduced maintenance costs associated with their BEVs, whereas reported data showed that maintenance costs for gasoline powered ICE vehicles, including both hybrids and PHEVs, varied substantially with no clear trend in cost reductions for the hybrid platforms. Only BEVs showed clear maintenance cost reductions, albeit over less than a full life cycle thus far.44F 45 Maintenance
reductions reported in the New York data for BEVs ranged from approximately 60% to 90% relative to traditional gasoline powered ICE vehicles. Alameda County cites maintenance cost reductions of 56% for BEVs relative to gasoline ICE vehicles.45F
46 Additionally, the City of Minneapolis cites a prior Electric Power Research Institute study estimating maintenance cost reductions of approximately 35% for light-duty BEVs.46F
47 For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that gasoline hybrids and PHEVs have maintenance costs equivalent to traditional gasoline ICE vehicles and that BEVs provide a 56% maintenance cost reduction.

Actual maintenance cost reductions may vary, based on factors such as topography, weather, driver behavior, and vehicle.

Fuel Costs – Fuel prices are escalated from current prices using EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2020 projections.47F48 The average cost of unleaded gasoline (inclusive of taxes) paid by the City in 2019 was $3.45/gallon. CNG pricing is estimated at $2.47/gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) based on average West Coast CNG pricing.48F
49 Electricity pricing was estimated based on the facility where the vehicle is domiciled and varies depending on the implementation of DERs at facilities where fleet EVs are domiciled. Table 2 summarizes the estimated cost of electricity for each facility. Without DER infrastructure, costs for fleet charging are computed using the applicable utility rate at each location, as described in the DER

45 New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, NYC Fleet Newsletter, March 8, 2019. Issue 255. 46 Bay Area Climate Collaborative – Ready, Set, Charge Fleets, May 2015. 47 City of Minneapolis, Electric Vehicle Study, October 2017 48 US EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2020, “Table 3. Energy Prices by Sector and Source - Pacific Region”. 49 US Department of Energy - Alternative Fuels Data Center, Alternative Fuel Price Report, Table 5, January 2020.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 76
Suitability Analysis report. Where DER solutions are implemented, electricity costs are effectively zero because onsite solar PV systems will generate enough power to fully offset fleet energy costs.

Additionally, incremental demand charges are not incurred beyond the current site loads due to the use of charging management systems. Note that where BES systems are deployed as recommended the systems provide additional confidence that demand charges can be avoided if charging management systems are unable to consistently avoid incremental demand during peak pricing periods. However, under the assumption that charging management is successfully implemented and avoids incremental demand charges the cost of electricity is the same for sites deploying solar PV only or solar Table 34. Estimated EV Charging Cost by Facility
Facility Name Location

Cost of EV
Charging
($/year)
Average
Cost of
Fleet
Electricity
($/kWh)
Corporation Yard 1326 Allston Way $6,272 $0.152
Berkeley Transfer Station 1201 Second Street $2,906 $0.160 Berkeley Marina 125/127 University Avenue $26,994 $0.247 Adult Mental Health Clinic 1521 University Avenue $14,098 $0.246 Mental Health Clinic 1890 Alcatraz Avenue/3282
Adeline Street $2,993 $0.246
Center Street Garage 2025 Center Street $19,449 $0.215
Central Library Parking Lot 2031 Bancroft Way $200 $0.162 Public Safety Building 2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Way $690 $0.114 Civic Center 2180 Milvia Street $396 $0.151
Mental Health Clinic 2636 Martin Luther King Jr. Way $3,516 $0.148 South Berkeley Senior Center 2939 Ellis Street $627 $0.235 North Berkeley Senior Center 1901 Hearst Avenue $655 $0.152 N/A Take Home $0.240
Fuel economy also impacts total fuel cost. To capture these impacts, EIA projections of fuel economy improvements for light-duty vehicles are applied to the baseline fuel economy of the current fleet vehicle.49F
50 When the vehicle is replaced, the fuel economy improvement for the replacement vehicle is calculated relative to the baseline vehicle and adjusted to account for any differences in technology.

Insurance Costs – The City participates in an Excess Liability insurance pool rather than purchasing specific automobile insurance coverage. Consequently, it is difficult to assess the effective cost of insurance on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis. As a conservative estimate, it is assumed that annual insurance costs are 1% of the vehicle purchase price.50F
51 50 US EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2020, “Table 40. Light-Duty Vehicle Miles per Gallon by Technology Type - Pacific Region”
51 Per City guidance.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 77
Registration Costs – Vehicle registration fees are calculated based on California Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) guidelines. A portion of vehicle registration fees is based on the DMV’s estimate of the current market value of the vehicle. Table 35 summarizes the variable fee schedule based on the age of the vehicle. The calculated cost of the variable portion of the registration fee is the percentage of the purchase price for the age of the vehicle in the registration year. A fixed portion of the fee also applies and is currently $112 for BEVs and $132 for all other light-duty vehicles.

Table 35. California DMV Vehicle Registration Fee Schedule for Variable Portion of Fee (% of original purchase price) Age (years) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Fee 0.65% 0.59% 0.52% 0.46% 0.39% 0.33% 0.26% 0.20% 0.16% 0.13% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% Residual Value – The residual value of the vehicle is calculated using straight-line depreciation over five years for all traditional gasoline and CNG ICE vehicles. Depreciation is calculated over seven years for gasoline powered hybrids, PHEVs, and BEVs per City guidance.

Revenue Opportunities
While fleets typically only present costs to the City, PHEVs and BEVs can generate revenue credits earned through the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program. These revenue sources partially offset the costs of deploying EVs and are calculated in the TCO model.

Purchase incentives are also assumed to be available to the City through 2023 via the Clean Vehicle Rebate Program (CVRP) at a rate of $1,000 per PHEV and $2,000 per BEV. CVRP incentives are calculated in the TCO model as well.

LCFS Credits - The California LCFS program allows fleets to generate credits for the use of low carbon fuels like electricity in transportation applications. One credit is equal to one metric ton of GHG reductions. The number of credits generated by a vehicle depends on the carbon intensity of the electricity supplied, calendar year, and activity of the vehicle. Credit price dependency on calendar year stems from the declining carbon intensity “benchmark” established in the LCFS program. Credit generation is calculated based on the difference between this benchmark and the carbon intensity of the transportation fuel used. Consequently, the number of credits generated per kWh declines approximately ten percent as the benchmark value declines by ten percent between 2020 and 2030. All City fleet facilities currently receive 100% zero-carbon electricity from EBCE. The only leased facility where fleet vehicles are domiciled, the Adult Mental Health Clinic at 1521 University Avenue, is also an EBCE customer.

LCFS credit prices vary and are determined by market demand. The average credit price in 2019 was $196.51F
52 While there is substantial variation in the market price for LCFS credits, credit prices have trended up over the last several years and now sit near the effective price cap of $219. This price cap is adjusted each year based on the consumer price index using a base price of $200 in 2016. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the LCFS credit price will continue to be near the price cap through

52 California Air Resources Board, Credit Activity Reports.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 78
2030. Hence, the 2019 average price of $196 is escalated in future years at the average consumer price index increase of 2.2% per year observed between 2016 and 2019.

Infrastructure Costs
Infrastructure costs were developed in the Electrical Needs and Charging Infrastructure and DER Suitability reports. The underlying assumptions and bases for these costs are detailed in the associated reports.

Charging and Associated Infrastructure
EVSE costs include the chargers themselves and the associated facility electrical infrastructure upgrades required to serve the chargers. The cost of BES systems to serve as backup generators in time of grid outages is also included, but detailed separately, as summarized in Table 36. Residual values for both the EVSE and BES systems are calculated based on a 10-year useful life and a construction year of 2021.

Residual values use straight line depreciation over the useful life of the equipment. Annual maintenance costs include network services and maintenance by an EVSE service provider. Costs are estimated at $1,100 per dual-head Level 2 charger and are based on current City contracts for existing EVSE at Center Street Garage, though it should be noted that the City is not bound to contracting with this EVSE provider for future EVSE deployment, and maintenance and service costs vary significantly depending on the provider.52F
53 A single DC fast charger is proposed to be deployed at the Corporation Yard.

Maintenance and network costs for DCFCs can vary widely based on site conditions and other factors such as required service response times. Typical maintenance contracts can range from $2,500 to $15,000 per charger per year. Additionally, service providers may use complex pricing models that include per-site costs in addition to per-charger costs. For the purposes of this analysis, the maintenance costs for the DCFC are estimated at $2,500 per charger per year, consistent with a standard maintenance contract that does not include rapid service response times or other special features.

Table 36. EVSE and Related Infrastructure Costs by Facility Facility Name Location Existing
EVSE
New
EVSE
(dual-
head L2)
CapEx -
EVSE
CapEx-
Genset 53F
54 Residual
Value -
EVSE
Residual
Value -
Genset
Annual
Maint.

Cost
Corporation
Yard
1326 Allston
Way 0 554F
55 $354,000 $487,000 $35,400 $48,700 $6,900
Berkeley
Transfer
Station
1201 Second
Street 0 2 $87,000 $34,000 $8,700 $3,400 $2,200
Berkeley
Marina
125/127
University
Avenue 0 4 $290,000 $204,000 $29,000 $20,400 $4,400
201 University
Avenue

53 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. 54 Genset refers to a backup generator used to provide power during grid outages. 55 4 Level 2 dual-head chargers and 1 DCFC.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 79
Facility Name Location Existing
EVSE
New
EVSE
(dual-
head L2)
CapEx -
EVSE
CapEx-
Genset 53F
54 Residual
Value -
EVSE
Residual
Value -
Genset
Annual
Maint.

Cost
841 Folger
Avenue
Adult Mental
Health Clinic
1521
University
Avenue
0 3 $135,000 $0 $13,500 $0 $3,300
Mental Health
Clinic
1890 Alcatraz
Avenue 0 1 $147,000 $34,000 $14,700 $3,400 $1,100 3282 Adeline Street
Center Street
Garage
2025 Center
Street 29 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Library
Parking Lot
2031 Bancroft
Way 0 1 $149,000 $34,000 $14,900 $3,400 $1,100
Public Safety
Building
2100 Martin
Luther King Jr.

Way
0 1 $42,000 $0 $4,200 $0 $1,100
Civic Center 2180 Milvia
Street 0 1 $65,000 $0 $6,500 $0 $1,100
Mental Health
Clinic
2636 Martin
Luther King Jr.

Way
1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
South Berkeley
Senior Center
2939 Ellis
Street 0 1 $82,000 $34,000 $8,200 $3,400 $1,100
North Berkeley
Senior Center
1901 Hearst
Avenue 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Take Home 0 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Solar Photovoltaic Systems
Solar PV system costs are summarized in Table 5. Residual values for solar PV systems are based on the listed construction year. For all locations except Berkeley Transfer Station, the assumed construction year is 2021. Because the Berkeley Transfer Station is currently planned for redevelopment with construction slated for 2026, the construction year for the solar PV system at this facility is also assumed to be 2026. Residual values use straight-line depreciation over the useful life of the equipment, which is assumed to be 20 years.

Table 37. Solar Photovoltaic System Costs by Facility
Facility Name Location Construction
Year CapEx Residual Value
Corporation Yard 1326 Allston Way 2021 $228,800 $125,840 Berkeley Marina
125/127 University Avenue
2021
$332,100 $182,655 201 University Avenue
841 Folger Avenue

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 80
Facility Name Location Construction
Year CapEx Residual Value
Adult Mental Health Clinic 1521 University Avenue 2021 $0 $0 Mental Health Clinic
1890 Alcatraz Avenue 2021

$0
$0
3282 Adeline Street
Center Street Garage 2025 Center Street 2021 $0 $0
Central Library Parking Lot 2031 Bancroft Way 2021 $75,200 $41,360 Public Safety Building 2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Way 2021 $43,200 $23,760 Civic Center 2180 Milvia Street 2021 $0 $0
Mental Health Clinic 2636 Martin Luther King Jr. Way 2021 $240,400 $132,220 South Berkeley Senior
Center 2939 Ellis Street 2021 $31,200 $17,160
North Berkeley Senior
Center 1901 Hearst Avenue 2021 $118,400 $65,120
Battery Energy Storage Systems
BES system costs are summarized in Table 38. Residual values for BES are based on the listed construction year. For all locations the assumed construction year is 2021. The first generation of BES deployments are assumed to have a five-year useful life, with replacement required five years after the initial construction year.55F
56 Second generation deployments are assumed to have a ten-year useful life as battery technology improves. Residual values use straight line depreciation over the useful life of the equipment, which is assumed to be five or ten years, as described above.

Table 38. Battery Energy Storage System Costs by Facility Facility Name Location Construction
Year
First
Replacement CapEx
First
Replacement
Cost
Residual
Value
Corporation Yard 1326 Allston Way 2021 2026 $195,000 $195,000 $117,000 Berkeley Transfer
Station 1201 Second Street 2026 2031 $0 $0 $0
Berkeley Marina
125/127 University
Avenue 2021

2026
$450,000 $450,000 $270,000 201 University
Avenue
841 Folger Avenue
Adult Mental
Health Clinic
1521 University
Avenue 2021 2026 $0 $0 $0
Mental Health
Clinic
1890 Alcatraz
Avenue
2021

2026

$0
$0 $0

56 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
Page | 81
Facility Name Location Construction
Year
First
Replacement CapEx
First
Replacement
Cost
Residual
Value
3282 Adeline Street
Center Street
Garage 2025 Center Street 2021 2026 $375,000 $375,000 $225,000 Central Library
Parking Lot 2031 Bancroft Way 2021 2026 $0 $0 $0
Public Safety
Building
2100 Martin Luther
King Jr. Way 2021 2026 $0 $0 $0
Civic Center 2180 Milvia St 2021 2026 $0 $0 $0
Mental Health
Clinic
2636 Martin Luther
King Jr. Way 2021 2026 $0 $0 $0
South Berkeley
Senior Center 2939 Ellis Street 2021 2026 $0 $0 $0
North Berkeley
Senior Center 1901 Hearst Avenue 2021 2026 $0 $0 $0
Take Home 2021 N/A $0 $0 $0

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 Figure 12. 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 is the byproduct of the assumption made in prior reports that smart charging (e.g., load management) can effectively avoid electricity demand charges and that the grid acts as energy storage. Under those assumptions BES systems do not provide additional operational cost reductions to offset the incremental costs of BES deployment. However, there may be additional value not quantified in this analysis to the BES systems based on their ability to provide a degree of resiliency to the City’s fleet to ensure continuity of service to the community in time of grid outage.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 82
Figure 12. Total Value Summary by Scenario

Figure 13 breaks down the major cost components for each scenario. Scenario 1 has the least expenditures, revenue, and residual values. Both Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 have higher upfront expenditures associated with the cost of infrastructure. However, the higher infrastructure costs provide greater residual value, particularly for the solar PV systems that are assumed to have a 20-year useful life. Table 39 further breaks down costs into infrastructure and vehicle categories and the capital and operational cost categories described previously in this report.

Figure 13. Total Value Detail by Scenario

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 83
Table 39. TCO Cost Detail

Scenario Scenario 1
Baseline
Scenario 2
EV Transition
Scenario 3
EV Transition +
Solar PV
Scenario 4
EV Transition +
Solar PV + BES
Infrastructure
EVSE CapEx $0 ($1,351,000) ($1,351,000) ($1,351,000)
EVSE Maintenance $0 ($200,700) ($200,700) ($200,700)
EVSE Residual $0 $135,100 $135,100 $135,100
GenSet CapEx $0 ($827,000) ($827,000) ($827,000)
GenSet Residual $0 $82,700 $82,700 $82,700
Solar PV CapEx $0 $0 ($1,069,300) ($1,069,300)
Solar PV Residual $0 $0 $588,115 $588,115
BES CapEx $0 $0 $0 ($1,020,000)
BES First Replacement $0 $0 $0 ($1,020,000)
BES Residual $0 $0 $0 $612,000
Infrastructure Subtotal $0 ($2,160,900) ($2,642,085) ($4,070,085) Vehicles
CapEx ($4,403,279) ($4,737,081) ($4,737,081) ($4,737,081) OpEx ($3,278,010) ($2,902,697) ($2,902,697) ($2,902,697) Fuel Costs ($653,735) ($665,212) ($337,809) ($337,809)
Insurance ($478,279) ($532,245) ($532,245) ($532,245)
Registration ($466,180) ($474,370) ($474,370) ($474,370) Specialized Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0
Residual Value $875,159 $1,217,642 $1,217,642 $1,217,642 Incentives $0 $104,000 $104,000 $104,000
LCFS Credits $59,692 $388,924 $388,924 $388,924
Vehicles Subtotal ($8,344,632) ($7,601,039) ($7,273,635) ($7,273,635) Total ($8,344,632) ($9,761,939) ($9,915,720) ($11,343,720) Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections
GHG emissions and energy consumption metrics for the light-duty fleet are calculated based on projected fuel/electricity use under Scenario 1 and 2 described for the TCO modeling. Metrics are shown for the cumulative 2020-2030 analysis period, as well as the 2030 calendar year. As with the TCO model, activity and emissions are calculated on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis for each calendar year.

GHG Emission Factors
GHG emissions reflect well-to-wheels emissions (emissions associated with the full lifecycle of the fuel including extraction, processing, production, transport, and end use in a vehicle) using emissions factors from the California Air Resources Board’s LCFS program. The assumed emission factors are summarized in Table 40. CNG and gasoline values use current LCFS program “lookup table” values for these fuels.56F 57 Their values are not assumed to decline over the analysis period. Electricity supplied from the grid uses the California grid average carbon intensity for 2020, but declines each year based on California Energy Commission projections.57F
58 Electricity supplied by onsite solar PV systems and/or through EBCE’s Brilliant

57 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/lcfs-pathway-certified-carbon-intensities 58 California Energy Commission, Integrated Energy Policy Report, 2018. Appendix B. Uses emissions reductions based on SB350 through 2029. Future years assume a straight-line decrease from the 2029 value to zero by 2045.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 84
100 electricity service are assumed to have a zero-carbon intensity. Note that all City-owned fleet facilities are served by EBCE. In turn, all City-owned facilities use zero-carbon intensity electricity under Scenario 2, independent of the deployment of additional solar PV and/or BES systems. Additionally, while 1521 University Avenue is a leased facility, it’s also an EBCE Brilliant 100 customer. Table 41 summarizes the assumed fraction of electricity supplied as zero-carbon electricity at each facility. Only electricity supplied to take-home vehicles that are charged at staff residences are assumed to use grid- average electricity.

Table 40. Carbon Intensity Factors (gCO2e/MJ)
Year 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 CNG 79.21 79.21 79.21 79.21 79.21 79.21 79.21 79.21 79.21 79.21 79.21 Gasoline 99.44 99.44 99.44 99.44 99.44 99.44 99.44 99.44 99.44 99.44 99.44 EV (Grid) 82.92 81.63 78.67 74.19 66.88 59.95 55.91 51.28 46.23 40.96 34.02 EV (Zero
Carbon) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 41. Assumed Fraction of Electricity for EV Charging Supplied from Zero-carbon Electricity Sources by Facility Facility Name Location
% Zero-CI
Electricity
Corporation Yard 1326 Allston Way 100%
Berkeley Transfer Station 1201 Second Street 100%
Berkeley Marina
125/127 University Avenue 100%
201 University Avenue 100%
841 Folger Avenue 100%
Adult Mental Health Clinic 1521 University Avenue 100%
Mental Health Clinic 1890 Alcatraz Avenue 100%
3282 Adeline Street 100%
Center Street Garage 2025 Center Street 100%
Central Library Parking Lot 2031 Bancroft Way 100%
Public Safety Building 2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Way 100% Civic Center 2180 Milvia Street 100%
Mental Health Clinic 2636 Martin Luther King Jr. Way 100% South Berkeley Senior Center 2939 Ellis Street 100%
North Berkeley Senior Center 1901 Hearst Avenue 100%
Emissions Model Results
Emissions from each vehicle, as detailed in Appendix A, are aggregated to estimate annual GHG emissions for the light-duty fleet considered for EV transition. As shown in Figure 14, emissions under Scenario 1 (Baseline) decline from 56.6 to 43.6 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

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 85
for replacement in 2026 that would transition from gasoline or gasoline hybrid ICE vehicles to BEVs. This includes the parking enforcement scooters.

Figure 14: Annual GHG Emissions Projections for the City's Light-duty Fleet

Table 42 and Table 43 summarize mileage, energy consumption, and fleet average emissions for each scenario and the estimated percentage change from Scenario 1 (Baseline) to Scenario 2 (EV Transition).

Under Scenario 2 (EV Transition), gasoline and CNG ICE vehicle mileage would decrease by 59% relative to Scenario 1 (Baseline) as it transitions to EV mileage over the 2020-2030 analysis period. In 2030, the annual gasoline and CNG ICE vehicle mileage would be reduced 96% relative to Scenario 1 (Baseline) as most of the miles travelled by these vehicles transition to EV.

Fleet average fuel economy, in miles per gasoline-gallon equivalent (MPGe), increases 38% over the 2020-2030 period and increases by 79% in 2030 relative to the Scenario 1 (Baseline). 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.

Table 42. Emissions and Energy Consumption Metrics for the City Fleet from 2020 to 2030 Metric 2020-2030
Baseline EV Transition % Change
Gasoline/CNG ICE Mileage 4,155,346 1,696,465 -59%
EV Mileage 518,992 2,977,873 474%
Gasoline/CNG Consumption (GGE) 160,362 68,529 -57%
Electricity Consumption (GGE) 8,128 53,439 557%
Fleet Avg MPGe 27.7 38.3 38%
Fleet GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 542.2 234.1 -57%
Fleet GHG Emissions Rate (gCO2e/mi) 116.0 50.1 -57%

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 86

Table 43. Emissions and Energy Consumption Metrics for the City Fleet in 2030 Metric 2030
Baseline EV Transition % Change
Gasoline/CNG ICE Mileage 374,407 22,713 -94%
EV Mileage 50,533 402,227 696%
Gasoline/CNG Consumption (GGE) 12,888 573 -96%
Electricity Consumption (GGE) 676 7,017 939%
Fleet Avg MPGe 31.3 56.0 79%
Fleet GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 43.6 2.1 -95%
Fleet GHG Emissions Rate (gCO2e/mi) 102.5 4.9 -95%

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 87
Appendix E: Recommendations by Domicile: Charging, Solar PV, BES for Light-Duty Fleet EVs
Site #1 Corp Yard
Recommended: Charging stations, solar PV, BES, electrical upgrades Additional: Structural upgrade to canopy to support solar PV Site Description
The Corporation Yard (Corp Yard) at 1326 Allston Way is the City of Berkeley’s largest fleet parking facility in terms of number of vehicles domiciled. A total of 137 vehicles including light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles are based here, including most of the City’s specialty vehicles like sweepers, vactors, and mowers. The facility has a gasoline and diesel fueling station and maintenance garage for all fleet vehicle Figure 15 details the different areas of operations within the Corp Yard. Because the focus of this project is to provide charging for the exclusive use of City-owned fleet vehicles, charging station recommendations exclude the employee/visitor parking lot.

Figure 15: Corp Yard Maintenance Building facility details

The main electrical distribution panel is located on the northwest corner of the yard and the sub-panel is located on the north side of the repair workshop. City staff explained that the sub-panel for the repair shop will be upgraded and will accommodate the load for planned EV chargers.

The Corp Yard site has several constraints for DER (chargers, solar PV, BES) design:
 Temporary/portable buildings not suitable for solar PV due to structural concerns.  Main Barn is a historic structure and not suitable for solar PV due to structural strength of rafters.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 88
 The parking stalls in the Corp Yard are limited in relation to the number of vehicles domiciled or serviced at this site.
 The vehicle maintenance facility is in the middle of the site, potentially impacting charging infrastructure installation costs.
 Designs for charging, solar PV, and BES need to consider the amount of space that trucks require when navigating the parking lot.
 City staff prefer all conduit to be underground.

Recommendations
The Corp Yard will need multiple types of chargers and charging strategies. To meet the immediate need of replacing all light-duty vehicles with EVs:
 Four dual-head (eight connectors) pedestal-mounted, low-power (7.2 kW) Level 2 chargers in a central location between Buildings A and G, installing the chargers in the center of a block of parking spots as illustrated in Figure 16.
 One DC Fast Charger to accommodate the charging needs for the vehicles that come in for repair and provide flexibility for a broader range of EVs that will be serviced in the future.  New electrical service will be required to support this charging equipment. The total demand on each circuit is 3,328 V using a 40A breaker that outputs 6,656 VA per charger using a 40A 2-pole breaker. There is also 50 VA added for gateway. The total Level 2 charger load is: 6,656*8 +50 =

53.3 kVA which requires 148A (200 A) of ampacity. DCFCs need 63.5 kVA which requires 156A (200 A breaker). The total DCFC load is 116.8 kVA, which requires 141A. The main breaker should be 300A. A step-down transformer rated 75kVA (480-208/120) will be required for the Level 2 chargers.
 The Corp Yard is suitable for up seven rooftop solar PV arrays and two parking lot arrays, which would produce 358 kWh/day, which exceeds the estimated energy demand to charge light-duty vehicles. Extra capacity could be available to serve the charging needs of medium- and heavy- duty equipment as they are added to the fleet.
 A 112 kWh BES to provide resiliency for fleet charging and help avoid demand charges.

Figure 16: Conceptual Charger Layout (Source: VELOZ)

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 89
Figure 17 shows potential locations for solar arrays. The suggested combinations to meet fleet EV needs are Arrays D + E + Yard Parking totaling 52.7 kW. Array D will replace the existing 19 kW system that is approximately 15 years old, which will improve the generation potential of this location.58F 59 Array E is the canopy of the existing gasoline and diesel fuel island and a new canopy will need to be constructed to support the weight of the PV array. Cost estimates do not include the fuel island canopy construction, or structural components. Constructing this canopy may present an opportunity to add DC Fast Charging or a charger dedicated to medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to the fueling island.

Figure 17: Potential locations for Solar PV Arrays

Solar PV Siting and Generation Potential - Corp Yard
Solar PV
Array
Location
Gross Area
Identified (SF)
Solar PV Array
Area
(SF)
Number of
PV Modules
(-)
DC Power
(kW)
Peak AC
Output
(kW)
Total
Generation
(kWh)
A 2,252 804 45 13.5 11.2 18,564
B 1,512 465 26 7.8 6.5 8,753
C 2,631 858 48 14.3 11.9 19,727

59 This replacement scope of work proposed to the City in January 2020 by Sun Light & Power.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 90
Solar PV
Array
Location
Gross Area
Identified (SF)
Solar PV Array
Area
(SF)
Number of
PV Modules
(-)
DC Power
(kW)
Peak AC
Output
(kW)
Total
Generation
(kWh)
D 3,360 1,519 85 30.6 25.4 41,399
E 2,400 965 54 16.1 13.4 21,782
Public
Parking 6,480 1,430 80 23.9 19.1 32,334
Yard
Parking 1,620 358 20 6.0 5.0 8,117
Total 20,276 5,809 325 97.2 77.8 130,768
Recommended Solar PV Arrays to Meet EV Charging Needs - Corp Yard Solar PV
Array
Location
Gross Area
Identified (SF)
Solar PV Array
Area
(SF)
Number of
Solar PV
Modules
(-)
DC Power
(kW)
Peak AC
Output
(kW)
Total
Generation
(kWh)
D 3,360 1,519 85 30.6 25.4 41,399
E 2,400 965 54 16.1 13.4 21,782
Yard
Parking 1,620 358 20 6.0 5.0 8,117
Total 7,380 2,842 159 52.7 43.8 71,298
Value of Solar PV to Battery Energy Storage for EV Charging: B-10SX- Brilliant 100 Rate - Corp Yard Month
Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Value of
Demand
($)
Value of
Energy
($)
Total Value
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 14.3 1,648 $192 $252 $444 $0.27
2 17.5 2,043 $235 $307 $543 $0.27
3 20.5 3,375 $276 $414 $690 $0.20
4 22.3 4,304 $299 $527 $826 $0.19
5 23.7 5,050 $318 $606 $924 $0.18
6 23.8 5,392 $320 $1,029 $1,348 $0.25
7 23.3 5,062 $313 $967 $1,280 $0.25
8 22.1 4,453 $296 $848 $1,144 $0.26
9 20.5 3,686 $275 $686 $961 $0.26
10 18.2 2,819 $244 $429 $673 $0.24
11 14.9 1,856 $200 $287 $487 $0.26
12 12.5 1,461 $167 $227 $394 $0.27
Total 41,149 $9,715 $0.24

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 91
Value of Solar PV to Building: B-10SX- Brilliant 100 Rate - Corp Yard Month
Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Demand
Costs
Avoided
($)
Energy Costs
Avoided
($)
Total Costs
Avoided
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 10.5 1,207 $141 $185 $326 $0.27
2 12.8 1,497 $172 $225 $398 $0.27
3 15.1 2,473 $202 $304 $505 $0.20
4 16.3 3,154 $219 $386 $605 $0.19
5 17.4 3,700 $233 $444 $677 $0.18
6 17.5 3,950 $234 $754 $988 $0.25
7 17.1 3,709 $229 $708 $938 $0.25
8 16.2 3,263 $217 $622 $838 $0.26
9 15.0 2,701 $201 $503 $704 $0.26
10 13.3 2,065 $179 $314 $493 $0.24
11 10.9 1,360 $146 $211 $357 $0.26
12 9.1 1,070 $123 $166 $289 $0.27
Total 30,149 $7,118 $0.24
Cost of EV Charging: B-10SX- Brilliant 100 Rate - Corp Yard Month EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
1 13.9 3,495 $0 $464 $464 $0.13
2 13.9 3,157 $0 $419 $419 $0.13
3 13.9 3,495 $0 $464 $464 $0.13
4 13.9 3,382 $0 $449 $449 $0.13
5 13.9 3,495 $0 $464 $464 $0.13
6 13.9 3,382 $0 $648 $648 $0.19
7 13.9 3,495 $0 $670 $670 $0.19
8 13.9 3,495 $0 $670 $670 $0.19
9 13.9 3,382 $0 $648 $648 $0.19
10 13.9 3,495 $0 $464 $464 $0.13
11 13.9 3,382 $0 $449 $449 $0.13
12 13.9 3,495 $0 $464 $464 $0.13
Total 41,149 $6,272 $0.15

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 92
Site #2 Berkeley Transfer Station
Recommended: Charging stations for light-duty fleet; solar PV during 2026 rehabilitation Additional: Charging for BEV refuse trucks when those trucks are viable for City needs Site Description
The Berkeley Transfer Station is at 1201 Second St., shown in Figure 18 is being redeveloped with construction is expected to start mid-2026. The Solid Waste & Recycling Transfer Station Feasibility Study concepts59F
60 for facility replacement included infrastructure to support the electrification of the Zero Waste collection fleet as that technology becomes viable.

In the nearer term, five light-duty vehicles domicile at the Berkley Transfer Station. A sub-panel rated at 100A will be available to EV chargers once the existing trailer on the facility is removed, however 60A of the capacity is reserved for an electric forklift.

Figure 18: Berkeley Transfer Station Facility Details

60 presented at a November 2019 City Council Work Session

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 93
Recommendations
To meet the immediate need of transitioning light-duty vehicles to EVs and consideration that the site will be redeveloped:
 Two dual-head (two connectors) wall- or pedestal-mounted, low-power (7.2 kW) Level 2 chargers
 A third-party load management system to share the 40A of electrical capacity among the four connectors.
 Solar PV during rehabilitation in 2026.

Table 33. Cost of EV Charging on B-10SX-Brilliant 100 Rate - Berkeley Transfer Station Month EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
1 11.5 1,539 $0 $234 $234 $0.23
2 11.5 1,390 $0 $211 $211 $0.23
3 11.5 1,539 $0 $234 $234 $0.23
4 11.5 1,489 $0 $226 $226 $0.23
5 11.5 1,539 $0 $234 $234 $0.23
6 11.5 1,489 $0 $264 $264 $0.27
7 11.5 1,539 $0 $273 $273 $0.27
8 11.5 1,539 $0 $273 $273 $0.27
9 11.5 1,489 $0 $264 $264 $0.27
10 11.5 1,539 $0 $234 $234 $0.23
11 11.5 1,489 $0 $226 $226 $0.23
12 11.5 1,539 $0 $234 $234 $0.23
Total 18,119 $2,906 $0.25

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 94
Site #3 Berkeley Marina (125/127 University Avenue)
Recommended: Charging stations for light-duty fleet and BES Additional: Solar PV is already planned for this location Site Description
This facility is being reconfigured into two different zones: one for public parking and one for fleet vehicles with dedicated parking stalls for vehicles used for traffic and parking control, Police Department, and marina maintenance. Figure 19 shows the aerial view of the facility with the fenced/hatched area on the drawing indicating the dedicated fleet parking stalls and areas identified probable for solar PV arrays. An existing dual-head charger for public use is installed on the east end of the 125/127 University building. Combined solar PV generation capacity of 58 kW AC is higher than the building peak demand; however, all the energy is directed to vehicle charging. No energy from the solar PV and BES remains for building use
As a conservative measure, daily energy needs were calculated for BEVs instead of 33 BEV parking scooters. If the City procures BEV scooters, the recommended chargers can charge the scooters and have additional capacity for other fleet vehicles.

Figure 19: Berkeley Marian Ariel View

Recommendations
To meet the near-term needs of light-duty, non-emergency vehicles and parking enforcement vehicles:
 Four dual-head (eight connectors) Level 2 chargers. Most vehicles will likely not need to charge every day, but staff will need to reposition vehicles during charging sessions. o A portion of the EVs could be charged using a mobile charger, which would avoid the need to reposition vehicles for charging and eliminate the costs of upgrading the electrical service.  New electrical service with a 200A main breaker to accommodate the estimated charging loads and capacity for an additional single-head charger. The total demand on each circuit is 3,328 V using a 40A breaker which outputs 6,656 VA for a charger using a 40A two-pole breaker. With 50 VA added for gateway, the total Level 2 charger load is: 6,656*8+50 = 53.3kVA, which requires 148A.
 One 75 kW/300 kWh BES to offset the long-term needs of vehicle charging and maximize the solar PV already planned for this location.

A
Blue – Parking Array
Red – Roof Array

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 95
Solar PV Siting and Generation Potential – Berkeley Marina Solar PV
Array
Location
Gross Area
Identified
(SF)
Solar PV
Array Area
(SF)
Number of
Solar PV
Modules
(-)
DC Power
(kW)
Peak AC
Output
(kW)
Total
Generation
(kWh)
A 7,200 3,218 180 53.8 44.7 83,172
Parking 4,536 1,001 56 16.7 13.4 25,449
Total 11,736 4,219 236 70.5 58.0 108,571
Value of Solar PV to Battery Electric Storage for EV Charging on B-1X- Brilliant 100 Rate - Berkeley Marina Month
Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Value of
Demand
($)
Value of
Energy
($)
Total Value
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 47.1 5,532 $0 $1,279 $1,279 $0.23
2 53.0 6,436 $0 $1,489 $1,489 $0.23
3 57.3 9,421 $0 $2,087 $2,087 $0.22
4 58.7 10,811 $0 $2,400 $2,400 $0.22
5 58.2 11,823 $0 $2,632 $2,632 $0.22
6 57.6 12,299 $0 $3,234 $3,234 $0.26
7 56.7 11,786 $0 $3,101 $3,101 $0.26
8 56.6 10,954 $0 $2,882 $2,882 $0.26
9 54.4 9,593 $0 $2,500 $2,500 $0.26
10 52.2 8,760 $0 $2,026 $2,026 $0.23
11 47.5 6,247 $0 $1,443 $1,443 $0.23
12 43.9 4,960 $0 $1,146 $1,146 $0.23
Total 108,571 $26,219 $0.24
Value of Solar PV to Building: B-1X- Brilliant 100 Rate - Berkeley Marina Month
Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Demand
Costs
Avoided
($)
Energy Costs
Avoided
($)
Total Costs
Avoided
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
No additional value to the building
Cost of EV Charging: B-1X- Brilliant 100 Rate - Berkeley Marina Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
1 25.8 9,267 $0 $2,175 $2,175 $0.23
2 25.8 8,370 $0 $1,964 $1,964 $0.23
3 25.8 9,267 $0 $2,175 $2,175 $0.23
4 25.8 8,968 $0 $2,105 $2,105 $0.23
5 25.8 9,267 $0 $2,175 $2,175 $0.23
6 25.8 8,968 $0 $2,446 $2,446 $0.27
7 25.8 9,267 $0 $2,527 $2,527 $0.27
8 25.8 9,267 $0 $2,527 $2,527 $0.27
9 25.8 8,968 $0 $2,446 $2,446 $0.27
10 25.8 9,267 $0 $2,175 $2,175 $0.23

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 96
Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
11 25.8 8,968 $0 $2,105 $2,105 $0.23
12 25.8 9,267 $0 $2,175 $2,175 $0.23
Total 109,109 $26,994 $0.25

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 97
Site #4 Adult Mental Health Clinic
Recommended: Charging stations or mobile charging for light-duty fleet Additional: Solar PV is already installed at this leased location Site Description
The Adult Mental Health Clinic is located at 1521 University Avenue and shown in Figure 20. Currently, 13 light-duty vehicles are domiciled at this location.

Figure 20: Aerial View of the Adult Mental Health Clinic

Recommendations
This site is not owned by the City and requires an upgrade to the electrical service. If the landlord agrees to EV charging at this facility, the recommendation is:
 Three dual-head Level 2 chargers (six connectors) to be shared by all vehicles.  A new electrical service with a main breaker rated at a minimum of 200A to accommodate the current charging loads and a future single-head charger can be installed, if needed. o A back-up option would be to use three mobile chargers.

This site has no future solar PV potential and does not have physical area for a BES system.

Cost of EV Charging on B-1X Rate - Adult Mental Health Clinic Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
1 15.2 4,859 $0 $1,138 $1,138 $0.23
2 15.2 4,389 $0 $1,028 $1,028 $0.23
3 15.2 4,859 $0 $1,138 $1,138 $0.23
4 15.2 4,702 $0 $1,102 $1,102 $0.23
5 15.2 4,859 $0 $1,138 $1,138 $0.23
6 15.2 4,702 $0 $1,272 $1,272 $0.27

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 98
Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
7 15.2 4,859 $0 $1,315 $1,315 $0.27
8 15.2 4,859 $0 $1,315 $1,315 $0.27
9 15.2 4,702 $0 $1,272 $1,272 $0.27
10 15.2 4,859 $0 $1,138 $1,138 $0.23
11 15.2 4,702 $0 $1,102 $1,102 $0.23
12 15.2 4,859 $0 $1,138 $1,138 $0.23
Total 57,212 $14,098 $0.25

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 99
Site #5 Mental Health Clinic
Recommended: Charging stations light-duty fleet
Additional: Relocate vehicles domiciles at Drop-in Center to Mental Health Clinic Site Description
The mental health clinic is located at 1890 Alcatraz Ave, shown in Figure 21, and a Drop-in Center is located nearby at 3282 Adeline St. Currently, three light-duty vehicles are domiciled at each location, for a total of six vehicles. 3282 Adeline is a leased facility and is not suitable for investment in charging infrastructure. The building has a domed roof that will not accommodate solar PV and does not have enough physical space for a BES system.

Figure 21: Aerial View of Mental Health Clinic

Recommendations
To meet the near-term needs of fleet EVs:
 One dual-head Level 2 charger at 1890 Alcatraz that all six light-duty vehicles share  New electrical service with a main breaker rated at a minimum of 60A. o A new service with 100A main would accommodate the charging loads, and a potential additional dual-head Level 2 charger could be installed in the future, if needed. o This site could also be served with a portable charging option, as described for the Adult Mental Health Clinic site.

Cost of EV Charging: B-1X- Brilliant 100 Rate - Adult Mental Health Clinic Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
1 3.0 1,032 $0 $242 $242 $0.23
2 3.0 932 $0 $218 $218 $0.23
3 3.0 1,032 $0 $242 $242 $0.23

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 100
Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
4 3.0 999 $0 $234 $234 $0.23
5 3.0 1,032 $0 $242 $242 $0.23
6 3.0 999 $0 $270 $270 $0.27
7 3.0 1,032 $0 $279 $279 $0.27
8 3.0 1,032 $0 $279 $279 $0.27
9 3.0 999 $0 $270 $270 $0.27
10 3.0 1,032 $0 $242 $242 $0.23
11 3.0 999 $0 $234 $234 $0.23
12 3.0 1,032 $0 $242 $242 $0.23
Total 12,149 $2,993 $0.25

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 101
Site #6 Center Street Garage
Recommended: BES
Additional: Load management system for existing charging stations Site Description
The Center Street Garage an eight-level public parking garage at 2025 Center St. Thirty-seven light-duty fleet vehicles are domiciled here and it is the main parking facility for City Hall employees and visitors and is used daily by the general public. Currently, 29 EV chargers with a total of 57 connectors are installed and accessible to City employees and the public in addition to fleet vehicles. The main distribution assembly panel for this facility is located on the ground floor. The roof of the garage has an existing solar PV array that is owned by the City. Figure 22 is an aerial view of the Center Street Garage.

Figure 22 Center Street Garage aerial view

Recommendations
The Center Street Garage has existing charger capacity for current and anticipated charging demand.

Load management could be used to satisfy future electrical load growth if charging demand exceeds the facility’s electrical capacity in the future.

One 63 kW / 250 kWh BES system will increase resiliency and help to avoid peak demand changes from EV charging.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 102
Solar PV Siting and Generation Potential - Center Street Garage Solar PV
Array
Location
Gross Area
Identified
(SF)
Solar PV Array
Area
(SF)
Number of
Solar PV
Modules
(-)
DC Power
(kW)
Peak AC
Output
(kW)
Total
Generation
(kWh)
Existing n/a n/a 414 113.9 91.1 172,153
Total 0 0 414 113.9 91.1 172,153
Note: Performance calculated assuming 275 W DC/panel, and performance assumptions from other modeling results.

Value of Solar PV to Battery Electric Storage for EV Charging: B-19S-Bright Choice Rate – Center Street Garage Month
Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Value of
Demand
($)
Value of
Energy
($)
Total Value
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 38.6 4,541 $847 $524 $1,371 $0.30
2 45.1 5,200 $995 $601 $1,596 $0.31
3 47.2 8,045 $1,046 $1,100 $2,146 $0.27
4 47.3 9,037 $1,050 $1,231 $2,280 $0.25
5 47.6 9,706 $1,059 $1,316 $2,375 $0.24
6 47.6 10,260 $1,813 $1,263 $3,076 $0.30
7 45.6 9,918 $1,756 $1,225 $2,981 $0.30
8 46.1 9,383 $1,744 $1,156 $2,899 $0.31
9 46.2 8,007 $1,655 $970 $2,625 $0.33
10 41.3 7,053 $906 $814 $1,720 $0.24
11 38.2 5,340 $828 $614 $1,442 $0.27
12 36.2 3,960 $785 $455 $1,240 $0.31
Total 90,451 $25,752 $0.28
Value of Solar PV to Building: B-19S-Bright Choice Rate – Center Street Garage Month
Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Demand
Costs
Avoided
($)
Energy Costs
Avoided
($)
Total Costs
Avoided
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 75.4 8,880 $1,656 $1,024 $2,681 $0.30
2 88.1 10,168 $1,945 $1,176 $3,121 $0.31
3 92.4 15,733 $2,045 $2,151 $4,196 $0.27
4 92.5 17,672 $2,053 $2,407 $4,460 $0.25
5 93.1 18,981 $2,070 $2,574 $4,644 $0.24
6 93.1 20,064 $3,545 $2,471 $6,016 $0.30
7 89.2 19,395 $3,435 $2,396 $5,830 $0.30
8 90.2 18,349 $3,410 $2,260 $5,670 $0.31
9 90.3 15,658 $3,237 $1,897 $5,134 $0.33
10 80.7 13,793 $1,772 $1,591 $3,363 $0.24
11 74.7 10,443 $1,619 $1,200 $2,819 $0.27
12 70.8 7,745 $1,536 $889 $2,425 $0.31
Total 176,880 $50,358 $0.28

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 103
Cost of EV Charging: B-19S-Bright Choice Rate – Center Street Garage Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
1 24.5 7,682 $552 $923 $1,475 $0.19
2 24.5 6,939 $552 $834 $1,386 $0.20
3 24.5 7,682 $552 $923 $1,475 $0.19
4 24.5 7,434 $552 $894 $1,445 $0.19
5 24.5 7,682 $552 $923 $1,475 $0.19
6 24.5 7,434 $995 $938 $1,934 $0.26
7 24.5 7,682 $995 $970 $1,965 $0.26
8 24.5 7,682 $995 $970 $1,965 $0.26
9 24.5 7,434 $995 $938 $1,934 $0.26
10 24.5 7,682 $552 $923 $1,475 $0.19
11 24.5 7,434 $552 $894 $1,445 $0.19
12 24.5 7,682 $552 $923 $1,475 $0.19
Total 90,451 $19,449 $0.22

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 104
Site #7 Central Library Parking Lot
Recommended: Charging, solar PV
Additional: Potential for assigned vehicles to use other charging stations or plug in to a wall outlet Site Description
The Central Library is located at 2031 Bancroft Way, as shown in Figure 23. Only one light-duty vehicle is parked at this location. No public EV parking is planned for this site. Available area provides substantially more solar PV potential required to offset EV fleet charging needs. If solar PV is deployed for fleet support only, BES is not recommended due to small system size.

Figure 23: Aerial View of the Central Library
Recommendations
To meet the near-term needs of light-duty fleet vehicles:
 One dual-head Level 2 charger is recommended at this facility.  New electrical service with a main breaker rated minimum of 60A. o A 100A main would accommodate a potential future additional charger (one dual-head Level 2), if needed.

Optionally, the single vehicle at this site could charge using the DCFC recommended for the Corp Yard, at available Level 2 chargers at other City facilities or at nearby public charging or charge onsite using an outdoor wall outlet (Level 1 charging), or a combination of these options. Solar PV would not be needed for EV charging but could provide benefit to the building electrical load.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 105
Solar PV Siting and Generation Potential – Central Library Parking Array
Location
Gross Area
Identified
(SF)
Array Area
(SF)
Number of
PV Modules
(-)
DC Power
(kW)
Peak AC
Output
(kW)
Total
Generation
(kWh)
A 3,060 1,126 63 18.8 15.0 25,908
Total 3,060 1,126 63 18.8 15.0 25,908
Value of Solar PV to Battery Electric Storage for EV Charging: B-10SX-Brilliant 100 Rate - Central Library Parking Lot Month
Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Value of
Demand
($)
Value of
Energy
($)
Total Value
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 0.4 49 $6 $7 $13 $0.27
2 0.5 62 $7 $9 $17 $0.27
3 0.6 105 $8 $13 $21 $0.20
4 0.7 126 $9 $15 $24 $0.19
5 0.7 145 $9 $18 $27 $0.18
6 0.7 163 $10 $31 $41 $0.25
7 0.7 156 $9 $30 $39 $0.25
8 0.7 138 $9 $26 $35 $0.25
9 0.6 109 $8 $20 $29 $0.26
10 0.5 83 $7 $13 $20 $0.24
11 0.4 55 $6 $9 $14 $0.26
12 0.4 42 $5 $7 $12 $0.27
Total 1,234 $291 $0.24
Value of Solar PV to Building: A-10SX-Brilliant 100 Rate - Central Library Parking Lot Month
Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Demand
Costs
Avoided
($)
Energy Costs
Avoided
($)
Total Costs
Avoided
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 8.4 975 $113 $149 $262 $0.27
2 11.0 1,235 $147 $186 $333 $0.27
3 12.1 2,108 $163 $259 $422 $0.20
4 13.4 2,523 $179 $309 $488 $0.19
5 13.8 2,906 $185 $352 $537 $0.18
6 14.2 3,253 $191 $621 $812 $0.25
7 14.0 3,126 $188 $599 $787 $0.25
8 13.2 2,753 $178 $523 $701 $0.25
9 12.5 2,184 $168 $405 $573 $0.26
10 10.8 1,653 $146 $252 $397 $0.24
11 8.4 1,109 $113 $172 $284 $0.26
12 7.4 848 $100 $132 $231 $0.27
Total 24,674 $5,828 $0.24

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 106
Cost of EV Charging: B-10SX-Brilliant 100 Rate - Central Library Parking Lot Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
1 0.8 105 $0 $16 $16 $0.16
2 0.8 95 $0 $15 $15 $0.16
3 0.8 105 $0 $16 $16 $0.16
4 0.8 101 $0 $16 $16 $0.16
5 0.8 105 $0 $16 $16 $0.16
6 0.8 101 $0 $18 $18 $0.17
7 0.8 105 $0 $18 $18 $0.17
8 0.8 105 $0 $18 $18 $0.17
9 0.8 101 $0 $18 $18 $0.17
10 0.8 105 $0 $16 $16 $0.16
11 0.8 101 $0 $16 $16 $0.16
12 0.8 105 $0 $16 $16 $0.16
Total 1,234 $200 $0.16

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 107
Site #8 Public Safety Building
Site Description
Recommended: Charging, solar PV
Additional: Additional charging potentially needed as police patrol/pursuit vehicles become available near the end of the decade.

The Public Safety Building is located on 2100 Martin Luther King Jr Way. The main fleet parking is in the center of the facility. The westernmost row is assigned to employee parking. Parking stalls in the middle are assigned to the Police Department and other City fleets for a total of 79 vehicles, many of which are emergency vehicles and are unlikely to transition to EVs before 2030. An additional 12 parking stalls are on the north side of the Communication Tower building. Currently, two non-emergency light-duty vehicles domicile here.

Figure 24 Public Safety Building facility detailsshows the different areas of operations and locations of electrical power infrastructure within the Public Safety Building site. Space for solar PV arrays is limited; location A is still available, but other mechanical equipment has been added to roof since this photo.

The parking lot is highly shaded and not effective for solar PV.

Figure 24 Public Safety Building facility details
This facility is equipped with a spare 70-Amp, 3-pole 480Y/277V breaker and in-ground junction boxes for future EV charging. Access to the underground boring, trenching, and repaving could be a concern as other buried conduit essential for public safety operations could be in the vicinity.

Recommendations
To meet the near-term needs of light-duty, non-emergency vehicles:
 One dual-head higher-power Level 2 charger is appropriate to charge the existing vehicles and be prepared for anticipated expansion of the EV fleet.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 108
Solar PV Siting and Generation Potential - Public Safety Building Solar PV
Array
Location
Gross Area
Identified
(SF)
Array Area
(SF)
Number of
PV Modules
(-)
DC Power
(kW)
Peak AC
Output
(kW)
Total
Generation
(kWh)
A 1,925 644 36 10.8 8.6 14,883
Total 1,925 644 36 10.8 8.6 14,883
Value of Solar PV to Battery Electric Storage for EV Charging on B-19S-Brilliant 100 Rate – Public Safety Building Month
Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Value of
Demand
($)
Value of
Energy
($)
Total Value
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 2.2 249 $47 $29 $76 $0.30
2 2.8 316 $62 $36 $98 $0.31
3 3.1 539 $69 $74 $142 $0.26
4 3.4 645 $76 $88 $164 $0.25
5 3.5 743 $79 $100 $179 $0.24
6 3.6 831 $145 $103 $248 $0.30
7 3.6 799 $144 $99 $244 $0.31
8 3.4 704 $134 $87 $221 $0.31
9 3.2 558 $116 $68 $184 $0.33
10 2.8 423 $61 $49 $109 $0.26
11 2.1 283 $46 $32 $79 $0.28
12 1.9 217 $41 $25 $66 $0.30
Total 6,306 $1,809 $0.29
Value of Solar PV to Building: B-19S-Brilliant 100 Rate – Public Safety Building Month
Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Demand
Costs
Avoided
($)
Energy Costs
Avoided
($)
Total Costs
Avoided
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 2.9 339 $64 $39 $103 $0.30
2 3.8 429 $84 $50 $133 $0.31
3 4.2 733 $94 $100 $194 $0.26
4 4.6 877 $103 $119 $223 $0.25
5 4.8 1,010 $107 $136 $244 $0.24
6 4.9 1,131 $197 $140 $337 $0.30
7 4.9 1,087 $196 $135 $332 $0.31
8 4.6 957 $182 $118 $300 $0.31
9 4.4 759 $158 $92 $250 $0.33
10 3.8 575 $82 $66 $149 $0.26
11 2.9 385 $63 $44 $107 $0.28
12 2.6 295 $56 $34 $89 $0.30
Total 8,577 $2,460 $0.29

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 109
Cost of EV Charging on B-19S-Brilliant 100 Rate – Public Safety Building Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
1 4.1 513 $0 $59 $59 $0.11
2 4.1 463 $0 $53 $53 $0.11
3 4.1 513 $0 $59 $59 $0.11
4 4.1 496 $0 $57 $57 $0.11
5 4.1 513 $0 $59 $59 $0.11
6 4.1 496 $0 $57 $57 $0.11
7 4.1 513 $0 $59 $59 $0.11
8 4.1 513 $0 $59 $59 $0.11
9 4.1 496 $0 $57 $57 $0.11
10 4.1 513 $0 $59 $59 $0.11
11 4.1 496 $0 $57 $57 $0.11
12 4.1 513 $0 $59 $59 $0.11
Total 6,036 $690 $0.11

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 110
Site #9 Civic Center (City Hall)
Recommended: Charging
Additional: Additional charging potentially needed as police patrol/pursuit vehicles become available near the end of the decade.

Site Description
The Civic Center is located at 2180 Milvia St. in the heart of downtown Berkeley. Sixteen parking stalls are assigned to City staff with a signpost in the front of each parking stall. A total of 25 light-duty vehicles are assigned to Civic Center Hall, although most park at the City’s Center Street Garage (Site #6).

Figure 25 shows the aerial view of the Civic Center facility. The building’s roof is unsuitable for solar PV based on age and condition.

Figure 25 Berkeley Civic Center aerial view and facility details

The main distribution panel is in the basement of the building across from the parking stalls. The transformer is located on the north side of the building close to the enclosed bicycle parking area. The main distribution panel is about 55 feet from the first parking stall located on the NW corner of Civic Center.

Recommendations
To meet the near-term needs of light-duty vehicles:
 One duel-head Level 2 charger installed at the ends of the angled parking stalls opposite the existing main distribution panel will accommodate the existing vehicles those that are planned to be relocated to this domicile.

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 111
Cost of EV Charging: B-19S- Brilliant 100 Rate – Civic Center Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
1 0.5 223 $1 $27 $28 $0.13
2 0.5 201 $1 $24 $25 $0.13
3 0.5 223 $1 $27 $28 $0.13
4 0.5 216 $1 $26 $27 $0.13
5 0.5 223 $1 $27 $28 $0.13
6 0.5 216 $16 $28 $44 $0.20
7 0.5 223 $16 $29 $45 $0.20
8 0.5 223 $16 $29 $45 $0.20
9 0.5 216 $16 $28 $44 $0.20
10 0.5 223 $1 $27 $28 $0.13
11 0.5 216 $1 $26 $27 $0.13
12 0.5 223 $1 $27 $28 $0.13
Total 2,626 $396 $0.15

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 112
Site #10 Mental Health Clinic (2636/2640 Martin Luther King Jr Way) Recommended: Charging, solar PV
Additional: Both are already under construction as part of a building remodel.

Site Description
The City of Berkeley Mental Health and Human Services is located at 2636/2640 Martin Luther King Jr.

Way, as shown in Figure 26. A total of eight vehicles assigned to this location share five assigned on- street parking spaces. The main distribution panel is rated as 600 A ampacity according to drawings received from the City.

Figure 26 City of Berkeley Mental Health and Human Services parking facility details

Recommendations
Plans received from the City indicate two dual-head Level 2 chargers are planned at this site as curbside charging. One will be installed in 2020 and the other installed later, if needed. Based on the vehicle inventory and use data, sharing these chargers should accommodate the needs of the eight EVs. A 60.1 kW solar PV array that will cover the entire roof is under construction.

Solar PV Location and Generation Potential - Mental Health Clinic Solar PV
Array
Location
Gross Area
Identified
(SF)
Solar PV Array
Area
(SF)
Number of
Solar PV
Modules
(-)
DC Power
(kW)
Peak AC
Output
(kW)
Total
Generation
(kWh)
Planned 60.1 48.1 94,430
Total 12.6 10.1 94,430

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 113
Value of Solar PV to Battery Electric Storage for EV Charging: B-10SX-Brillant 100 Rate – Mental Health Clinic Month Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Value of
Demand
($)
Value of
Energy
($)
Total Value
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 10.1 1,189 $135 $181 $316 $0.27
2 11.8 1,315 $158 $198 $356 $0.27
3 12.0 2,061 $162 $255 $417 $0.20
4 12.6 2,330 $169 $289 $458 $0.20
5 12.5 2,513 $168 $311 $479 $0.19
6 12.6 2,637 $169 $496 $665 $0.25
7 12.4 2,627 $166 $496 $662 $0.25
8 12.0 2,451 $162 $461 $622 $0.25
9 12.1 2,146 $163 $396 $559 $0.26
10 11.4 1,848 $153 $281 $435 $0.24
11 10.1 1,410 $136 $217 $353 $0.25
12 9.7 1,176 $130 $181 $312 $0.27
Total 23,702 $5,634 $0.24
Value of Solar PV to Building: B-10SX-Brillant 100 Rate – Mental Health Clinic Month Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Demand
Costs
Avoided
($)
Energy Costs
Avoided
($)
Total Costs
Avoided
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 30.1 3,548 $404 $540 $943 $0.27
2 35.2 3,924 $472 $591 $1,063 $0.27
3 35.9 6,149 $482 $762 $1,244 $0.20
4 37.5 6,954 $503 $863 $1,367 $0.20
5 37.3 7,499 $501 $928 $1,429 $0.19
6 37.5 7,870 $503 $1,480 $1,984 $0.25
7 36.9 7,838 $495 $1,480 $1,976 $0.25
8 35.9 7,313 $482 $1,375 $1,857 $0.25
9 36.2 6,403 $486 $1,181 $1,667 $0.26
10 34.1 5,514 $458 $840 $1,297 $0.24
11 30.2 4,207 $405 $649 $1,054 $0.25
12 28.9 3,509 $389 $542 $930 $0.27
Total 70,728 $16,812 $0.24

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 114
Cost of EV Charging: B-10SX-Brillant 100 Rate – Mental Health Clinic Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
1 4.6 2,013 $0 $248 $248 $0.12
2 4.6 1,818 $0 $224 $224 $0.12
3 4.6 2,013 $0 $248 $248 $0.12
4 4.6 1,948 $0 $240 $240 $0.12
5 4.6 2,013 $0 $248 $248 $0.12
6 4.6 1,948 $0 $387 $387 $0.20
7 4.6 2,013 $0 $400 $400 $0.20
8 4.6 2,013 $0 $400 $400 $0.20
9 4.6 1,948 $0 $387 $387 $0.20
10 4.6 2,013 $0 $248 $248 $0.12
11 4.6 1,948 $0 $240 $240 $0.12
12 4.6 2,013 $0 $248 $248 $0.12
Total 23,702 $3,516 $0.15

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 115
Site #11 South Berkeley Senior Center
Recommended: Charging, solar PV
Additional: Charging should anticipate procurement of BEV passenger vans.

Site Description
The South Berkeley Senior Center is located at 2939 Ellis St., as shown in Figure 27. Two light-duty vehicles and three passenger vans are assigned to this facility. A strip of open ground on the north side of the property between the parking lot and the property line of the facility could be used to run the underground conduit system from the new service enclosure to the parking stalls where EV chargers can be installed. The multifaceted roof makes a solar PV installation difficult at this site; the solar PV array is sized for largest available southern exposure roof area Figure 27 South Berkeley Senior Center facility aerial view Recommendations
To meet the near-term needs of light-duty vehicles and potential near-term procurement of EV passenger vans or shuttle:
 A dual-head, high-power Level 2 charger.
 New electrical with a main breaker rated a minimum of 60A. o A 100A main will allow for future load of an additional dual-head charger, if needed.

Solar PV Location and Generation Potential – South Berkeley Senior Center Solar PV
Array
Location
Gross Area
Identified (SF)
Solar PV Array
Area
(SF)
Number of
Solar PV
Modules
(-)
DC Power
(kW)
Peak AC
Output
(kW)
Total
Generation
(kWh)
A 1,509 465 26 7.8 6.2 12,265
Total 1,509 465 26 7.8 6.2 12,265

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 116
Value of Solar PV to Battery Electric Storage for EV Charging on B-6-Brillant 100 Rate – South Berkeley Senior Center Month
Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Value of
Demand
($)
Value of
Energy
($)
Total Value
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 1.2 139 $0 $30 $30 $0.22
2 1.4 152 $0 $33 $33 $0.22
3 1.4 234 $0 $51 $51 $0.22
4 1.4 260 $0 $57 $57 $0.22
5 1.4 277 $0 $61 $61 $0.22
6 1.4 289 $0 $71 $71 $0.25
7 1.4 289 $0 $72 $72 $0.25
8 1.3 273 $0 $67 $67 $0.25
9 1.4 242 $0 $59 $59 $0.24
10 1.3 213 $0 $46 $46 $0.22
11 1.2 166 $0 $36 $36 $0.22
12 1.1 139 $0 $30 $30 $0.22
Total 2,675 $614 $0.23
Value of Solar PV to Building on B-6-Brillant 100 Rate – South Berkeley Senior Center Month
Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Demand
Costs
Avoided
($)
Energy Costs
Avoided
($)
Total Costs
Avoided
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 4.2 500 $0 $108 $108 $0.22
2 4.8 545 $0 $118 $118 $0.22
3 4.9 839 $0 $183 $183 $0.22
4 5.1 934 $0 $204 $204 $0.22
5 5.0 993 $0 $218 $218 $0.22
6 5.0 1,036 $0 $256 $256 $0.25
7 4.9 1,037 $0 $257 $257 $0.25
8 4.8 979 $0 $241 $241 $0.25
9 4.9 869 $0 $211 $211 $0.24
10 4.7 764 $0 $166 $166 $0.22
11 4.2 594 $0 $128 $128 $0.22
12 4.1 500 $0 $108 $108 $0.22
Total 9,590 $2,201 $0.23
Cost of EV Charging on B-6-Brillant 100 Rate – South Berkeley Senior Center Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
1 1.4 227 $0 $52 $52 $0.23
2 1.4 205 $0 $47 $47 $0.23
3 1.4 227 $0 $52 $52 $0.23
4 1.4 220 $0 $50 $50 $0.23
5 1.4 227 $0 $52 $52 $0.23
6 1.4 220 $0 $54 $54 $0.25
7 1.4 227 $0 $56 $56 $0.25

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 117
Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
8 1.4 227 $0 $56 $56 $0.25
9 1.4 220 $0 $54 $54 $0.25
10 1.4 227 $0 $52 $52 $0.23
11 1.4 220 $0 $50 $50 $0.23
12 1.4 227 $0 $52 $52 $0.23
Total 2,675 $627 $0.23

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 118
Site #12 North Berkeley Senior Center
Recommended: Charging, solar PV
Additional: Both are already under construction as part of a building remodel.

Site Description
The North Berkeley Senior Center is located at 1901 Hearst Ave., as shown in Figure 21. This site was under construction at the time of the site visits. City staff stated that a new load distribution panel, spare breakers, and conduits stubbed-up will be installed as part of the ongoing construction at this facility. Drawings received from the City show a dual-head Level 2 charger to be installed and a solar PV array will be added to the area shown in the figure.

Figure 28 North Berkeley Senior Center aerial view
Recommendations
The planned (or under construction) Level 2 charger and solar PV array will accommodate the charging needs of the two light-duty vehicles domiciled at this location.

Solar PV Siting and Generation Potential – North Berkeley Senior Center Solar PV
Array
Location
Gross Area
Identified (SF)
Solar PV Array
Area
(SF)
Number of
Solar PV
Modules
(-)
DC Power
(kW)
Peak AC
Output
(kW)
Total
Generation
(kWh)
Proposed 29.6 23.7 46,665
Total 29.6 23.7 46,665

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 119
Value of Solar PV to Battery Electric Storage for EV Charging on B-10SX-Brillant 100 Rate – North Berkeley Senior Center Month
Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Value of
Demand
($)
Value of
Energy
($)
Total Value
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 1.8 217 $25 $33 $58 $0.27
2 2.2 240 $29 $36 $65 $0.27
3 2.2 376 $29 $47 $76 $0.20
4 2.3 432 $30 $53 $84 $0.19
5 2.3 477 $31 $59 $89 $0.19
6 2.3 481 $31 $90 $121 $0.25
7 2.2 474 $29 $89 $119 $0.25
8 2.2 445 $30 $84 $113 $0.25
9 2.2 393 $30 $72 $102 $0.26
10 2.0 329 $27 $50 $77 $0.23
11 1.8 257 $25 $40 $64 $0.25
12 1.7 199 $23 $31 $54 $0.27
Total 4,319 $1,022 $0.24
Value of Solar PV to Building: B-10SX-Brillant 100 Rate – North Berkeley Senior Center Month
Peak Solar PV
Power
Generated
(kW)
Total Solar PV
Generation
(kWh)
Demand
Costs
Avoided
($)
Energy Costs
Avoided
($)
Total Costs
Avoided
($)
Average
Value of
Solar PV
Energy
($/kWh)
1 18.0 2,125 $242 $323 $565 $0.27
2 21.1 2,352 $283 $354 $637 $0.27
3 21.5 3,687 $289 $457 $746 $0.20
4 22.3 4,230 $299 $524 $823 $0.19
5 22.4 4,673 $300 $575 $876 $0.19
6 22.4 4,712 $300 $886 $1,187 $0.25
7 21.4 4,648 $287 $875 $1,162 $0.25
8 21.6 4,358 $290 $819 $1,108 $0.25
9 21.7 3,851 $291 $711 $1,002 $0.26
10 19.5 3,226 $261 $491 $752 $0.23
11 18.1 2,522 $243 $389 $632 $0.25
12 17.1 1,952 $229 $302 $531 $0.27
Total 42,336 $10,021 $0.24
Cost of EV Charging: A-10SX-Brillant 100 Rate – North Berkeley Senior Center Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
1 1.7 367 $0 $48 $48 $0.13
2 1.7 331 $0 $43 $43 $0.13
3 1.7 367 $0 $48 $48 $0.13
4 1.7 355 $0 $46 $46 $0.13
5 1.7 367 $0 $48 $48 $0.13
6 1.7 355 $0 $69 $69 $0.19
7 1.7 367 $0 $71 $71 $0.19

East Bay Community Energy Fleet Electrification
Page | 120
Month
EV Charing
Demand
Impact
(kW)
EV Charging
Load
(kWh)
EV Charging
Demand
Costs
($)
EV Charging
Energy Costs
($)
Total EV
Charging
Costs
($)
Average Cost
of EV Energy
($/kWh)
8 1.7 367 $0 $71 $71 $0.19
9 1.7 355 $0 $69 $69 $0.19
10 1.7 367 $0 $48 $48 $0.13
11 1.7 355 $0 $46 $46 $0.13
12 1.7 367 $0 $48 $48 $0.13
Total 4,320 $655 $0.15

Kate Harrison
Councilmember District 4
Susan Wengraf
Councilmember District 6
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 25, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Harrison, Vice Mayor Wengraf, Councilmember Robinson and Mayor Arreguin
Subject: An Action Plan for Greening the City of Berkeley Fleet of Vehicles

RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Manager and Department of Public Works collaborate to create an Action Plan (“plan”), by June 2020, to aggressively accelerate the implementation of the electrification of the City’s municipal fleet and phase out fossil fuel use in municipal vehicles by 2030 with consideration of an earlier transition for light-duty passenger vehicles. The Plan should include 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 meet operational needs. An update on our progress should be reported to City Council as an information item every six months.

In the interim, the City Manager is asked to explain criteria used to purchase fossil fuel vehicles in all future staff items related to vehicle purchases with Council.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Consultant fees, if deemed desirable by the City Manager, and staff time.

BACKGROUND
The City Council declared a climate emergency on June 12, 2018. In light of this emergency and the City of Berkeley’s ongoing commitment to and investment in electric charging technology and facilities, we request that the City develop an action plan to significantly reduce the city's contribution to carbon pollution and to evaluate when electric vehicles can safely and operationally replace the vehicles in the current municipal fleet.1
Berkeley has demonstrated its commitment to reducing its vehicle emissions; The Energy Commission's Recommendations for a Fossil Free Berkeley were articulated in the Fossil Free Berkeley Report (1/23/2019):
1 In 2017, San Francisco passed an ordinance mandating that all new light-duty additions to the passenger vehicle fleet, subject to certain exemptions and waivers, be zero-emission. In addition, the ordinance specifies December 31, 2022 as a deadline for transitioning San Francisco’s entire light-duty fleet.

An Action Plan for Greening the City of Berkeley Fleet of Vehicles

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 25, 2019

o Requiring all future city government procurements of vehicles to minimize emissions, and establishing a goal and plan for transitioning the city's vehicle fleet to all electric vehicles. o Establishing a goal and plan for transitioning to 100% renewable energy for municipal operations and a community wide goal of 100% reductions by 2030. o Assessing the city's transportation vehicle needs and develop an aggressive timeline for transitioning to all electric. This assessment would include consideration of 1) Switching to lower carbon transport options such as electric cars or bicycles where possible and 2) the timing of technology development and commercialization for car batteries Additionally, on September 25, 2018, the City Council approved a contract with Cadmus Group LLC to develop a Berkeley Electric Vehicle Roadmap, a comprehensive action- based EV roadmap to speed the transition from fossil fuels to EV's in the community.

The recommendation we are proposing here would focus specifically on the COB fleet of vehicles, complementing the work of Cadmus.

The City is investing in charging stations across Berkeley such as the Center Street Garage and the North Berkeley Senior Center. At the May 14, 2019 City Council meeting, the Director of Public Works confirmed that the City has set aside $600,000 for new electric vehicle charging stations. In addition, East Bay Community Energy is working with City staff to expand charging infrastructure. Thus, we are poised to significantly expand our electric fleet.

The transportation sector accounts for over 60 percent2 of Berkeley's core greenhouse gas emissions, which are the main driver of climate change. Transitioning our city fleet of vehicles from fossil fuels to clean electricity is an important and vital component of achieving our climate goals that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality, and represent further commitment to the City’s decarbonziation obligations. A zero emissions municipal fleet will also help to inspire residents and businesses to transition to zero emissions vehicles.

The following actions are proposed to accelerate Berkeley's transition to a clean and green municipal fleet:

The City Manager in collaboration with the Department of Public Works shall create an Action Plan (“plan”) to aggressively accelerate the electrification of the City’s municipal fleet and phase out fossil fuel use in municipal vehicles by 2030.

The plan should consider:
 Criteria, safety and operational needs.
 Current available technologies.
2 Office of Energy & Sustainable Development (OESD) 2016 Community Inventory. Dec 6, 2018 Climate Action Plan Update

An Action Plan for Greening the City of Berkeley Fleet of Vehicles

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 25, 2019

 Current fleet right sizing/retirement opportunities.
 A strategy for infrastructure deployment to support the electrification of the municipal fleet. This strategy should take into consideration a long-term funding approach for EV charging infrastructure, including potential partnerships with publicly accessible charging networks and state and regional funding sources.  Consideration of the possibilities of leasing gas-powered when electric vehicles are not feasible in order to avoid obsolescence.
 A strategy to rapidly electrify the city’s fleet and to provide for the use of fossil fuel-free liquid fuels when electric vehicles are not a viable option.  Plug-in vehicles should be purchased for the municipal fleet when a cost effective, market-ready vehicle is available which matches the planned operations for that vehicle.
 Recognizing the unique needs of emergency management and first response vehicles, the plan should include a strategy to provide emergency management services with electric and fossil fuel-free vehicles wherever possible.  An assessment of the challenges or opportunities presented by different vehicle fuel types on emergency management and response and allow for exemptions where alternative vehicles are not readily available.

The Action Plan should be completed no later than June, 2020 and presented to City Council in time for the FY 2021 budget process.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Supports the goals of the COB Climate Action Plan, and Fossil Free Berkeley Report “Driving an electric car in the Bay Area reduces about 70% of the greenhouse gases produced by a conventional car.” Berkeley Office of Energy & Sustainable Development (OESD)

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Harrison Council District 4 510-981-7140
Councilmember Wengraf Council District 6 510-981-7160

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Terry Taplin
Subject: Budget Referral: West Berkeley Park Ambassadors

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council refer to the FY2023-24 budget process the funding for Park Ambassadors at San Pablo Park, Strawberry Creek Park, and Aquatic Park.

FISCAL IMPACTS
An estimated $300,000 for 2-3 part time positions for one year at each park, seven days a week, 12 hours a day, with pricing for park ambassadors estimated at $22/hour.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
West Berkeley is home to some of the finest public parks in Berkeley and all of the East Bay. San Pablo Park, Strawberry Creek Park, and Aquatic Park attract a wide array of local residents as well as residents of nearby cities coming to Berkeley to enjoy the wonderful facilities and atmospheres that each of these parks have to offer.

Unfortunately, recent years have brought an increase in shootings, vehicle break-ins, the harassment of park visitors, and the release of uncontrolled, sometimes violent dogs in on-leash park areas. The funding of Park Ambassadors at each of these parks will support the enforcement of park rules and enhance the safety of all visitors.

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

24

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin, Councilmember Harrison, and Councilmember Hahn Subject: Support for AB-1608 (Angelo Quinto Act of 2022)

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter to the state legislature in Support of Assembly Bill 1608: Independent Coroner’s Offices (Gipson).

BACKGROUND
California law currently does not require a sheriff to have any medical background or certification to assume the duties of a coroner, in contrast to independent medical examiners, who are required to be a licensed physician and surgeon duly qualified as a specialist in pathology. California is also currently one of only three states that actually allows counties to combine the offices of coroner and sheriff. All 58 counties in California have a sheriff’s department but not all have a separate coroner or medical examiner’s office. The duties of the coroner are currently combined with the sheriff’s department in 48 counties.

When the Contra Costa County Coroner’s Office ruled that the death of Angelo in December 2020 was the result of “excited delirium” – a controversial explanation typically applied when people die in police custody – it sparked a renewed debate over the validity of a medical diagnosis that is increasingly being rejected by the medical profession.

In July of 2021, the American Medical Association adopted a new policy opposing the “excited delirium” diagnosis.1 The AMA’s stated position is that the “current evidence does not support ‘excited delirium’ as an official diagnosis.” Additionally, neither the World Health Organization, nor the American Psychiatric Association, recognize this term.

AB 1608 stems from two bills, AB 1196 (Gipson) and AB 490 (Gipson), which Governor Newsom signed in light of the tragic deaths of George Floyd and Angelo Quinto.

Specifically, this bill would separate the duties of the coroner from the duties of the sheriff.
1 Cristina Mutchler, New AMA policy opposes “excited delirium” diagnosis, American Medical Association (Jun. 14, 2021), https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/new-ama-policy-opposes-excited-delirium- diagnosis.

25

AB-1608 CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022

The Berkeley City Council voted to submit a letter in support of AB 490 in 2021, prior to its passage.

AB-1608 is co-sponsored by ACLU California Action, California Faculty Association, California Families United For Justice, Justice for Angelo Quinto, The Miles Hall Foundation, Secure Justice, and the Union of American Physicians and Dentists AFSCME Local 206.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

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

The Honorable Mike Gipson
California State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0064

RE: AB 1608 (Gipson) The Angelo Quinto Act of 2022: Independent Coroner’s Offices –

SUPPORT

Dear Assemblymember Gipson,

The City Council of the City of Berkeley is proud to write in support of AB 1608, The Angelo Quinto Act of 2022: Independent Coroner’s Offices, which will separate the duties of the Coroner’s Office from the duties of the Sheriff’s Office across all counties in California. This division will strengthen the medical examination process, thereby increasing accountability and transparency by providing independent, quality, cause of death investigations.

We were also proud to support your previous bill, AB-490 (2021), to prohibit law enforcement use of restraint techniques that cause positional asphyxia, which led to the tragic killing of Antioch resident Angelo Quinto in December 2020. Quinto’s death has also led to increased scrutiny on diagnoses such as “excited delirium” that hinder accountability for law enforcement officers. Medical professionals and groups such as the American Medical Association have consistently rejected the validity of this vague diagnosis.

However, state law currently does not require a sheriff to have any medical background or certification to assume the duties of a coroner. California is also only one of three states that allow the combination of the offices of the coroner and sheriff, which perpetuates the potential for conflicts of interest in law enforcement handling the duties of the coroner. Counties like Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco have already separated the duties of the coroner from the sheriff, and they are required to be licensed physicians and surgeons duly qualified as a specialist in pathology.

This bill would help ensure that all local death investigations are conducted independently and objectively by an independent Medical Examiner’s Office that is separate from the Sheriff’s Office. We are proud to support this bill and grateful for your efforts.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Terry Taplin
Subject: Native and Drought Resistant Plants and Landscaping Policy Update

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution amending the Native Species/Bay-Friendly Landscaping Policy to require, when appropriate, the prioritization of native, non-invasive, and pollinator friendly plantings on City property.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On March 9, 2022, the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Policy Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Robinson/Taplin) to forward the item to Council with a positive recommendation. Vote: Ayes – Taplin, Robinson; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Harrison.

BACKGROUND
As of the summer of 2021, the City of Berkeley and most of California are facing exceptional drought conditions.1 The region’s drought conditions have varied annually in the past decade, but the projects for our future under climate change are clear:

California’s drought will as much as triple in severity by 2050.2 Drought conditions have escalated so radically that the East Bay Municipal Utility District asked residents to cut back on their water consumption.3 The City must plan for a future in which it operates successfully with significantly reduced water use and should begin using water more efficiently as soon as possible.

To plan for a long-term urban infrastructure that consumes water in a manner that reflects the drought conditions that we are certain to face in the next century, Berkeley can pursue a policy of only using native and drought-resistant plant materials in all City landscaping and public areas. While a relatively less significant consumer of water than residential and commercial buildings, the opportunity to save water by switching all City 1 https://www.drought.gov/states/california/county/Alameda 2 https://statesatrisk.org/california/all
3https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/04/27/east-bay-area-water-officials-declare-drought-ask-residents-to-conserve- water

26

landscaping to native and drought resistant plants is immense. In addition to requiring less watering, native plant landscaping has been shown to have higher infiltration rates of water runoff, taking in water that would otherwise be discharged into sewers and filtering toxic materials before they reach the waterfront. Native plants also provide critical food and habitat for local birds and pollinators.4 While the use of native plants would already be helpful for supporting pollinators, special consideration should also be given to the most pollinator-friendly plants. Supporting pollinators has shown to result in stronger local biodiversity.5 Furthermore, native plants that are already adapted to our local environment are more resistant to extreme weather and often do not require pesticide and fertilizer use.6
In 2008 and 2009, the City Council partnered with the Parks and Recreation Commission to develop the “Bee Habitats and Pollinator-Friendly Vegetation Policy” by way of Resolution No. 64,376-N.S. as well as the “Bay-Friendly Landscaping Policy for City Projects” policy in Resolution No. 64,507-N.S. These policies encouraged the use of native, pollinator-friendly vegetation in city projects and plantings that reduce waste and maintenance costs, respectively. While these policies have been useful in the decade-plus that they’ve been in effect, it is time for Berkeley to update its planting policies to renew our commitment to creating a drought-resistant and pollinator-friendly urban ecology that uses native plants as much as reasonably possible.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Increased use of native, drought resistant, and pollinator-friendly plants on City property will make major strides towards increased urban biodiversity, reduced water usage in the maintenance of public lands, and increased resiliency of plantings on City property to extreme weather conditions.7

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Staff time and cost differences related to the exclusive use of native and drought- resistant plantings in City landscaping work. Increased use of native and drought resistant plants may lead to reduced landscaping maintenance work related to a reduced need for pesticides, fertilizers, and extra watering that non-native plants often require.8 Furthermore, the overall reduced maintenance requirements of native plantings will save the City on landscaping labor costs.

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Resolution No. 64,376-N.S.
4 https://law.pace.edu/sites/default/files/Team%20%233%20Brief.pdf 5 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/plantsanimals/pollinate/?cid=NRCS143_022326 6 https://perma.cc/FK54-B7L7
7 https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/require-use-of-native-plants/ 8 https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/require-use-of-native-plants/

3. Resolution No. 64,507-N.S

4. Easy to Grow East Bay Native Plant List

5. California Pollinator Plants

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

REQUIRING NATIVE & DROUGHT RESISTANT PLANTS IN ALL CITY

LANDSCAPING
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley and the State of California are facing historic drought conditions that are projected to worsen over the course of the next half century or more, and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley must adapt its operations to future climate conditions characterized by excessive dryness, extreme weather, and declining populations of pollinators and other local wildlife, and
WHEREAS, the use of native plants in City landscaping offers an opportunity for less water-intensive landscaping throughout Berkeley, and
WHEREAS, native plants intake and filter toxic water runoff more easily than non-native landscaping, and
WHEREAS, native plants provide critical food and habitat for native animals and pollinators that are at risk under future climate conditions, and WHEREAS, pollinator-friendly plants provide a natural boost to local biodiversity, and WHEREAS, the costs of native plant landscaping may reduce overall landscaping costs due to a decreased need for pesticides and fertilizers, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 64,376-N.S. can be updated with biodiversity goals.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the guidelines for Native Species/Bay- Friendly Landscaping Policy For Enhanced Biodiversity on City Property described in Exhibit A are hereby be adopted, and Resolution No. 64,376-N.S. is rescinded.

EXHIBIT A

GUIDELINES FOR NATIVE SPECIES/BAY-FRIENDLY

LANDSCAPING POLICY FOR ENHANCED BIODIVERSITY ON CITY PROPERTY Policy Statement: To combat the critical loss of biodiversity in Berkeley and globally due to modern development and climate change, the City shall use the following guidelines for planning and implementing native plant and Bay-Friendly landscape maintenance and vegetation planting improvements on City property (City parks, open spaces, and Right-of-Way planting strips) in order to enhance biodiversity.

1. Use of native plant species that support bees and other lifeforms and are appropriate to our environment when possible; use a diversity of the flowering shrubs, perennials, herbs, grasses, and small trees that bloom successively to produce the leaves, pollens and nectars that attract bees, other pollinators, insects, birds, and leaf-chewing creatures with an emphasis on those that support local species and ecosystem; and to the greatest extent possible, use plants and trees that are low to moderate in their allergenic properties, low water use and drought-tolerant, and higher in insect and bird habitat potential. No species that are invasive in the Berkeley climate shall be used.

1. Control non-native plants and weeds that crowd out native plants that provide higher habitat value for biodiversity.

2. Strive to plant pollinator-friendly vegetation in areas of lower user density away from children's play area, restrooms, picnic tables, barbeques, refuse containers, and other park facilities where bee sting risk is greater due to normal visitor use patterns.

3. For street trees, the City seeks to plant Bay Area and California native tree species that support other life forms where available growing space and/or native conditions exist, including streets, open space, parks, and Right-of-Way planting areas. In both dense urban areas and park spaces with irrigated turf, where very little native soil and water conditions remain, a diverse range of appropriate tree species shall be used that meet the following requirements: that perform successfully in small planting sites with poor soils and above and below ground constraints; that attain appropriate sizes at maturity; that exhibit safe and manageable growth patterns; that enhance biodiversity; that are drought tolerant; that build climate resilience into the urban forest; and that contribute to the City’s Climate Action Goals.

Aquatic Outreach Institute
Easy to Grow East Bay Native Plant List (by Habitat)
Developed by Glen Schneider and Lyn Talkovsky
Permission to use provided by The Watershed Project

Grassland Plants (plants for sunny sites with clay or silty soils)

Trees and Shrubs

Baccharis pilularis Coyote Bush
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Perennials, Bulbs and Grasses

Achillea millefolium Yarrow
Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort
Aster sp. Native Aster
Astragalus sp. Native Vetch(es)
Bromus carinatus California Brome
Camissonia ovata Sun Cups
Chloragalum pomeridianum Soap Lily
Dichelostemma capitatum Blue Dicks
Epilobium canum California Fuschia
Festuca idahoensis Idaho Fescue
Deschampsia caespitosa Coastal Hair Grass
Danthonia californica Wild Oat Grass
Elymus glaucus Blue Wild Rye
Grindelia hirsutula Gum Plant
Iris douglasiana Douglas Iris
Melica californica Melic Grass
Nassella lepida Foothill Needlegrass
Nassella pulchra Purple Needlegrass
Phacelia californica California Coast Phacelia
Perideridia kelloggii Kellogg’s Yampah
Ranunculus californicus Buttercup
Sisyrinchium bellum Blue-eyed Grass
Triteleia laxa Ithuriel’s Spear
Wyethia augustifolia Mule’s Ears

Annuals

Clarkia amoena Farewell to Spring
Eschscholzia californica California Poppy
Hemizonia sp. Tarweed(s)

Aquatic Outreach Institute
2 Scrubland Plants (plants for sites with hot sun and well-drained soils)

Trees and Shrubs

Adenostema fasicularis Greasewood or Chamise
Arctostaphylos glandulosa
ssp. glandulosa Eastwood Manzanita
Arctostaphylos manzanita
ssp. manzanita Manzanita
Arctostaphylos tomentosa
ssp. crustacea Manzanita
Artemisia californica Coastal Sagebrush
Baccharis pilularis Coyote Bush
Ceanothus thyrsiflorus California Lilac/Blue Blossom
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Rhamnus californica Coffeeberry

Perennials and Grasses

Epilobium canum California Fuchsia
Eriogonum roseum Rosy Buckwheat
Eriogonum nudum Buckwheat
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden Yarrow
Festuca idahoensis Idaho Fescue
Mimulus aurantiacus Sticky Monkeyflower

Woodland Plants (plants for sites with part sun to full shade)

Trees

Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple
Aesculus californica California Buckeye
Quercus kelloggii Black Oak
Quercus lobata Valley Oak
Umbellularis californica California Bay

Shrubs

Corylus cornuta californica California Hazelnut
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Holodiscus discolor Ocean Spray
Physocarpus capitatus Ninebark
Ribes sanguineum var. glutinosum Pink Flowering Currant Rhamnus californica Coffeeberry
Rosa gymnocarpa Wood Rose
Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry

Aquatic Outreach Institute
3 Symphoricarpos mollis Creeping Snowberry
Sambucus mexicana Blue Elderberry
Perennials and Grasses

Aquilegia formosa Red Columbine
Aristolochia california Dutchman’s Pipe
Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort
Aster sp. Native Aster
Bromus carinatus California Brome
Chlorogalum pomeridianum Soap Lily
Clematis lasiantha Pipestems
Cynoglossum grande Hound’s Tongue
Dryopteris arguta Coastal Wood Fern (deep shade)
Iris douglasiana Douglas Iris
Festuca californica California Fescue
Fragaria vesca Woodland Strawberry
Heracleum lanatum Western Lace Plant
Lonicera hispidula Honeysuckle
Melica torreyana Torrey Melic Grass
Polystichum munitum Western Sword Fern
Polypodium glycyrrhiza Licorice Fern
Rubus ursinus Western Blackberry
Sanicula crassicaulis Pacific Sanicle
Scrophularia californica Bee Plant
Stachys sp. Hedge Nettle
Urtica urens Dwarf Nettle

Riparian Plants (plants for sites with year-round moisture in the soil):

Trees

Acer macrophylum Big Leaf Maple
Aesculus californica California Buckeye
Alnus rhombifolia White Alder
Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore
Sequoia sempervirens Coastal Redwood
Umbelularium californica California Bay

Shrubs

Cornus stolonifera Creek Dogwood
Rosa californica California Rose
Salix lasiolepsis Arroyo Willow
Symphoracarpos albus Snowberry

Perennials, Rushes, Sedges and Ferns

Aquatic Outreach Institute
4 Aralia californica Elk Clover
Athyrium felix-femina Lady Fern
Carex tumulicola Berkeley Sedge
(Perennials… cont’d)

Equisetum sp. Horsetail
Helenium puberculum Sneezeweed
Juncus effusus Rush
Mimulus guttatus Creek Monkeyflower
Rubus parviflorus Thimble Berry
Rubus ursinus California Blackberry
Vitis californica California Grape
Woodwardia fimbriata Giant Chain Fern

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin, Councilmember Wengraf, Councilmember Kesarwani, and Councilmember Droste
Subject: Community Policing: Flex Team for Problem-Oriented Policing Under the Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) Model and Other Applicable Community Engagement Models

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager the establishment of a Flexible Team for Problem-Oriented Policing in the Berkeley Police Department, following the SARA model and other applicable community engagement models, including Berkeley Ceasefire.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On March 7, 2022, the Public Safety Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Wengraf/Kesarwani) to send the item, with a positive recommendation, to council to be considered as part of the reimagining public safety process. Vote: All Ayes

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Staff time.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Establishing a Flexible Team for Problem-Oriented Policing is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

By November 31, 2021, there were 47 confirmed reports of gunfire in Berkeley, with 19 solved cases. By the same time in 2020, there had been 37 confirmed gunfire reports with 23 solved cases. This represents a 22% Year-To-Date decline in the clearance rate for gun-related criminal investigations, from 62% in 2020 to 40% in 2021.

According to the City’s 2020/First Half of 2021 Crime Report, there were:
● 40 confirmed shooting incidents in 2020 versus 28 in 2019. ● 38 confirmed shooting incidents in the first nine months of 2021 versus 26 incidents in the same timeframe in 2020.
● Auto Thefts increased 64% from 492 cases in 2019 to 805 in 2020. Auto Thefts increased 52% from 339 cases in 2020 to 514 during the same timeframe in 2021.

27

[Flex Team] CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022

● Aggravated Assaults increased 20% in 2020, with 210 reports, compared to 175 in 2019. Aggravated Assaults decreased 13% in 2021, with 96 reports, compared to 111 in the same timeframe in 2020.
● Burglaries increased by 3% in 2020, with 797 reports as compared to 771 reports in 2019. Residential burglaries increased by 8% while commercial burglaries decreased by 7%.

While Part One Violent Crime decreased by 13% (81 crimes) and Part One Property Crimes decreased by 11% (738 crimes), the aforementioned categories of crimes saw marked increases.1 Despite these trends, 87% of all reported uses of force in 2021 resulted in neither injury nor complaint of pain. From October 2020 to September 2021, searches conducted by BPD saw a 44.23% yield rate, recovering 135 weapons and 31 firearms.

According to the Berkeley Police Department, Berkeley had 34 accidental deaths in 2020, of which 10 were from fentanyl (29.4%) whereas in Alameda County there were 732 accidental deaths, of which 138 were from fentanyl (18.8%). These deaths do not include poly drug incidents where fentanyl was present with other drugs.

In October 2021, the Berkeley Police Department had 149 officers on the roster, not including officers out due to injury or other types of leave. This is a lower level than in 2017-2018, when the department experienced a “staffing crisis.”2 In 2017, the Department was forced to disband its Special Enforcement Unit (known elsewhere as a Crime Suppression Unit) due to insufficient staffing.

In response to an increase in gun violence and certain categories of property crimes, the Berkeley City Council voted unanimously in June 2021 to fund a Bike Patrol for South and West Berkeley in the Fiscal Year 2022 budget. In November 2021, the City Council voted unanimously to fund the establishment of a Berkeley Ceasefire program in the Annual Appropriations Ordinance (AAO #1). The SARA model can be used to supplement bike patrols and a future Ceasefire program with long-term investigations, flexible interventions, and community engagement to solve serious crimes and improve community relations.

BACKGROUND
According to a quasi-experimental study in Boston conducted by Cook et al (2019), the higher clearance rate for gun homicides (43%) relative to nonfatal shootings (19%) was “primarily a result of sustained investigative effort in homicide cases made after the first 1 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/10_Oct/Documents/2021-10- 19_Item_01_BPD_Annual_Report_pdf.aspx
2 Raguso, E. (2021, Oct. 20). Officials vow to increase police staffing, with available officers at historic low. Berkeleyside. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2021 from https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/10/20/berkeley-police- staffing-increase-city-council-crime-report.

[Flex Team] CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022

2 days.”3 This suggests that long-term investigations can improve the clearance rate for solving violent crimes.

Contemporary proposals for police reform include best practices for law enforcement officers focused on solving crimes. The National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR)’s New and Emerging Models of Community Safety and Policing Report, submitted to the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force,4 includes the following description of the SARA model for Problem Oriented Policing (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment):

The Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) model was created in Virginia in 1987 to facilitate the problem-oriented policing procedure. The cornerstone of this model is a priority on outcomes; the model outlines four steps that are necessary for a proper police response to problems within their jurisdictions. To ensure proper implementation, a significant facet of this method is that officers must be ready to build trust between the community and the police department through the establishment of interpersonal relationships.

Scanning. This step consists of pinpointing and then triaging repeated issues that necessitate a response from the police department. Frequent problems that occur in the community are given priority. Relevant outcomes of the problem are matched to their corresponding cause. For example, examining which properties in a given area have the highest number of calls for service in a year or given time period is an important initial step in the SARA model.

Analysis. Here, law enforcement officers examine the root causes of the issue, community sentiment regarding the problem, and gather needed contextual data. This step also involves assessing the status quo response to the problem and identifying the shortcomings of that strategy. Ultimately, the cause of the problem and potential solutions are determined during this phase.

Response. Officers utilize collected data to ascertain potential intervention strategies. When determining strategies, a thorough review of implemented interventions in different areas with comparable issues is critical. Once a strategy is selected, clear goals must also be established. Execution of the chosen plan is the last part of this step.

Assess. After a plan is implemented and officers have attempted to address a problem, the police department must analyze the efficacy of their strategy. Continued evaluation of the intervention is necessary to guarantee lasting success. Alternatives or additions to the strategy are considered as well.

Many police departments have incorporated the SARA model into their interventions. In San Diego, the police department reported that a trolley station was the location of gang fights, violent crimes, and narcotic activity. A squad of officers collected information to show the local transit board that the design of the station contributed to crime. Based on 3 Cook, P. J., Braga, A. A., Turchan, B. S., & Barao, L. M. (2019). Why do gun murders have a higher clearance rate than gunshot assaults?. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(3), 525-551. 4 https://berkeley-rps.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/New-and-Emerging-Report-10.29.21-FNL-2.0.pdf

[Flex Team] CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022

the information provided by the officers, the transit board agreed to provide funds to redesign the station.

The Berkeley Police Department has a long history of targeting high-level crimes with a Special Investigations Bureau (SIB) and Special Enforcement Unit (SEU). The Special Investigations Bureau dates back to the early 1960s, when the unit was only staffed with 2 officers. The operations and community partnerships of the Special Investigations Bureau evolved over the years in response to local concerns and regional trends. At its peak in 1989, the SEU was staffed with 25 officers, including a Drug Task Force (DTF).

The DTF was disbanded in 2016.In the 1960s, the Special Investigations Bureau was responsible for coordinating investigations into gambling, prostitution, alcoholic beverage, and narcotic offenses that were prevalent in the community in that era. In 1968, the BPD Special Investigations Bureau logged over 2,000 narcotics arrests. This was a year that saw collaboration with the State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement (Formerly known as Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, which disbanded in 2012), and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Control (the predecessor agency to the Drug Enforcement Agency).

In the 1970s, the Special Investigations Bureau quantified their successes by the street value of narcotics seized. In the early 70’s nearly every year the Bureau would seize roughly a million dollars in illicit narcotics. In 1983, Annual Crime Reports begin to highlight the growing presence of open-air drug markets with individuals congregated on street corners selling narcotics. In 1987 the Annual Report mentions the rapid increase in the use and sales of crack cocaine, most notably in South and West Berkeley. In April of 1987, the Berkeley Police Department’s Drug Task Force (DTF) was created. During this time, nearly all of the actions taken by DTF were based on calls from citizens. The Special Investigations Bureau augmented DTF by serving over 110 search warrants. 1989, the department completed a reorganization, which now included the Special Enforcement Unit, which contained a SEU commander, Special Investigations Bureau which had a Sergeant and six detectives, a Narcotics Admin Unit which contained an Inspector (supervisor) and two detectives, and two DTF teams, both containing a Sergeant and six officers. This unit was fully staffed with 25 Berkeley Police Officers.

In the early 1990s, the SEU began to focus on drug “hot spots” wherein their approach was more narrowly focused. The Unit also now moved more towards a community- based response with the creation of the Citizens Against Rock Sales (C.A.R.S) which was a successful partnership with community members seeking an improved quality of life. 1993 SEU members partnered with Community and Merchant Associations to help take back their communities, this included cleaning up the streets, and graffiti abatement. This effort helped mobilize and unify the community and police efforts to confront these challenging times.

In the 2000s, the Special Investigations Bureau (SIB) detectives began relying on confidential reliable informants to further narcotic investigations. By 2001, the SEU was staffed with one Lieutenant, one administrative Sergeant, three field Sergeants, and nine officers for a total of 14 BPD Officers, down from the 25 officers in 1989.

[Flex Team] CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022

After 2010, the SEU further reduced staffing to a Lieutenant, one officer in Narcotics Admin, SIB Sergeant and three detectives, DTF Sergeant, and four officers for a total of 11 officers. During the next seven years, the SIB would continue to target the drug dealers, and work to disrupt the supply of narcotics that were feeding Berkeley drug users. However, detectives quickly adapted to the reality that drug dealers would often be involved in other crimes that would further exploit unsuspecting victims, often in various types of fraud. By 2015, the DTF only had one Sergeant and two officers, and the narcotics admin was staffed with one officer. Eventually the DTF was disbanded in 2016. In 2017 the last SIB Sergeant and two detectives were loaned to robbery, property crimes, and sex crimes as SIB was completely disbanded. After this, the entire SEU was no longer in existence.

The Berkeley Police Department currently does not have staffing resources to conduct special investigations to address violent crime and drug trafficking as it did before, despite shootings and drug overdoses rising. By using problem-oriented policing models in NICJR’s New and Emerging Models of Community Safety and Policing Report, including the SARA model and a Ceasefire program, the City of Berkeley can increase its capacity to address violent crime with compassionate and data-driven best practices that are responsive to the manifold needs of a diverse community in the 21st Century.

Pursuant to Article VII Section 28(c) of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, the City Manager has the authority to establish a Flex Team for Problem-Oriented Policing in the Berkeley Police Department.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

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

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Harrison
Subject: Budget Referral to Fund Mayoral Budgetary Analyses Pursuant to Charter Article VI. Section 24

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the FY 23 and FY 24 Bi-annual Budget Process $100,000 to provide the Mayor, on behalf of the Budget Committee and Council, the means to hire a certified public accountant throughout both fiscal years to provide supplemental assistance in fulfilling budgetary obligations pursuant to the Charter.

CURRENT SITUATION, EFFECTS, AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION Neighboring cities such as San Francisco and Oakland have adopted the budgeting best practice of employing independent authorities or agencies to prepare budgets, including estimating revenues. Such services, whether provided by the Budget and Legislative Analyst in San Francisco, or outside consultants such as Harvey Rose in cities like Oakland, are not designed to undermine city administrative estimates and budgets, but rather provide supplemental information that empowers the legislative body to make well-informed decisions.

The Berkeley City Council currently lacks such a tool while at the same time its engagement with the budget process has increased significantly due to the establishment of the Budget and Finance Policy Committee in 2018. The Council’s budgetary obligations are set forth in Charter Article X.

Fortunately, the City Charter already explicitly provides the Mayor with the authority and duty to employ accounting services to perform such functions and duties pursuant to Article VI. Section 24. While the Mayor already conducts an annual audit using a certified public accountant, the Council has not yet provided the resources to conduct more detailed independent budget analyses. This budget referral expands funding for this Charter section.

BACKGROUND
Independent fiscal institutions, also known as independent budget offices, are considered a best practice by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

28

Budget Referral to Fund Mayoral Budgetary Analyses Pursuant to Charter Article VI.

Section 24

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
Development “promote greater fiscal transparency and accountability; and raise the quality of public debate on fiscal policy.”1
Independent budget analysis is a fundamental principle across federal, state, and local legislative bodies. Since 1975, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office has supported the Congressional budget process through “independent analyses of budgetary and economic issues” and in support of the principles of objectivity and transparency.

Similarly, for 75 years the California Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has provided fiscal and policy advice to the Legislature. Specifically, the LAO provides budget control, special reporting, and revenue and expenditure forecasting support services to the legislature.

The City and County of San Francisco Charter provides for a Budget Analyst, and since 1971, the Office has been managed by Harvey M. Rose, CPA. The Office is a joint venture partnership between Harvey M. Rose Associates, Debra A. Newman and Associates, Louie & Wong LLP Certified Public Accountants.2 The Budget Analyst's responsibilities include reviewing proposed annual budgets and report recommendations to the Board of Supervisors Finance and Labor Committee, and performing special fiscal analyses as requested.

In 2021, Oakland City Council also retained Harvey Rose to assist with budget preparation and analysis, including:
 Overview of General Purpose Fund revenues and expenditures, including multi‐year budget‐to‐actual analysis of all General Purpose Fund departments;  Review of the Non‐Departmental budget;
 Detailed review of the proposed Police and Fire Department’s budgets, including a review of overtime. Additionally, seek out and report on best practices to control overtime expenditures;  Analysis of major areas of budget year increases, including increases in the number of FTEs over the past three years;
 Analysis of positions, vacancies, and salary savings;  Analysis of potential assistance from federal and state sources of COVID‐19 related economic relief;
 Review of key non‐General Purpose funds and the allowable uses of unspent monies, including, but not necessarily limited to the Development Services Fund, Measure BB, and Measure Z funds;
 Review of the City Administrator’s revenue projections for the upcoming two‐year budget;  Review and comparative analysis of the City’s Finance Department structure;  Analysis of contract contingencies, administrative projects, and other unspecified accounts;  Analysis of encumbrance and reserve amounts; and
 Analysis of multi‐year projects.
1 “Recommendation of the Council on Principles for Independent Fiscal Institutions, Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate OECD Senior Budget Officials, February 2014, https://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/OECD-Recommendation-on-Principles-for-Independent-Fiscal- Institutions.pdf.
2 Budget & Legislative Analyst, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, https://sfbos.org/budget-legislative- analyst.

Budget Referral to Fund Mayoral Budgetary Analyses Pursuant to Charter Article VI.

Section 24

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
 Review the City’s Five Year Financial Forecast and provide revenue estimates for two proposed ballot measures (an expansion of the Transient Occupancy Tax and the establishment of a tax on transportation network companies and delivery network companies).3 Such analyses bolster confidence in budgeting and legislative decision-making processes.

The Berkeley City Charter Article VI. Section 24 explicitly provides the following obligation to the Mayor and Council to examine and report on the city’s books, records and reports related to the Auditor, revenues, and expenditures. The Mayor already employs a certified public accountant to audit the City’s books, records, and reports, but existing Council funding does not include a more detailed budgetary analysis akin to those completed in San Francisco and Oakland:

Section 24. Mayor to have City’s books examined
The Mayor shall employ, for a stipulated compensation, at the beginning of each fiscal year, a certified public accountant, who shall examine, at least once during the year, the books, records and reports of the Auditor and of all officers and employees who receive or disburse City moneys, and the books, records and reports of such other officers and departments as the Mayor may direct, and annually, after the close of each fiscal year, make a report of such examination. Such report shall be presented to the Mayor and copies thereof shall be filed with the Auditor, City Manager and City Clerk. Such accountant shall have unlimited privilege of investigation, to examine under oath or otherwise all officers, clerks and employees of the City, and every such officer, clerk and employee shall give all required assistance and information to such accountant, and submit to them for examination such books and papers of their office as may be requested, and failure to do so shall be deemed and held to be a forfeiture and abandonment of their office.

The Council shall provide for the payment of the services of such accountant.

Currently, in preparing the budget, the Council relies on revenue forecasts and other budget information from the Finance Department, which may be appropriately conservative for administrative functions, but which may not always provide the Council with the full range of budgetary and legislative responsibilities vested to it by the City Charter.

Even though the Council is already obligated by the Charter to budget Mayoral office or other funds for such purposes, given that such analyses are an issue of citywide concern it is in the public interest to consider to consider this matter, at least initially, through a referral to the budget process.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Impact on General Fund of $100,000. However, the benefit of multiple budgetary analyses could generate budgetary efficiencies.
3 “Report On Independent Budget And Finance Analysis From: Council President Fortunato Bas Recommendation: Receive A Special Presentation And Report By Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC On Their Independent Budget And Finance Analysis Of The Proposed Fiscal Year 2021-2023 Budget For The City Of Oakland,” Oakland City Council, May 5, 2021, https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4937156&GUID=43F7BF0F-E398-425F-B634- DB8D9DD7FFE7&Options=&Search=.

Budget Referral to Fund Mayoral Budgetary Analyses Pursuant to Charter Article VI.

Section 24

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No discernable impact.

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

Councilmember Sophie Hahn
City of Berkeley, District 5
1 CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Author), Mayor Arreguín and Councilmembers Wengraf and Taplin (Co-Sponsors)
Subject: Berkeley Public Library Foundation’s 19th Annual Authors Dinner Event:

Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $600 per Councilmember, including $500 from Councilmember Wengraf, $200 from Mayor Arreguín, and $200 from Councilmember Hahn, to the Berkeley Public Library Foundation’s 19th Annual Authors Dinner event with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council office budget of Councilmember Hahn, and additional funds from Councilmembers who would like to contribute.The Berkeley Public Library Foundation raises funds to support and enhance facilities, programs, and services of the Berkeley Public Library.

Recent gifts to the Foundation helped the library redesign its services during the pandemic, outfit a culinary tool lending library, and complete needed capital improvements to the downtown Central Library.

BACKGROUND
Two and a half decades ago, the Berkeley Public Library Foundation incorporated as a nonprofit dedicated to raising private funds necessary to turn the Berkeley Public Library into the library our community envisioned. In 2003, The Library Foundation hosted its first Authors Dinner, created in part to showcase completion of the expansion and renovation of the Central Library.

Since that time, the Authors Dinner has been one of Berkeley’s marquee annual fundraising events, featuring up to 30 prominent and diverse local authors.

On Saturday, May 21, 2022, the Berkeley Public Library Foundation will host its first in-person Authors Dinner since the start of the pandemic. The Authors Dinner is part of the Foundation’s yearlong 25th Anniversary Campaign which was launched earlier this year with the video Library Love Letters 25th Anniversary Edition, featuring BPL librarian Michael Kwende, authors Robert B. Reich, R.C. Barnes, Annie Barrows, and Berkeley High School alumnus musicians Owen Storey & Max Nierlich. Additional information can be found at: https://bplf.org and https://app.mobilecause.com/e/l3ffqQ?vid=qgkby .

29

2 FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
A total of up to $5,400 from the Mayor and Councilmembers’ discretionary budgets.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
This item is consistent with the City’s vision on sustainability. The Berkeley Public Library is the locus of the original “share economy,” lending books, media, computers, and tools that might otherwise be purchased for one-time or occasional private use. BPL also provides green, energy efficient, modern neighborhood spaces for the Berkeley community to gather and find education, resources, and enjoyment.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Sophie Hahn, (510) 981-7150
Attachments:
1: Resolution

3 RESOLUTION #####-N.S.

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT

TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE WHEREAS, the Berkeley Public Library Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to amplifying public investment in the Berkeley Public Library to make a great public library extraordinary, through its 2022 Authors Dinner event, seeks funds to subsidize library services for the City of Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, the provision of such services would fulfill the following municipal public purpose:

The Berkeley Public Library Foundation raises funds to ensure the excellence of the buildings, services, collections, and programs at all five locations of Berkeley Public Library; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budget up to $600 per office shall be granted to the Berkeley Public Library Foundation, through its 2022 Authors Dinner Event, to support the Berkeley Public Library and its programs.

Councilmember Sophie Hahn
City of Berkeley, District 5
1 CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Author), Councilmember Terry Taplin (Co-Sponsor), Mayor Jesse Arreguín (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Kate Harrison (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Kala Art Institute 2022 Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including $500 from Councilmember Taplin, $250 from Councilmember Hahn and $250 from Mayor Arreguín, to the Kala Art Institute, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, to support Art Kala 2022, an exhibition, auction, and benefit to support Kala’s artistic, cultural, and educational programs, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council office budget of Councilmembers Hahn and Taplin, Mayor Arreguín, and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

BACKGROUND
Founded in 1974, by Archana Horsting and Yuzo Nakano, as an international residency program rooted in the local community and a forum for ideas, Kala Art Institute encourages artistic experimentation. Over four decades -- from a garage studio with one etching press and a single hot plate to a 15,200 sq. ft. facility in the historic West Berkeley Heinz building -- Kala has grown steadily in the breadth of its offerings and in the size of its operation, yet remains true to its mission to be a workshop of ideas and to engage the community through exhibitions, education, and public programs.

In 2009, Kala dynamically expanded its facility providing new opportunities for artists and the community. With improved studios, project rooms, classrooms, and a 2,200 sq. ft. light-filled gallery with an accessible street level location, Kala is working to maximize its capacity to serve the community as a vital center for artistic experimentation.

Kala serves 35,000 individuals yearly through artist residencies, exhibitions, and community workshops. In addition, Kala’s Artists-in-Schools program provides curriculum-based visual arts education to children in neighboring public schools in Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland. Overall, their constituents range from 5 to 95 years old and represent a diverse group of participants including local residents, visiting artists from all state, country, and abroad – representing an international spectrum of

30

2 backgrounds and experience. Bay Area artists represent 85% of participants in Kala’s artist residencies.

Kala Art Institute’s mission is to help artists sustain their creative work over time through its Artist-in-Residence and Fellowship Programs, and to engage the community through exhibitions, public programs, and education.

The heart of Kala’s mission as a vital, California art-making hub is supporting artists and engaging the community. Kala offers professional facilities to those working in and across print and digital media, new media, and performance. Artists at Kala are encouraged to work across disciplines, produce innovative artwork of the highest quality, and are given total freedom to realize their artistic vision using media that span the Gutenberg to digital eras. Kala offers access to equipment, time, and space to cultivate creative projects. Kala’s studios provide tools for printmaking, photography, video, installation, and digital media. Kala fosters a fresh approach to experimentation, as artists investigate the interface of digital work, work made by hand, work made in the studio, performance-based work that engages the community and everything in between. A spirit of exchange and education is nurtured through all Kala’s community programs.

Kala’s creative community builds bridges between the intense art-making environment of the Kala studios, located in the historic Heinz ketchup factory in Berkeley and life outside the studio in Kala’s immediate neighborhood and far beyond. Additionally, Kala is committed to offering quality art education to the general public and public school children through its on-site and online program of classes and workshops, summer programs and its Artists-in-Schools program, established in 1991, providing multipleweek artist-led instruction to students in neighboring East Bay public schools.

Celebrating Kala’s 48th year, Art Kala 2022 brings together Kala’s creative community and features the inventive and meaningful art being made in the Bay Area. Art Kala 2022 with Honorary Auction Chairs Donna Westerman and Russ McClure will take place April 7th - May 22nd 2022, honoring Leah Rosenberg; VIP Print by Christine Wong Yap. Art Kala will take place at: Kala Gallery, 2990 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, California 94702.

More information can be found at: http://www.kala.org/gallery/spring-gala-and-auction/.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
A total of up to $4,500 from Councilmembers’ discretionary budgets.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
This item is consistent with the City’s vision on sustainability.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Sophie Hahn, (510) 981-7150

3 Attachments:
1: Resolution

4 RESOLUTION #####-N.S.

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM

THE OFFICE EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FOR A GRANT TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE WHEREAS, Kala Art Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping artists sustain their creative work over time through its Artist-in-Residence and Fellowship Programs, and to engaging the community through exhibitions, public programs, and education; and
WHEREAS, since 1974, Kala has grown steadily in the breadth of its offerings and in the size of its operation, yet remains true to its mission to be a workshop of ideas and to engage the community through exhibitions, education, and public programs; and WHEREAS, Kala serves 35,000 individuals yearly through artist residencies, exhibitions, and community workshops, and through its Artists-in-Schools program provides curriculum-based visual arts education to children in neighboring public schools in Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland; and
WHEREAS, Kala’s constituents range from 5 to 95 years old and represent a diverse group of participants including local residents, visiting artists from all state, country, and abroad – representing an international spectrum of backgrounds and experience – with Bay Area artists representing 85% of participants in Kala’s artist residencies; and WHEREAS, Art Kala 2022 brings together Kala’s creative community and features the inventive and meaningful art being made in the Bay Area, honoring Leah Rosenberg; VIP Print by Christine Wong Yap; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by $500 from Councilmember Taplin, $250 from Councilmember Hahn and $250 from Mayor Arreguín and any funds, up to $500 per Council Office Budget, from the Mayor and other Councilmembers shall be granted to the Kala Art Institute to support Art Kala 2022 and to celebrate Kala’s 48th year helping artists sustain their creative work in Berkeley and beyond.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmembers Susan Wengraf & Sophie Hahn (authors) Mayor Arreguín and Councilmember Bartlett (co-sponsors)
Subject: Proclamation in Honor of Holocaust Remembrance Day

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Holocaust Remembrance Day Proclamation for the 19th Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day program to be held virtually Thursday, April 28th from 2:00 – 3:00 PM.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley has sponsored the Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day program since 2002 to honor Holocaust survivors and their families. It reminds all of us of the terrible consequences when hate goes unchecked. The program nourishes, strengthens and renews our belief in the strength of the human spirit. All community members are welcome to attend.

This year’s program honors Survivor Adela Mayer who will speak about her experiences as a young child in Czechoslovakia. The Soprano, Heather Klein and Pianist, Jason Manlapaz will perform. Poet, Peter Dale Scott and Tessa Rudnick, granddaughter of Survivor Jean Greenstein will also contribute. A candle lighting by Survivors, in memory of lost family and friends, frames the hour-long program.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
N/A

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

31

Proclamation in Honor of Holocaust Remembrance Day CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022
BERKELEY’S 19TH ANNUAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY
Whereas, The Holocaust was the state-sponsored, systematic genocide of more than six million European Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945; and
Whereas, The Holocaust was a crime of shocking inhumanity, targeting for persecution and death, Jews and also Roma and Sinti people, those with mental illness and physical disabilities, homosexuals, Slavs, Poles, and members of anti-Nazi networks from throughout Europe; and
Whereas, This year’s guiding Holocaust Remembrance theme of “Memory, Dignity, and Justice” emphasizes the importance of recording history and the act of remembering, which brings dignity and justice to those whom the perpetrators of the Holocaust intended to destroy; and
Whereas, False information on the Holocaust continues to deny and trivialize the truth of what took place during the Nazi regime and, for the benefit of past, present and future generations, we must never forget the appalling crimes of the Holocaust; and Whereas, The purpose of Berkeley’s Holocaust Remembrance Day is to join together as a community to remember the Holocaust, honoring survivors who chose to rebuild their lives in Berkeley and the Bay Area, and to reflect on the need to respect all people.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Jesse Arreguín, Mayor of the City of Berkeley, does hereby proclaim April 28, 2022 as
Holocaust Remembrance Day
In the City of Berkeley, in memory of those who perished and in honor of the survivors as well as the rescuers and liberators.

BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the City of Berkeley is committed to never forgetting the events of the Holocaust and to working actively to combat anti-Semitism, racism, bigotry, and hatred in all forms, and to the promotion of human rights and dignity for all.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Wengraf (author) Mayor Arreguín (co-sponsor) Councilmember Hahn (co-sponsor)
Subject: Budget Referral: City of Berkeley Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the Fiscal Year 2023/2024 budget process a request for $6,000 annually to fund the City of Berkeley’s Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day Program.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
A total of $12,000 over two years.

BACKGROUND
For the past 19 years, The City of Berkeley has sponsored a Holocaust Remembrance Day Program. Participation in this important annual program has exceeded expectation, with attendance at in-person events in excess of 200 people (room capacity) for the past several years. The event has historically been funded through private donations, volunteer labor and the generosity of council members who have given from their discretionary accounts, creating an unstable and unpredictable future for the program.

This past year, the program was viewed virtually because the pandemic prevented in person assembly. The popularity of the program was clearly demonstrated by 750 viewers.

This budget recommendation is for continuing annual support of the City of Berkeley’s Holocaust Remembrance Day Program in the modest amount of six thousand dollars each year for the next two years. Those funds will be leveraged by volunteer labor and donations, guaranteeing the continuance of the City's program through 2024. It is critical that this program continue, as the memory of the systematic genocide of Jews, political prisoners, homosexuals, and the disabled fades from our collective memory. The history of the Holocaust needs to be remembered in order to safeguard the future.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
In compliance with City’s environmental sustainability goals

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Wengraf Council District 6 510-981-7160

32

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Rigel Robinson (Author) and Councilmember Kate Harrison (Co-Author), Mayor Jesse Arreguin (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Lori Droste (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Budget Referral: Downtown Berkeley BART Station Modernization Design

RECOMMENDATION
Refer $250,000 to the June 2022 budget process to contribute to funding Bay Area Rapid Transit’s preliminary design engineering work for the Downtown Berkeley BART Station Modernization project.

BACKGROUND
The Downtown Berkeley Station Modernization Plan creates a community-based vision for modernizing the station with a high standard of design excellence, functionality and cost effectiveness. It identifies and prioritizes long-term improvements to guide future investment in the station, including fixing and upgrading core existing station and system facilities to keep the station functioning well, and other proposed upgrades to improve station circulation, access and customer experience.

The plan recommends a set of comprehensive improvements developed through a collaborative planning process, including:
 Placemaking, aesthetics, and customer experience: Reopening the public restroom, adding new signage and public art, overhauling ceilings/walls/floors  ADA access and circulation: Replacing elevators with accessible elevators, adding an additional escalator, upgrading handrails and guardrails, installing bicycle access channels and storage
 Safety and security: Improving lighting and sightlines, replacing fare gates  System and facility upgrades: Repairing and replacing worn or outdated materials, improving the PA system and emergency/life safety systems The Downtown Berkeley BART station serves not only as a transit hub for BART and AC Transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians, but also as the gateway to the City of Berkeley and UC Berkeley campus. It provides great benefits to the City by decreasing our transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and bringing commuters, customers, and tourists into our downtown.

33

Budget Referral: Downtown BART Modernization CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022

BART held two public in-station outreach events at the Downtown Berkeley BART Station to acquire riders’ opinions on the modernization of the Downtown Berkeley station. They were held on September 30, 2015 during the evening commute (4-7 pm) and on October 1, 2015 during the morning commute (7-10 am). BART riders and members of the public could learn about the modernization study, fill out a survey, talk to BART planning staff and provide comments. In addition, between September 30 and October 19, 2015, BART collected feedback through an online survey. BART received 1,031 responses and 357 comments during this period. Based on the free-response comments, the top suggestions were 1) improving access with more entrances and fare gates, 2) increasing signage, 3) improving station cleanliness and smell, 4) adding more elevators, escalators, and stairs, and 5) increasing safety.1 The Downtown Berkeley survey results conveyed that the majority of BART riders prioritize function, service, and cleanliness over aesthetics, and would like to see investment in improving these areas before other modernization occurs. Many BART riders who took the survey would like to see improvements in accessibility, which include adding more entrances, elevators, stairs, and escalators. In addition, many would like to see signs added at the ground level indicating train departure times. Many other additional comments were also taken into consideration, including requests for better bike accessibility and wheelchair access, and more public art in the station.

Significant development in the neighborhood and the renovations of the street-level station plaza and adjoining Shattuck Avenue all provide an impetus to modernize the station. Stakeholders provided consistent input that they want improvements that will “refresh” the station, creating a brighter and more functional environment that reflects the Berkeley community while retaining the station’s unique architectural elements. 1 https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/DT%20Berkeley%20Station%20Mod%20Survey%20Results %20Final.pdf

Budget Referral: Downtown BART Modernization CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022

In April 2017, the Final Report of the Downtown Berkeley BART Station Design Concept and Modernization Plan was released.2 The plan’s strategy for the Downtown Berkeley BART Station establishes a long-term vision for station improvements. Its framework of priorities and improvements can be used as a guide for selection and implementation as BART’s scheduling and available funding permit. Preliminary design work should begin on selected Phase 1 improvements in the near future to enable their implementation in a timely manner.

At present, the work is at approximately 15% design. The next step would bring the project to 35% design, which would include an updated total project cost estimate.

Current estimates suggest that a complete preliminary design would cost $2.5M. This budget referral recommends contributing $250K towards that goal. Ultimately, BART will need to secure additional funding to achieve 100% design.

By providing funding to support preliminary design engineering work, the City of Berkeley can demonstrate to BART and to the Alameda County Transportation Commission our continued interest in seeing the project completed as soon as possible, and our eagerness to work with regional partners on our shared transportation goals.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$250,000 from the General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Encouraging public transit use is a critical strategy to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions. BART trains are 100% electric, with over 97% of that power coming from zero and low-carbon sources including solar and hydro energy. BART is increasing its use of low-carbon, zero-carbon and renewable energy sources, with the goal of transitioning to 100% carbon-free by 2035 and 100% renewable energy by 2045. Just one commuter using BART each weekday instead of driving saves over 360 gallons of gas and 7,000 pounds of CO2 in a year. The Downtown Berkeley BART Station Modernization project is critical both to renew aging infrastructure in the BART Station and to attract new potential riders who may today be drivers.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rigel Robinson, (510) 981-7170
Angie Chen, Legislative Assistant
2 https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART-DTB_FinalReport_April2017.pdf

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Rigel Robinson
Subject: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to the General Fund and Grant of Such Funds for the Suitcase Clinic

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including $500 from Councilmember Robinson, to the Suitcase Clinic to fund homeless outreach supplies and in-clinic expenses.

BACKGROUND
The Suitcase Clinic is a UC Berkeley student organization and volunteer community that offers free health and social services to underserved populations, including unhoused Berkeley residents. It also strives to educate students, engage in community organization, and support public policy efforts that address homelessness in the local community. Their volunteers provide weekly services such as haircutting, footwashing, wellness activities, and more while outside partners provide professional services such as medical, psychiatry, and chiropractic.

The Suitcase Clinic is raising funds to allow them to continue providing supplies and resources to the unhoused community, including:
 Street/encampment outreach supplies: solar panels and power banks, charging cables, hygiene supplies (floss, toothbrushes, toothpaste, deodorant, shampoo, etc.), sleeping pads, sleeping bags, tents, vitamins, over-the-counter medications such as ibuprofen, first aid supplies (band-aids, bandages, neosporin, antibacterial wipes, etc.), and clothing.
 In-clinic expenses: supplies to support our weekly Haircutting, Footwashing, Health Ed, Food Security, Housing/Legal, Massage, and Wellness services.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No General Fund impact; $500 is available from Councilmember Robinson’s Office Budget discretionary account.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No impact.

34

Suitcase Clinic: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022

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

Suitcase Clinic: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022

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

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT

TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE WHEREAS, Councilmember Rigel Robinson has surplus funds in his office expenditure account; and
WHEREAS, a California non-profit tax-exempt corporation, the Suitcase Clinic, seeks funds in the amount of $500 to continue providing material supplies, services, and resources to the Berkeley unhoused community; and
WHEREAS, the provision of such funds would fulfill the municipal public purpose of allowing all Berkeley residents, regardless of their means, to have access to basic supplies and services that are fundamentally necessary for human dignity.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the $500 relinquished by Councilmember Robinson from his Council Office Budget and any other Councilmember who wishes to contribute shall be granted to the Suitcase Clinic to fund their outreach work.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Rigel Robinson, Councilmember Kate Harrison, and Councilmember Sophie Hahn
Subject: Support for AB 2050: Ellis Act Reform

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter to Assemblymember Alex Lee, Senator Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks in support of Assembly Bill 2050, which would require five years of ownership before a rental property owner can proceed with an eviction pursuant to the Ellis Act, with exemptions for small landlords.

BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 2050 aims to prevent speculator evictions by prohibiting rental property owners from invoking the Ellis Act to remove a building from the housing market, unless ownership has been established for at least five continuous years. This bill would additionally prohibit a building owner from proceeding with another Ellis Act eviction at a property acquired within 10 years of filing an Ellis Act notice at a different property. AB 2050 provides exemptions for “mom and pop” landlords.

The Ellis Act, passed in 1985, establishes a landlord’s unconditional right to remove their property from the rental market, evicting the tenants without just cause. Its original purpose was to protect small landlords who wanted to leave the rental market without selling their property. However, the legislation’s reach has been gradually expanded by a series of court decisions, ruling that owners could invoke the Act not only to keep the units vacant, but also to convert the units to ownership or demolish them altogether.1 This has paved the way for increased housing speculation and displacement across California. One report found that 51 percent of Ellis Act evictions in San Francisco were filed within a year of ownership being established, suggesting that these property owners had no intent of being in the rental business in the first place.2 From 1986 to 2020, 457 units have been taken off the rental market in the City of Berkeley using the Ellis Act.3 Across California, the Ellis Act has resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of rent-controlled units — 5,400 in the Bay Area and 27,600 units in the City of Los Angeles alone.4
1 https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/59/1241.html 2 https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/report-claims-speculators-are-behind-most-ellis-act-evictions-in-sf/ 3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XuB6da_XKg4QRiUtARLilQuAStGEdjMk/view 4 http://www.cesinaction.org/MapofEllisActEvictions.aspx

35

Support for AB 2050: Ellis Act Reform CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022

The City of Berkeley declared a local state of emergency and passed the COVID-19 Emergency Response Ordinance in March 2020, banning evictions except for those pursuant to the Ellis Act or necessary for the health and safety of the residents. An amendment prohibiting Ellis Act evictions will go into effect on April 1, 2022.5 Council also voted to endorse AB 854, a previous version of this bill.6 The City should reaffirm its support for Ellis Act reform by endorsing AB 2050 and sending the attached letter of support to Assemblymember Alex Lee, Senator Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No impact.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rigel Robinson, (510) 981-7170
Angie Chen, Legislative Assistant
Attachments:
1: Letter of support
2: Bill text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2050 5 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/rent/newlaws/
6 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/Documents/2021-03- 30_Supp_1_Reports_Item_28_Rev_Robinson_pdf.aspx

Support for AB 2050: Ellis Act Reform CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022

April 12, 2022
The Honorable Alex Lee
Assemblymember, 25th District
State Capitol, Room 6330
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: City of Berkeley’s Support for Assembly Bill 2050 Dear Assemblymember Alex Lee,
The Berkeley City Council would like to convey our full support for Assembly Bill 2050, which would take a critical step towards stopping speculator evictions and preserving California’s dwindling stock of rent-controlled units.

The Ellis Act has been exploited as a major loophole that allows property owners to evict tenants without just cause. It has paved the way for increasing levels of housing speculation, resulting in the loss of rent-controlled units and the displacement of our most vulnerable tenants. Here in Berkeley, the Ellis Act has been invoked to remove over 450 rent-controlled units from the market.

AB 2050 would close the speculator evictions loophole and ensure that the Ellis Act is used for its original purpose, not to evict for profit. Ellis Act reform is long overdue, and a crucial measure to protect our state’s tenants from speculators. The Berkeley City Council supports AB 2050 and thanks you for taking the lead on this important issue.

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

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Rigel Robinson, Councilmember Sophie Hahn Subject: Support for SB 649: Affordable Housing Local Tenant Preference

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter to Senator Dave Cortese, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, and Senator Nancy Skinner in support of Senate Bill 649, which would enable the creation of local tenant preferences policies for affordable housing.

BACKGROUND
Rising housing costs and scarcity of affordable housing in California have caused substantial displacement in low-income communities of color. Displacement has significantly impacted the City of Berkeley, especially our Black community. Between 2000 and 2015, Alameda County lost more than 1,900 low-income Black households, with losses concentrated in the flatlands of Oakland and Berkeley.1 Between 1990 and 2018, Berkeley lost 49% of its Black population.23 Large portions of South and Southwest Berkeley are vulnerable to displacement or are undergoing active gentrification, as higher income, largely white residents move into neighborhoods once occupied by low-income residents of color.4
Local tenant preference policies prioritize affordable housing for applicants with some connection to the affordable housing unit’s location, helping to reduce displacement and enable previously displaced residents to return. Currently, these policies could be in violation of fair housing laws, disqualifying projects with tenant preferences from receiving funding through bonds, tax credits, or other public funds. SB 649 would allow local governments and developers to enact local tenant preferences for lower-income households at risk of displacement.

SB 649 can mitigate the housing and homelessness crisis by providing greater access to planned affordable housing to vulnerable community members, stabilizing gentrifying neighborhoods, and more efficiently allocating scarce resources. This law would enable the City of Berkeley to more directly combat future displacement and remedy past displacement, especially for the Black community in South and West Berkeley. 1 UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project and California Housing Partnership, “Rising Housing Costs and Re-Segregation in Alameda County.”
2 Bay Area Census -- City of Berkeley -- 1970-1990 Census Data.” 3 “U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts.”
4 “SF Bay Area – Gentrification and Displacement – Urban Displacement.”

36

Support for SB 649: Affordable Housing Local Tenant Preference CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No impact.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rigel Robinson, (510) 981-7170
Valerie Nguyen, Intern
Attachment:
1: Letter of support
2: Bill text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB649

April 12, 2022
Senator Dave Cortese
Senator, 15th District
State Capitol, Room 6640
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: City of Berkeley’s Support for Senate Bill 649
Dear Senator Dave Cortese,
The Berkeley City Council would like to convey our full support for SB 649 to allow for local tenant preferences in affordable housing.

Rising housing costs have caused significant displacement in low-income communities, particularly among residents of color. Between 2000 and 2015, Alameda County lost more than 1,900 low-income Black households, with losses concentrated in the flatlands of Oakland and Berkeley. Between 1990 and 2018, Berkeley lost 49% of its Black population. Large portions of our city are vulnerable to displacement or are undergoing active gentrification.

Current and previously displaced residents competing for scarce affordable housing can struggle to access units in their neighborhoods, undermining the efficacy of affordable housing in addressing gentrification and displacement. However, without state authorization, fear of violating fair housing laws can prevent local governments and housing developers from enacting local tenant preferences for those most at risk of displacement.

By authorizing local tenant preferences, SB 649 would be a valuable tool to mitigate gentrification and the displacement of vulnerable low-income households in our city and communities across California.

The Berkeley City Council supports SB 649 and thanks you for continuing to act on this important issue.

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

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Rigel Robinson
Subject: Support for AB 2147: Jaywalking Decriminalization

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter to Assemblymember Phil Ting, Assemblymember Friedman, Senator Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks in support of AB 2147, related to jaywalking enforcement.

BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 2147 amends the California Vehicle Code to decriminalize certain actions taken by pedestrians when no immediate hazards are present. Specifically, this bill:
 Prohibits officers from stopping pedestrians for violating traffic signals (including crossing on red and yellow lights or on the incorrect turn signal) when no immediate hazard is present.
 Prohibits officers from stopping pedestrians for violating pedestrian crossing signals when no immediate hazard is present.
 Prohibits officers from stopping pedestrians for crossing outside of an intersection when no immediate hazard is present.
 Prohibits officers from stopping pedestrians for walking on the right-hand side of the road when no immediate hazard is present.
 Prohibits officers from stopping pedestrians for violating local jaywalking ordinances when no immediate hazard is present.
 Still requires pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers to exercise due care for safety.

Jaywalking laws were originally created by auto industry-aligned special interest groups during the rise of mass automobile ownership. In response to an increasing number of pedestrian fatalities, many cities tried to impose built-in speed limits on automakers.

Automakers fought back, lobbying for jaywalking regulations that would shift responsibility away from drivers and onto pedestrians, thus allowing cars to continue traveling at unsafe speeds.1
Today, pedestrians in California can face fines up to $250 for crossing the street outside of a crosswalk — a higher fine than most parking and traffic citations. Existing law operates under the false assumption that jaywalking is inherently dangerous, even when no vehicles are present, and unfairly and severely penalizes pedestrians. 1 https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

37

Support for AB 2147: Jaywalking Decriminalization CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022

The prevalence of jaywalking is a reflection of the car-centric way in which we design our streets. Automobile traffic is consistently prioritized over bicyclist and pedestrian safety, resulting in a hostile walking environment with wide multi-lane streets, large distances between crosswalks, pedestrian beg buttons, and inadequate sidewalks. The lack of pedestrian-friendly infrastructure is even more apparent in low-income neighborhoods of color, which have suffered decades of neglect. Pedestrians should not be penalized for common behavior that is a direct result of cities’ failure to consider the needs of non-drivers.

Furthermore, the enforcement of jaywalking laws is inequitable in many jurisdictions.

Across California, police departments stop Black pedestrians at a significantly higher rate than white pedestrians. Black pedestrians are 4.3 times more likely to be cited for jaywalking in San Diego, 3.7 times more likely in Los Angeles, and 5 times more likely in Sacramento. This pattern held true in the City of Berkeley in 2019-2020 with the limited data available through RIPA, with Black residents being about 4.5 times more likely than white residents to be stopped. However, this past year, the rates of stops between white and Black residents were almost equivalent.

Assembly Bill 2147 adjusts AB 1238 from the previous legislative cycle, which was vetoed by Governor Newsom. In his veto message, the Governor acknowledged the issue with jaywalking offenses being used as a pretext to stop people of color, but refused to sign the bill out of fear that it would inadvertently increase the already high numbers of pedestrian deaths in California.2
In order to ensure that this bill does not jeopardize the safety of pedestrians, AB 2147 decriminalizes, rather than legalizes, jaywalking. The bill amends the current vehicle code to instruct police to not enforce jaywalking provisions, “unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power” rather than repealing the provisions entirely. AB 2147 also makes it clear that pedestrians must still exercise “due care for their safety.” Thus, this bill prevents police from using jaywalking laws to make arbitrary citations while still ensuring the safety of pedestrians.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No impact.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rigel Robinson, (510) 981-7170
2 https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/AB-1238-1082021.pdf

Support for AB 2147: Jaywalking Decriminalization CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022

Katie DaQuino, Intern
Attachments:
1: Letter of support
2: Bill text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2147

Support for AB 2147: Jaywalking Decriminalization CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022

April 12, 2022
The Honorable Phil Ting
Assemblymember, 19th District
State Capitol, Room 8230
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: City of Berkeley’s Support for Assembly Bill 2147 Dear Assemblymember Phil Ting,
The Berkeley City Council writes to express our support for Assembly Bill 2147, which would decriminalize safe walking patterns and decrease the use of pedestrian violations as a pretext for police to stop people of color. AB 2147 is a critical bill that maintains pedestrian safety while protecting minorities from a common form of preemptive police stop.

Jaywalking laws were put in place to shift blame from drivers to pedestrians during the proliferation of car ownership. These laws make it harder for pedestrians to navigate cities that are primarily built for cars, with inadequate crosswalks and other pedestrian infrastructure. There is no threat in crossing the street when no vehicles are approaching; yet, the enforcement against such violations continues to put pedestrians at risk of steep fines.

Moreover, police have often used jaywalking laws to discriminate against Black pedestrians, resulting in a pattern of Black pedestrians being stopped at higher rates than white pedestrians for these minor violations of the vehicle code.

The Berkeley City Council is in full support of AB 2147, as it will reduce discriminatory stops and make navigating cities as a pedestrian more accessible.

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

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Rigel Robinson (Author), Mayor Jesse Arreguin (Co- Sponsor), Councilmember Kate Harrison (Co-Sponsor), and Councilmember Lori Droste (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Support for SCA 2: Article 34 Repeal

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution supporting SCA 2 to repeal Article 34 of the California Constitution, eliminating the required city-wide vote for construction of publicly-funded low-income housing projects. Send copies of the Resolution to Senators Ben Allen, Scott Wiener, Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.

BACKGROUND
Senate Constitutional Amendment 2, introduced by Senators Ben Allen and Scott Wiener, would repeal Article 34 and enable local governments to expedite the process of developing or acquiring low-income housing projects without the delays of electorate approval. Given the drastic shortage of affordable housing in Berkeley and across California, SCA 2 would remove a major barrier to vital housing development. In 2019, the City of Berkeley endorsed SCA 1, a previous version of this bill.1 Article 34 defines “‘low rent housing project’ as any development composed of urban or rural dwellings, apartments, or other living accommodations for persons of low income.

Furthermore, Article 34 states that a “‘person of low income’ shall mean persons or families who lack the amount of income which is necessary (as determined by the state public body developing, constructing, or acquiring the housing project) to enable them, without financial assistance, to live in decent, safe and sanitary dwellings, without overcrowding.”
Initially added to the California Constitution in 1950 through the Proposition 10 ballot initiative, Article 34 is a legislative relic of a racially discriminatory era. Today, it continues to serve as an institutional obstacle to the construction of new affordable public housing intended to benefit low-income individuals and reduce displacement.

The attached resolution reaffirms the City of Berkeley’s endorsement of the proposed constitutional amendment. Copies of the resolution shall be sent to Senator Nancy 1 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/04_Apr/Documents/2019-04- 02_Item_11_Support_for_SCA-1.aspx

38

Support for SCA 2: Article 34 Repeal CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022

Skinner, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, and the bill’s authors, Senators Ben Allen and Scott Wiener.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Consistent with the City’s climate and environmental goals.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rigel Robinson, (510) 981-7170
Jarrold Esteves, Intern
Attachments:
1: Resolution in support of SCA 2
2: Bill text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SCA2

Support for SCA 2: Article 34 Repeal CONSENT CALENDAR April 12, 2022

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

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SCA 2, THE REPEAL OF ARTICLE 34 WHEREAS, housing is a human right, and;
WHEREAS, development of publicly-funded affordable housing enables cities to further the public good by expanding access to this basic right, and; WHEREAS, under current law, the cumbersome requirement of electoral approval impedes the capacity of municipalities to develop adequate numbers of affordable housing units, and;
WHEREAS, restrictions on affordable housing reinforce intergenerational income inequality and perpetuate systems of economic disenfranchisement which disproportionately impact minority communities, and;
WHEREAS, construction of new affordable housing empowers cities to both correct historic inequalities and address contemporary shortages when they arise, and; WHEREAS, SCA 2 (Allen and Weiner) will repeal Article 34 of the California Constitution, thereby removing an antiquated procedural obstacle to progress.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley hereby endorses SCA 2 and the constitutional amendments which will result from its passage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley may be listed as a supporter of said constitutional amendments by the official proponents of the measure; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution will be sent to Senator Nancy Skinner, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, Senator Ben Allen, and Senator Scott Wiener.

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

SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA MATERIAL
Meeting Date: March 22, 2022
Item Number: 27
Item Description: 27.Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities
Supplemental/Revision Submitted By: Berkeley City Auditor Jenny Wong “Good of the City” Analysis:

The analysis below must demonstrate how accepting this supplement/revision is for the “good of the City” and outweighs the lack of time for citizen review or evaluation by the Council.

During the March 22 City Council meeting, the Berkeley City Auditor shall present the key findings and recommendations from our most recent audit, Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities. The audit takes a historic look at BPD’s budget, and explores why BPD’s overtime costs have increased in recent years.

The attached supplemental item consolidates the audit findings for City Council’s consideration, including BPD’s reliance on overtime to achieve minimum staffing, how officers frequently exceed overtime limits, the growth of security work for outside parties, among other findings. Council leadership may consult the supplemental item as an abridged resource and summary of the 54-page audit in their discussions with the City Auditor.

Accepting the supplemental item is for the “good of the City” given notable interest from the public and press on police conduct and overtime, and given City leadership interest in accelerating the proposed audit recommendations. Additionally, the time-sensitivity of the supplemental item outweighs the lack of time for citizen review or evaluation, as it will complement and streamline communication about item number 27 which will be discussed during the March 22 City Council meeting.

Consideration of supplemental or revised agenda material is subject to approval by a two-thirds roll call vote of the City Council. (BMC 2.06.070) A minimum of 42 copies must be submitted to the City Clerk for distribution at the Council meeting. This completed cover page must accompany every copy.

Copies of the supplemental/revised agenda material may be delivered to the City Clerk Department by 12:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Copies that are ready after 12:00 p.m. must be delivered directly to the City Clerk at Council Chambers prior to the start of the meeting.

Supplements or Revisions submitted pursuant to BMC § 2.06.070 may only be revisions of the original report included in the Agenda Packet.

39

Berkeley Police: Improvements
Needed to Manage Overtime and
Security Work for Outside Entities
Berkeley City Council Meeting
March 22, 2022

Overview
• Objectives
• Background and Findings
• Recommendations
• Police Department Response
Berkeley Police:

Improvements
Needed to
Manage
Overtime and
Security Work for
Outside Entities

Why we did this audit:
• In our 2021 Audit Plan, we identified the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) budge
t as an area needing objective and independent analysis of how limited City funds are allocated.
• Overtime is the biggest reason why BPD spent more general funds than budgeted fo
ur out of the past five years.
• Interest from the Berkeley community in Police Overtime.

This report does not assess the adequacy of BPD’s staffing levels or service delivery model.

Objectives:

1. What policing functions does BPD’s use of overtime cover?

2. Does BPD regularly assess minimum staffing levels to meet community needs?

3. Is BPD’s management of overtime sufficient to reduce excessive uses of over
time?

4. Are BPD’s agreements to provide work for outside entities transparent and in acc
ordance with the law?

What we found
• Finding 1: Overtime is used to maintain
mini
mum patrol staffing set by BPD.
• Finding 2: Minimum staffing levels in BPD’s
Pa
trol Unit could cause unnecessary
overtime if not regularly updated.
• Finding 3: Officers work excessive overtime,
inc
reasing health and safety risks.
• Finding 4: BPD has no contracts for overtime
sec
urity with outside entities.

• Background: Analysis of the BPD budget
• Finding 1: Overtime is used to maintain
mini
mum patrol staffing set by BPD.
• Finding 2: Minimum staffing levels in BPD’s
Pa
trol Unit could cause unnecessary
overtime if not regularly updated.
• Finding 3: Officers work excessive overtime,
inc
reasing health and safety risks.
• Finding 4: BPD has no contracts for overtime
sec
urity with outside entities.

BPD receives more General Fund money than any other
department in the City.
• In FY 2020, BPD Received 36 Percent of
the City’s General Fund Budget.
• Police spending relative to total
go
vernment expenditures remained at a
relatively constant level.
21%
10%
19%
30%
35%
36%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Fiscal Year
Source: FY 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 Adopted City Budgets See page 6 of the report for details.

BPD Budget as a Percent of General Fund Budget

Most Of BPD’s Budget Comes From The General Fund.

Source: FY 2020 Revised Budget Data.

See Page 6 and Appendix I of the report for details.
• The General Fund made up 93
per
cent of the BPD Budget in
FY 2020.

General Fund ,
93%
Grants Funds
1%
Special Revenue Funds
2%
Parking Meter Fund
4%
BPD FY 2020
Budget
$76,161,558
BPD Funding Sources, FY 2020

BPD’s budget grew significantly, from $21.9 million in
1970* to $75 million in 2020.
• With a fringe benefit rate at 105.6% of an
o
fficer’s salary, it is always cheaper to have an
officer work overtime rather than hire a new
officer.
*Adjusted to 2020 purchasing power
Source: City of Berkeley compensation matrices
See page 7 of the report for details.

Police and Fire Composite Fringe Benefit Rates,
2016 and 2020

BPD has exceeded its General Fund budget four out of the last five years.
• General Fund savings
from
other departments
cover BPD overages.
$62.6 $65.7 $68.3 $67.6 $71.0
$63.1 $66.4 $66.4 $69.6
$75.8
-$0.5 -$0.7
$2.0
-$1.9 -$4.8
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Amount Budgeted Actual Amount Spent Difference
Source: BPD presentation to the Budget and Finance Committee on October 22, 2020. The values are not adjusted for inflation. See Page 9 and Appendix I of the report for details.

BPD General Fund Budget and Actual Expenditures
FY 2016-2020 in Millions of Dollars

Overtime is the primary cause of BPD overspending, with increased costs each year.
• BPD’s spending on overtime has
co
nsistently exceeded the $2.25
million budgeted annually over
the past ten years.
$2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.3 $2.4
$4.6
$5.5
$6.4 $6.3
$7.6
-$2.4
-$3.2
-$4.2 -$4.1
-$5.3
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Amount Budgeted for Overtime Actual Amount Spent on Overtime Difference BPD Overtime Budget and Actual Expenditures
FY 2016-2020 in Millions of Dollars
Source: BPD presentation to the Budget and Finance Committee on October 22, 2020. The values are not adjusted for inflation. See page 10 of the report for details.

Backfilling for vacancies and absences cost nearly $1.3 million, or 24 percent of the BPD’s total overtime costs.
• BPD relies on overtime to achieve
the
sworn staffing levels set by the
department for regular duty
operations.

Source: BPD Payroll Data. See Figure 8 of the report details.

BPD’s Top 10 Overtime Expenditures, FY 2020
Total expenditures = $5,153,176

What we found
• Background: Analysis of the BPD budget
• Finding 1: Overtime is used to maintain
minim
um patrol staffing set by BPD.
• Finding 2: Minimum staffing levels in BPD’s
Pa
trol Unit could cause unnecessary overtime if
not regularly updated.
• Finding 3: Officers work excessive overtime,
incr
easing health and safety risks.
• Finding 4: BPD has no contracts for overtime
secu
rity with outside entities.

Vacancies contribute to BPD’s reliance on overtime
• Sworn officer positions across BPD’s
div
isions have continuously been
underfilled since 2015.
• According to BPD, patrol teams often
do
not meet daily minimum staffing
without overtime.

Source: Employment and vacancy data from the Berkeley Human Resources Department This chart is based on year end actuals. We did not analyze vacancies before 2015. See page 14 of the report for details.
163 167 162 159 154 158 167
13 9 14 22 27 23 14
End of
FY 2014
End of
FY 2015
End of
FY 2016
End of
FY 2017
End of
FY 2018
End of
FY 2019
End of
FY 2020
Filled Sworn Positions Total Sworn Vacancies
Sworn Officer Vacancies and Filled Positions
End of FY 2014 to End of FY 2020

Compensatory time may decrease policing capacity and
increase costs
• In FY 2020, sworn officers accumulated a total of
8,319 ho
urs of compensatory time, which
accounts for a full year of work (2080 hours), or
four full time employees.
• Compensatory time may decrease the policing
re
sources available.

Compensatory time has the potential to cause a chain
reaction of backfill overtime.

Source: Audit of Oakland Police Department Overtime (FY 2014-15 through FY 2017-18)

What we found
• Background: Analysis of the BPD budget
• Finding 1: Overtime is used to maintain
minim
um patrol staffing set by BPD.
• Finding 2: Minimum staffing levels in BPD’s
Pa
trol Unit could cause unnecessary overtime if
not regularly updated.
• Finding 3: Officers work excessive overtime,
incr
easing health and safety risks.
• Finding 4: BPD has no contracts for overtime
secu
rity with outside entities.

Minimum staffing is the lowest number of sworn officers needed to provide satisfactory levels of service and protection to the public. • BPD set staffing at 60 patrol officers, split
into 7 teams covering 16 beats across the
City.
• Staffing levels were set in 2016.
• Off-duty officers work o vertime to backfill
the absences.

Source: Berkeley Police Department
See page 12 of the report for further details.

BPD Minimum Staffing Levels

BPD does not regularly assess the efficacy of their minimum staffing model.
• Calls for service requiring increased collaboration across City departments, such as homelessness and mental health.
• BPD does not regularly assess the Patrol Unit’s staffing model in response to changing community needs.
• Patrol minimum staffing levels are not documented by BPD. • Best practice: dynamic staffing model appropriately addresses community needs and accounts for staffing realities.

What we found
• Background: Analysis of the BPD budget
• Finding 1: Overtime is used to maintain
minim
um patrol staffing set by BPD.
• Finding 2: Minimum staffing levels in BPD’s
Pa
trol Unit could cause unnecessary overtime if
not regularly updated.
• Finding 3: Officers work excessive overtime,
incr
easing health and safety risks.
• Finding 4: BPD has no contracts for overtime
secu
rity with outside entities.

Officers exceed overtime limits set by BPD.
• In FY 2020, 21 pe rcent of sworn
officers exceeded BPD’s overtime
limit at least once.
• 85 percent of offi cers worked a
week or more, compared to nearly
half in FY 2019.

4.2%

8.3%

36.9%

23.2%

6.0% 7.1%

13.1%

1.2%
1 to 10 hrs/wk
11 to 20 hrs/wk
21 to 30 hrs/wk
31 to 40 hrs/wk
41 to 50 hrs/wk
51 to 60 hrs/wk
61 to 70 hrs/wk
Percent out of 168 Sworn Officers
1-44 hours of overtime in a week
(79% Total)
Exceeded the overtime limit of 44 hours
(21% Total)
Source: BPD Payroll Data. See page 23 of the report for further information.

Maximum Hours Worked in One Week by Sworn Officers in FY 2020

BPD does not effectively track officer hours to enforce overtime limits.
• Manual paper system to schedule and track work
hour
s.
• Overtime is voluntary and first come, first serve.
• System does not limit signing up for multiple
spo
ts, and supervisors may not know how much
an officer has worked.

Source: Berkeley Police Department
Sample BPD Sign-up Sheets

What we found
• Background: Analysis of the BPD budget
• Finding 1: Overtime is used to maintain
minim
um patrol staffing set by BPD.
• Finding 2: Minimum staffing levels in BPD’s
Pa
trol Unit could cause unnecessary overtime if
not regularly updated.
• Finding 3: Officers work excessive overtime,
incr
easing health and safety risks.
• Finding 4: BPD has no contracts for overtime
secu
rity with outside entities.

BPD’s personnel costs and hours towards overtime security work for outside entities more than tripled in FY 2020
53%
62%
25%
4%
15%
32%
3%2%
2%
1%
Fiscal Year 2019
Total Hours = 1,782
Fiscal Year 2020
Total Hours = 5,596
Photo Shoot
The North Face Store
Berkeley High School
Fourth Street Businesses
UC Berkeley
Apple Store
Total Hours Worked by BPD for Outside Entities, FY 2020 (labeled by percent)
Source: BPD Payroll Data
• In FY 2020, 50 pe rcent of all BPD sworn
officers conducted this overtime.
• Six major employers, with 53 percent of
hours going toward Apple.
• Davis Police Department has a comparable
arrangement and has a policy.

BPD does not effectively track costs of overtime security and it is unclear if the City is charging outside entities appropriately. • Officers paid overtime by BPD, outside entities
re
imburse the City.
• BPD charges payroll costs, including benefits paid for ov
ertime.
• No charge for vehicle costs nor administrative costs. • Difficult to determine costs are fully recovered:
o Cannot separate out revenue
o Manual processes subject to error
o Billing can have errors
Officer Working the Apple Store
Source: Berkeley City Auditor

Work for Outside Entities in FY 2020 by Police Beats
Source: BPD Beats Map on the Open Data Portal and Berkeley Police Department • No evidence of contracts nor written
ag
reements. No policies or criteria that govern
approval and administration.
• Risks:
o Liabilities
o Conflict of interest
o Administrative gaps
o No working limits
• Without policies and documentation, BPD
ca
nnot ensure transparent and equitable
services.

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

Recommendations
We recommend that the Berkeley Police department:

1. Fill vacancies deemed necessary and/or reallocate staff pending re
imagining process; collect and monitor data on compensatory time.

2. Publicly document minimum staffing; establish procedures to re
gularly assess their efficacy.

3. Evaluate and update overtime policies; use staffing software to mo
nitor overtime and compensatory time.

4. Update policies and procedures, create contracts, and increase tr
ansparency on security for outside entities. Regularly evaluate billing, and explore ways to track revenues and expenses.

Management Response
The Berkeley Police Department agreed with our audit
findings, conclusions and recommendations, and provided an action plan to address our recommendations.

W e would like to thank the Police Department for
their cooperation with this audit.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-6750 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-6760 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/auditor

ACTION CALENDAR
APRIL 12, 2022
(Continued from MARCH 22, 2022)
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Subject: Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend City Council request that the City Manager report back by September 29, 2022, and every six months thereafter, regarding the status of our audit recommendations until reported fully implemented by the Berkeley Police Department (BPD). They have agreed to our findings and recommendations. Please see our report for their complete response.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Implementing the recommendations will ensure overtime worked by BPD officers is appropriate, saving BPD and the City costs related to unnecessary overtime. Implementation will also ensure the City is appropriately reimbursed for police services to outside entities.

If BPD and City do not implement recommended measures, overtime expenditures may continue to exceed BPD’s budgeted amount in the following years. Without the ability to track revenues and expenses of work for outside entities, BPD risks continually underbilling for their services and not recovering the full costs of officer overtime. BPD and the City may also encounter liability costs if BPD continues to provide services to outside entities without contracts that include indemnity agreements.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
BPD relies on overtime to achieve their sworn staffing levels. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, nearly a quarter or $1.3 million of BPD’s sworn overtime costs went toward backfilling for officer vacancies and absences.

BPD lacks a process to regularly assess the efficacy of minimum staffing levels, and cannot ensure that minimum staffing reflects the current needs of BPD and the community. BPD’s minimum staffing levels could cause unnecessary overtime if not regularly updated.

BPD does not adhere to their overtime controls. In FY 2020, 21 percent of sworn officers exceeded BPD’s overtime limit at least once. Without adequate enforcement and tools to manage overtime, BPD cannot mitigate risks of officer fatigue.

BPD’s overtime security work for outside entities more than tripled in FY 2020. There are no procedures or contracts for this work, and it is unclear if BPD charges outside entities

Berkeley Police Department: Improvements Needed MARCH 22, 2022 to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities

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

BACKGROUND
BPD’s budget has increased significantly in the past several decades. BPD surpassed the budgeted amount four out of the last five years, with overtime being the primary cause of overspending. Though some amount of overtime is required, overreliance on overtime can increase fatigue and burnout, decrease productivity, and increase mistakes.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Our office manages and stores audit workpapers and other documents electronically to significantly reduce our use of paper and ink. Our audit recommendation for BPD to use modern staffing software could also reduce the use of paper and ink.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Implementing our recommendations will improve BPD’s management of overtime and mitigate risks associated with excessive overtime and officer fatigue. The recommendations will also ensure BPD’s staffing levels are transparent, appropriate, and responsive to the current needs of the community. Additionally, the recommendation ensures BPD’s work for outside entities is equitable and transparent, and in full compliance with relevant laws and policies.

CONTACT PERSON
Jenny Wong, City Auditor, City Auditor’s Office, 510-981-6750

Attachments:
1: Audit Report: Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government Audit Report
March 3, 2022
Berkeley Police:

Improvements
Needed to Manage
Overtime and
Security Work for
Outside Entities

Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Erin Mullin, Senior Auditor
Alejandra Barrio Gorski, Auditor I

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government Report Highlights
For the full report, visit:
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/auditor
Findings
Berkeley Police Department Top 10 Overtime Expenditures, FY 2020
Source: BPD Payroll Data
March 3, 2022
Objectives
 What policing functions does
BPD’s use of overtime cover?
 Does BPD regularly assess
minimum staffing levels to meet
community needs?
 Is BPD’s management of overtime
sufficient to reduce excessive uses
of overtime?
 Are BPD’s agreements to provide
work for outside entities
transparent and in accordance
with the law?
Why This Audit Is Important
BPD exceeded its General Fund
budget four out of the last five years.

In FY 2020, BPD surpassed its $71.0
million allocation by $4.8 million.

Overtime is the primary cause of
BPD’s overspending, and this report
seeks to understand why BPD’s
overtime spending has increased in
recent years. Some overtime is
required for various reasons. It is
often more cost-effective than hiring
staff and allows employees to meet
fluctuating workloads. However,
overreliance on overtime can increase
fatigue and burnout, decrease
productivity, and increase mistakes.

2. BPD lacks a process to regularly assess the efficacy of minimum staffing levels, and cannot ensure that minimum staffing reflects the current needs of BPD and the community. BPD’s minimum staffing levels could cause unnecessary overtime if not regularly updated.

1. Berkeley Police Department (BPD) relies on overtime to achieve their sworn staffing levels. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, nearly a quarter or $1.3 million of BPD’s sworn overtime costs went toward backfilling for officer vacancies and absences.

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government Report Highlights
For the full report, visit:
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/auditor
BPD Officers Exceed BPD’s Overtime Limit of 44 Hours in a Week in FY 2020

Source: BPD Payroll Data

3. BPD does not adhere to their overtime controls. In FY 2020, 21 percent of sworn officers exceeded BPD’s overtime limit at least once. Without adequate enforcement and tools to manage overtime, BPD cannot mitigate risks of officer fatigue.

Recommendations
We recommend that BPD publicly
document minimum staffing levels
and establish procedures to regularly
assess their efficacy. BPD should also
evaluate and update overtime policies,
and monitor overtime and
compensatory time using staffing
software.

We also recommend that BPD update
policies and procedures, create
contracts, and increase transparency
on work for outside entities. BPD
should also regularly evaluate their
billing and explore ways to track
revenues and expenses.

This audit does not propose
recommendations regarding BPD’s
staffing levels or service delivery
model.

Photo source: Berkeley Police
Department

4. BPD’s overtime security work for outside entities more than tripled in FY 2020. There are no procedures or contracts for this work, and it is unclear if BPD charges outside entities appropriately. Without policies and documentation, BPD cannot ensure transparent and equitable services.

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 4 Table of Contents

overtime if not regularly updated.

Introduction
In our 2021 Audit Plan, we identified the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) budget as an area needing objective and independent analysis of how limited City funds are allocated. In April 2020, our office produced a special report examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Berkeley’s finances. We found that the City may need to reduce expenditures to focus on essential activities that prioritize public health and safety, as well as community values.1 BPD’s overtime expenditures have increased in recent years, and this report seeks to understand why. Some amount of overtime is required due to vacancies, emergencies, special events, staffing shortages, workload fluctuations, etc. It is often more cost-effective than hiring additional staff and allows employees to meet fluctuating workloads. However, overreliance on overtime can increase fatigue and burnout, decrease productivity, and increase mistakes.

In December 2020, the City entered into a contract with outside consultants to research, analyze, and make recommendations in regards to BPD’s policing model including the size and scope of operations. It is important to have a staffing model that aligns with the needs of the community. To avoid duplication of work outlined in the City’s reimagining public safety process, this report does not assess the adequacy of BPD’s staffing levels or service delivery model. There are ongoing discussions in the City about appropriate staffing levels and what functions BPD should undertake. 1 Navigating the Impact of the COVID -19 Pandemic on Berkeley ’s Finances: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/ uploadedFiles/Auditor/Level_3_-_General/Navigating%20Impact%20of%20COVID-19%20Pandemic%20on% 20Berkeley%E2%80%99s%20Finances%20rpt.pdf

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 5 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Our objectives were to determine:
 What policing functions does BPD’s use of overtime cover?  Does BPD regularly assess minimum staffing levels to meet community needs?  Is BPD’s management of overtime sufficient to reduce excessive uses of overtime?  Are BPD’s agreements to provide work for outside entities transparent and in accordance with the law?
We examined BPD spending on overtime for fiscal years (FY) 2019 and 2020. We focused on this scope period due to its timeliness and relevance, bearing in mind that 2020 data may reflect the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed historic funding levels going as far back as FY 1970 when data was available. We specifically assessed internal controls significant to the audit objectives. This included a review of selected policies and procedures, interviews with staff from BPD, and source documents for payroll data. In performing our work, we identified concerns about the department’s manual process for tracking officer schedules and hours worked to enforce overtime limits and manage staffing. For more information, see p. 43.

Background
BPD’s budget is the largest portion of the City’s General Fund.

BPD receives more General Fund money than any other department in the City. The Fire Department is the department with the second highest allocation of General Fund monies.2 In FY 2020, BPD’s allocation of General Fund monies accounted for 36 percent ($70.6 million) of the City’s $196.9 million General Fund budget. The percentage of the General Fund allocated to BPD increased from 21 percent in 1970 to 36 percent in 2020, with one notable dip to 10 percent in 1980. In the context of Berkeley’s total government expenditures, police spending has remained at a relatively constant level. BPD accounted for 14 percent of government expenditures in FY 2020 which is only a one percent decrease since 1970. Figure 1 only reflects the share of General Fund spending on police services and does not show how staffing and police operations have changed over time.
2 City of Berkeley, FY 2020 -2021 Biennial Budget: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Manager/Budget/ FY-2020-2021-Adopted-Budget-Book.pdf

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 6 Figure 1. BPD Received 36 Percent of the City’s General Fund Budget in FY 2020 Source: FY 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 Adopted City Budgets Most of BPD’s budget comes from the City’s General Fund.

Ninety three percent of BPD’s budget is paid for by the General Fund. Between 2015 and 2020, BPD’s funding streams were the General Fund, Parking Fund, Asset Forfeiture Fund, Federal Grants, and State/ County Grants. Appendix I provides further information about each fund.

Figure 2. The General Fund Makes Up 93 Percent of the BPD Budget, FY 2020

Source: FY 2020 Revised Budget Data

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 7 BPD’s budget has increased over time.

Since 1970, the BPD budget has grown significantly each decade, from $21.86 million in 1970 (adjusted to 2020 purchasing power) to $74.98 million in 2020. Personnel costs have accounted for the most significant portion of these budgets. Over the years, personnel costs have increased alongside BPD’s overall budget, but the portion of the budget that personnel costs account for has remained consistent at around 89 percent.

In contrast, since 1970, the number of BPD personnel has increased slightly by five percent, coinciding with a five percent increase in the City’s population during this period. Meanwhile, the average cost per employee has increased drastically: in 1970, 272 BPD personnel (sworn and non-sworn) cost the city $19.45 million (adjusted to 2020 purchasing power) in wages and benefits, and by 2020, 285.2 employees in the same department cost the City $67 million. On average, the cost of one BPD employee in 2020 was over three times that of one BPD employee in 1970.

Increases in fringe benefit rates contribute to the spike in personnel costs. We analyzed the overall cost of benefits, but did not look at the actual benefits personnel received. The cost of benefits for sworn police has increased significantly over the last five years, and police have the highest fringe benefit rate across the city.

Between 2016 and 2020, the fringe benefit rate for sworn police increased 15.92 percent due mostly to an increase in the employer’s CalPERS rate. Fire had the next highest rate of 88.28 percent in FY 2020 which was 17 percent lower than Police. With a fringe benefit rate at 105.6 percent of an officer’s salary, it is always cheaper to have an officer work overtime rather than hire a new officer. However, it can be more expensive to have a higher ranked sergeant or lieutenant work overtime in place of hiring a new officer.

Figure 3. Officer Fringe Benefit Rates Exceed 100 Percent of Salary Note: These rates are estimates. Non-sworn fringe benefits rates include benefited city employees that are neither a sworn officer nor a firefighter. The type of non-sworn work of an individual position (office, field, laborer) determines the total benefit rate.

Source: City of Berkeley compensation matrices

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 8 Patrol has received the greatest portion of funding.

BPD has four divisions that report to the Chief of Police: Operations, Professional Standards, Support Services, and Investigations. The greatest share of BPD’s funding has historically gone toward the Operations Division, which manages the department’s Patrol Unit. Patrol is a core function of BPD, with 24/7 operations responding to emergency and non-emergency calls for service, conducting criminal investigations, and providing additional policing services.

Figure 4 shows personnel expenditures from BPD’s General Fund, by divisions and subdivisions. In FY 2020, BPD’s Patrol Unit accounted for $41.1 million, or 60 percent of personnel costs within the department’s General Fund budget.

Figure 4. Patrol Operations Utilized 60 Percent of Personnel Costs from the Department’s FY 2020 General Fund Budget, in Millions of Dollars
Source: FY 2020 Adopted City Budget

BPD has exceeded its General Fund budget four out of the last five years.

BPD has spent more from the General Fund than budgeted. BPD was half a million dollars over budget in FY 2016, and by FY 2020 the overage was nearing five million dollars. In FY 2020, BPD spent $75.8 million of General Fund monies or approximately $4.8 million more than the budgeted amount. According to the City Budget Office, General Fund savings from other departments are used to cover BPD overages after BPD has exhausted savings within their department.

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 9 Figure 5. BPD Spent More General Funds than Budgeted Four Out of Five Years, FY 2016-2020 in Millions of Dollars
Source: BPD presentation to the Budget and Finance Committee on October 22, 2020 Overtime is the primary cause of BPD overspending, with increased costs each year.

The Operations Division, which contains the Patrol Unit, is BPD’s largest division and the biggest user of overtime. Policing is unpredictable and some overtime work is necessary and unavoidable. Officers may need to complete arrests at the end of their shifts, fill in to cover absences, or assist in safely facilitating public events. Police work also inevitably generates off-duty court appearances, trainings, and work on holidays. Some level of overtime can be viewed as a fixed cost of normal policing and will occur regardless of the number of officers employed. Knowing where, when, and why overtime was used is necessary if BPD is to anticipate overtime, to justify its payment, and to find ways to reduce the need for overtime expenditures.

BPD’s spending on overtime has consistently exceeded the $2.25 million that the City has budgeted annually over the past ten years. Although BPD exceeded other budget line items in FY 2020, overtime was the biggest reason for the department overages. BPD increased overtime expenditures for public safety power shutoffs, COVID-19, protests, and work for outside entities from FY 2019 to 2020, contributing to an overall increase in overtime expenditures by nearly $1.2 million (see Appendix II for more detail). According to the Budget Office, the City is committed to providing a police overtime budget that aligns with actual overtime expenditures going forward. In FY 2021, the City increased BPD’s overtime budget to $5.3 million with an additional $1 million in reserves.

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 10 The budget and expenditure data do not show the details of how overtime is paid. Some overtime is paid for by salary savings associated with department vacancies and other overtime is reimbursed from outside entities. However, reimbursements from outside entities are not credited back to the department, and we are unable to determine the reimbursed amounts under BPD’s current accounting structure (see page 33).

Figure 6 offers a simple snapshot of overtime spending, and does not incorporate other ways in which BPD and the City recover the costs of overtime.

Figure 6. The Cost of Overtime Has Increased, While the Budgeted Funding Has Remained Insufficient, FY 2016-2020 in Millions of Dollars
Note: Includes sworn and non-sworn personnel.

Source: BPD presentation to the Budget and Finance Committee on October 22, 2020 The majority of overtime activities are paid for using BPD’s General Fund budget. In FY 2020, 81 percent of overtime activities were budgeted from BPD’s General Fund. The remaining 19 percent of overtime activities were budgeted from Grants and the Parking Meter Funds.

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 11 Overtime is used to maintain minimum
patrol staffing set by BPD.

BPD relies on overtime to achieve the sworn staffing levels set by the department for regular duty operations. In FY 2020, overtime costs for sworn officers exceeded $5 million or 75 percent of the department’s total overtime expenditures. Overtime has a variety of beneficial uses, but a large part of overtime at BPD is simply backfilling officer vacancies and absences.

While it is generally less expensive to use overtime to fill shift vacancies than it is to hire more staff, BPD relies on backfill in patrol often. In FY 2020, 45 percent of sworn officer’s overtime hours in BPD were used to maintain regular duty operations and nearly half of those overtime hours were due to staffing vacancies and absences (Figure 8). Sworn officer vacancies contribute to BPD’s reliance on overtime, and more work is needed to understand the full impact. Additionally, BPD does not adequately monitor compensatory time to ensure it does not increase the need for overtime.

Backfilling for officer vacancies and absences was the
most common reason for overtime.

In FY 2020, backfilling for officer vacancies and absences was the most common and costly reason for overtime, accounting for 21 percent of sworn officer’s overtime hours and costing nearly $1.3 million, or 24 percent of the BPD’s total overtime costs (Figure 8). Backfilling is the practice of filling a position to maintain staffing levels after a sworn officer goes on a leave of absence or vacates the position. Sworn officers are most frequently used to backfill to meet minimum staffing levels in the Patrol Unit.

Minimum staffing levels are the lowest number of sworn officers determined by the department that can be deployed while still providing satisfactory levels of service and protection to the public. For BPD, patrol minimum staffing is based on the number of sworn officers needed to cover the City’s 16 beats at any given time of day.

According to Policy
1019, BPD overtime
compensation is
available to Officers,
Sergeants, and Lieutenants,
and overtime work should
ideally have prior approval by a
supervisor and be documented
with an overtime form.

The overtime form should be
reviewed and approved by the
Supervisor and Division Captain
before going to the Payroll
Clerk. Actual hours worked
should be recorded on a
timesheet.

Overtime is defined as time
worked by an employee in
excess of 40 hours per week.

All overtime is awarded at time
and a half unless specifically
stated otherwise. An employee
may request compensatory time
off in lieu of receiving overtime
payment (see extraordinary
duty form in Appendix III). 3, 4

3 Policy 1019: Overtime Compensation Requests, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/ uploadedFiles/Police/Level_3_-_General/1019%
20Overtime_Compensation_Requests.pdf
4 See Section 19: Overtime/Shift Extension in Berkeley Police Association MOU:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Human_Resources/Home/ Union_Negotiations/Signed%20BPA%20MOU%20-%20Final%2008262021.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: BPD Payroll Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Officers exceed overtime limits set by BPD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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