980
Surveillance Technology Report: Body Worn Cameras
October 1, 2020 – Sept. 30, 2021
Description A description of all non-privileged and non-confidential information about use of the Surveillance Technology, including but not limited to the quantity of data gathered and sharing of data, if any, with outside entities. If sharing has occurred, the report shall include general, non-privileged and non-confidential information about recipient entities, including the names of the entities and purposes for such sharing.
Body Worn Cameras are used to capture video recordings of contacts between department personnel and the public, to provide an objective record of these events.
These recording are used in support of criminal prosecutions, to limit civil liability, increase transparency and enhance professionalism and accountability in the delivery of police services to the community. Body Worn Camera (BWC) files are shared with the Alameda County District Attorney’s office in support of prosecution for crime, and may be shared with other law enforcement agencies to support criminal investigations.
Policy regarding activation of the Body Worn Camera BPD Policy 425.7 Members shall activate the BWC as required by this policy in (a)-(f) below, and may activate the BWC at any time the member believes it would be appropriate or valuable to record an incident within the limits of privacy described herein.
The BWC shall be activated in any of the following situations:
(a) All in-person enforcement and investigative contacts including pedestrian stops and field interview (FI) situations.
(b) Traffic stops including, but not limited to, traffic violations, stranded motorist assistance and all crime interdiction stops.
(c) Self-initiated field contacts in which a member would normally notify the Communications Center.
(d) Any search activity, including the service of search or arrest warrants; probation, parole, or consent searches where the member is seeking evidence of an offense, or conducting a safety sweep or community caretaking sweep of the premises. Once a location has been secured and the member is not interacting with detainees or arrestees, the member may mute their BWC when conducting a search for evidence.
(e) Any other contact that the member determines has become adversarial after the initial contact in a situation where the member would not otherwise activate BWC recording.
(f) Transporting any detained or arrested person and where a member facilitates entry into or out of a vehicle, or any time the member expects to have physical contact with that person.
What data is captured by this technology:
BWC use is limited to enforcement and investigative activities involving members of the public. The BWC recordings will capture video and audio evidence for use in criminal investigations, administrative reviews, training, civil litigation, and other proceedings protected by confidentiality laws and department policy. Improper use or release of BWC
981
recordings may compromise ongoing criminal and administrative investigations or violate the privacy rights of those recorded and is prohibited.
How the data is stored:
BWC videos are stored on a secure server. All BWC data will be uploaded and stored on Axon Cloud Services, Evidence.com. Axon complies with the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework as set forth by the U.S.
Department of Commerce regarding the collection, use, and retention of personal information transferred from the European Union and Switzerland to the United States (collectively, “Privacy Shield”). Axon has certified to the U.S. Department of Commerce that it adheres to the Privacy Shield Principles.
Retention period of data:
See attached retention schedule.
Summary of Body Worn Camera Videos Uploaded Oct. 1, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2021:
Total Number of Videos 62,283
Total Hours of Videos 16,310
Total GB of BWC Videos 29,017
Summary of Digital Evidence Uploaded, Oct. 1, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2021:
Type File Count Size (GBs)
Audio 1,150 11.72
Document 737 2.38
Image 67,672 331.36
Other 1,292 157.71
Video* 67,865 30,086.75
Total 138,716 30,589.92
* Includes all uploaded BWC videos and all other videos booked into the evidence management system. Other videos include iPhone videos uploaded, security camera video, copies of BWC videos (for redaction, etc.), and any other videos.
Geographic
Deployment
Where applicable, non-privileged and non-confidential information about where the surveillance technology was deployed geographically.
Body Worn Cameras are worn by all BPD uniformed officers city-wide at all times; BWCs are not deployed based on geographic considerations.
Complaints A summary of each complaint, if any, received by the City about the Surveillance Technology.
There have been no complaints about the deployment and use of Body Worn Cameras.
Audits and
Violations
The results of any non-privileged internal audits, any information about violations or potential violations of the Surveillance Use Policy, and any actions taken in response.
982
File meta-data are routinely reviewed by our BWC manager, to ensure required metadata fields are completed. There have been no complaints with regards to violations of the Surveillance Use Policy.
Data Breaches Non-privileged and non-confidential information about any data breaches or other unauthorized access to the data collected by the surveillance technology, including information about the scope of the breach and the actions taken in response.
There have been no known data breaches or other unauthorized access to BWC data.
Effectiveness Information that helps the community assess whether the Surveillance Technology has been effective in achieving its identified outcomes.
Body Worn Cameras have proven effective in supporting criminal prosecutions, as video footage is available for all criminal prosecutions. Body Worn Cameras have been effective for training purposes, as footage can be reviewed in incident de-briefs. Body Worn Cameras have been extremely effective in support of Internal Affairs investigations and Use of Force Review.
Costs Total annual costs for the Surveillance Technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs.
The annual cost for the Body Worn Cameras, including cameras, replacement cameras, software, and Axon’s secure digital evidence management system is approximately $204,000 per year over a five-year, $1,218,000 contract. There is one full-time employee assigned to the BWC program, an Applications Programmer Analyst II, at a cost of $168,940 per year, including benefits.
983
984
ATTACHMENT 3
Surveillance Technology Report: Global Positioning System Tracking Devices October 1, 2019 – Sept. 30, 2020
Description A description of all non-privileged and non-confidential information about use of the Surveillance Technology, including but not limited to the quantity of data gathered and sharing of data, if any, with outside entities. If sharing has occurred, the report shall include general, non-privileged and non-confidential information about recipient entities, including the names of the entities and purposes for such sharing.
Global Positioning System Trackers are used to track the movements of vehicles, bicycles, other items, and/or individuals.
What data is captured by this technology:
A GPS Tracker data record consists of date, time, latitude, longitude, map address, and tracker identification label. The data does not contain any images, names of subjects, vehicle information or other identifying information on individuals.
How the data is stored:
The data from the GPS tracker is encrypted by the vendor. The data is only accessible through a secure website to BPD personnel who have been granted security access.
Retention period of data:
Tracker data received from the vendor shall be kept in accordance with applicable laws, BPD policies that do not conflict with applicable law or court order, and/or as specified in a search warrant.
For the date range of 10-01-19 through 09-30-20 the Global Positioning System (GPS) “Electronic Stake Out” (ESO) devices were deployed on “bait” bicycles 52 times, resulting in 34 arrests, 4 eluded capture, 1 person was detained and not arrested, and in 13 deployments the bicycle was not stolen. This program was suspended in mid-March due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
GPS “Slap-N-Track” (SNT) devices were used in three separate investigations during this reporting period:
(1) An investigation of an individual for Sexual Exploitation, Child Pornography, and Distribution of Child Pornography. This suspect currently has a Federal warrant.
(2) An investigation of a serial kidnap rape suspect. The suspect was arrested and charged.
(3) An investigation into multiple suspects involved in a “Rolex” robbery series that involved the cities of Berkeley, Piedmont, and Orinda. Two devices were used on two different suspect vehicles during this investigation. Four suspects from the above cases were arrested and charged for their involvement in these robberies.
985
ATTACHMENT 3
Data may be shared with the District Attorney’s Office for use as evidence to aid in prosecution, in accordance with laws governing evidence; other law enforcement personnel as a part of an active criminal investigation; and other third parties, pursuant to a court order.
Geographic
Deployment
Where applicable, non-privileged and non-confidential information about where the surveillance technology was deployed geographically.
GPS ESO-equipped bikes were deployed primarily in commercial districts across the city where bikes are frequently stolen.
GPS SNT devices are deployed with judicial pre-approval, based on suspect location, rather than geographical consideration.
Complaints A summary of each complaint, if any, received by the City about the Surveillance Technology.
There were no complaints made regarding GPS Trackers.
Audits and
Violations
The results of any non-privileged internal audits, any information about violations or potential violations of the Surveillance Use Policy, and any actions taken in response.
There were no audits and no known violations relating to GPS Trackers.
Data
Breaches
Non-privileged and non-confidential information about any data breaches or other unauthorized access to the data collected by the surveillance technology, including information about the scope of the breach and the actions taken in response.
There were no known data breaches relating to GPS Trackers.
Effectiveness Information that helps the community assess whether the Surveillance Technology has been effective in achieving its identified outcomes.
GPS Trackers continue to be very effective in apprehending bicycle thieves, many of whom are repeat offenders who’ve committed not only bike thefts, but other crimes as well, such as burglaries, auto burglaries, and vehicle thefts. SNT trackers are effective in that they provide invaluable information on suspect vehicle location during the investigation of complex cases where suspects may be moving around the Bay Area and beyond.
GPS Trackers greatly reduce costs associated with surveillance operations. A bike may be left for days. Surveillance operations generally involve four or more officers for the entire duration of an operation. A moving surveillance is extremely resource-intensive, requiring multiple officers in multiple vehicles for extended periods of time. Using both types of GPS trackers eliminates the need for officers’ immediate presence until officers are ready to apprehend the suspect(s).
The program was suspended in mid-March due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This program will likely resume once the pre-COVID bail schedule is re-established.
Costs Total annual costs for the Surveillance Technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs.
986
ATTACHMENT 3
The annual cost for the GPS Trackers’ data service is $1,920. Further information regarding costs is contained in Policy 1301a, the Surveillance Acquisition Report.
There are staff time costs associated with preparing and placing SNT trackers. The investigator must prepare a search warrant and obtain a judge’s approval, and a small number of officers must place the tracker on the suspect’s car. The total number of hours is a fraction of the time it would take to do a full surveillance operation involving numerous officers.
There are staff time costs associated with preparing ESO trackers and placing ESO tracker-equipped bikes for bait bike operations. These are on the order of two-four hours per operation. The total number of hours is extremely small, given the large number of operations, and resulting arrests.
987
ATTACHMENT 4
Surveillance Technology Report: Automated License Plate Readers October 1, 2019 – Sept. 30, 2020
Description A description of all non-privileged and non-confidential information about use of the Surveillance Technology, including but not limited to the quantity of data gathered and sharing of data, if any, with outside entities. If sharing has occurred, the report shall include general, non-privileged and non-confidential information about recipient entities, including the names of the entities and purposes for such sharing.
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are used by Parking Enforcement Bureau vehicles for time zone parking and scofflaw enforcement. The City’s Transportation Division uses anonymized information for purposes of supporting the City’s Go Berkeley parking management program. ALPR use replaced the practice of physically “chalking” tires, which is no longer allowed by the courts.
What data is captured by this technology:
ALPR technology functions by automatically capturing an image of a vehicle's license plate, transforming that image into alphanumeric characters using optical character recognition software, and storing that information, along with relevant metadata (e.g. geo-location and temporal information, as well as data about the ALPR).
How the data is stored:
The data is stored on a secure server by the vendor.
Retention period of data:
Collected images and metadata of hits are stored no more than 365 days. Metadata of reads are not stored more than 30 days.
Summary of ALPR Time Zone Enforcement Data
Read Data
There was an average of 12,059 “Reads” per working day
(Based on one month’s data: 9/1/20/-9/30/20)
Hit Data
There were 44,068 “Hits”
14, 945 “Enforced Hits” resulted in citation issuance.
2,569 “Not Enforced” valid, enforceable hits resulted in no citation issued, based on PEO discretion.
26,554 Hits were not acted upon for a variety to reasons including but not limited to:
1) Customer comes out to move a vehicle. PEO’s are directed not to issue that citation.
2) Officer gets to the dashboard and sees a permit not visible from a previous location.
3) Officer does a vehicle evaluation and confirms that the vehicle moved from the hit location (e.g. across the street within GPS range). 4) Stolen car.
5) Similar Plates.
6) 600-700 GIG cars- 100 revel scooters.
988
ATTACHMENT 4
7) Officers leave their LPR “on” collecting time zone enforcement data, but leave the area being enforced to drive to another location on another assignment, such as a traffic post at a collision scene. These hits are not enforced.
Genetec is the vendor for the ALPR Time Zone enforcement system. A “read” indicates the ALPR system successfully read a license plate. The information that is generated when a plate is viewed by the ALPR camera is the license plate number, state and geographical (GPS) location it was viewed. A “hit” indicates the ALPR system detected a possible violation, which prompts the Parking Enforcement Officer to further assess the vehicle. At “hit” is when the “read” information is recognized as a license plate that matches, or does not match an entry in a list such as permit list or the stolen vehicle “hot list”. In many cases, hits are “rejected” or “not enforced”, meaning no enforcement action is taken, because the Parking Enforcement Officer determines the vehicle has an appropriate placard or permit, or there is other information or assignment which precludes citation.
Summary of ALPR Booting Scofflaw Enforcement Data
0 vehicles booted from 10/1/19-9/23/20.
The Berkeley Police Department no longer maintains the ALPR Booting Scofflaw Enforcement Program. The contract to provide this service became cost prohibitive and the city opted not to renew the contract with the vendor. The city returned to having each PEO working a beat again become responsible for recognizing when a license plate has accumulated five or more unpaid parking tickets.
All BPD ALPR data may only be shared with other law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies for official law enforcement purposes, or as otherwise permitted by law. All ALPR data is subject to the provisions of BPD Policy 415 - Immigration Law, and therefore may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials.
Geographic
Deployment
Where applicable, non-privileged and non-confidential information about where the surveillance technology was deployed geographically.
Only Parking Enforcement Vehicles are equipped with ALPRs. ALPRs are deployed based on areas where there are parking time restrictions. ALPRs are not deployed based on geographic considerations not related to parking and scofflaw enforcement.
Complaints A summary of each complaint, if any, received by the City about the Surveillance Technology.
There have been no complaints about to the deployment and use of Automated License Plate Readers.
Audits and
Violations
The results of any non-privileged internal audits, any information about violations or potential violations of the Surveillance Use Policy, and any actions taken in response.
There have been no complaints of violations of the ALPR Surveillance Use Policy.
989
ATTACHMENT 4
Data
Breaches
Non-privileged and non-confidential information about any data breaches or other unauthorized access to the data collected by the surveillance technology, including information about the scope of the breach and the actions taken in response.
There have been no known data breaches or other unauthorized access to Automated License Plate Reader data.
Effectiveness Information that helps the community assess whether the Surveillance Technology has been effective in achieving its identified outcomes.
ALPRs have proven effective in parking enforcement for time zone enforcement; the prior utilization of manually chalking car tires for time zone enforcement has been disallowed by court decision.
ALPRs have proven effective in supporting enforcement upon vehicles which have five or more unpaid citations. The ALPR’s ability to read and check license plates while being driven greatly increases efficiency, allowing an operator to cover larger areas more quickly without having to stop except to confirm a hit.
Costs Total annual costs for the Surveillance Technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs.
The annual system maintenance cost for Genetec is $47,000. This cost is borne by the Transportation Division, which also purchased the ALPR units used in Time Zone Enforcement.
Two new Genetec ALPR units were purchased during the period covered by this report.
The two new units were purchased in order to equip the final two parking vehicles that did not have ALPR units attached to them.
Genetec ALPR units are installed on 23 Parking Enforcement vehicles. Parking Enforcement personnel perform a variety of parking enforcement activities, and are not limited solely to time zone enforcement. Therefore, personnel costs specifically attributable to time zone enforcement are not tracked.
990
ATTACHMENT 5
Surveillance Technology Report:
Street Level Imagery Project
Description
A description of all non-privileged and non-confidential information about the use of the Surveillance Technology, including but not limited to the quantity of data gathered and sharing of data, if any, with outside entities. If sharing has occurred, the report will include general, non-privileged and non-confidential information about recipient entities, including the names of the entities and purposes for such sharing.
Street level imagery will be utilized exclusively by authorized City staff for infrastructure asset management and planning activities. The street level imagery of City infrastructure assets in the Public Right of Way that is provided to the City will not consist of information that is capable of being associated with any individual or group.
Geographic
Deployment
Where applicable, non-privileged and non-confidential information about where the surveillance technology was deployed geographically.
Street level imagery was collected by driving through the entire community over a three week period. It is accessible to the City through a proprietary third-party application, Street SmartTM.
Complaints
A summary of each complaint, if any, received by the City about the Surveillance Technology.
There have been no complaints about the deployment and use of Street SmartTM.
Audits and
Violations
The results of any non-privileged internal audits, any information about violations or potential violations of the Surveillance Use Policy, and any actions taken in response.
There have been no complaints with regards to violations of the Surveillance Use Policy.
Data
Breaches
Non-privileged and non-confidential information about any data breaches or other unauthorized access to the data collected by the surveillance technology, including information about the scope of the breach and the actions taken in response.
There have been no known data breaches or other unauthorized access to Cyclomedia Street Level Imagery data.
991
ATTACHMENT 5
992
ATTACHMENT 5
Effectiveness
Information that helps the community assess whether the Surveillance Technology has been effective in achieving its identified outcomes.
Staff considered hiring contractors to use GPS in the field to create and update the infrastructure asset GIS data. This method is costly and time consuming.
Cyclomedia’s unique and patented processing techniques allow positionally- accurate GIS data to be collected in a cost-effective way and over a shorter period of time than a “boots on the ground” GPS field survey.
The Imagery is being used to extract the following Citywide Infrastructure assets to create accurate and current Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data inventories:
• Bus pads / stops • Pavement marking • Maintenance Access Holes • Storm drains • Pavement Striping • Signs • Curb paint color • Street trees • Parking meters • Traffic lights • Pedestrian Signal
The street level imagery captured is also being used to:
Create a street sign GIS layer with condition assessment to support compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Code and provide an accurate inventory of City signs. The existing sign inventory is contained in a spreadsheet that does not have accurate location data.
Create a curb color layer with condition assessment to indicate where there are red, yellow, blue, white and green colors. This is critical to support Public Safety.
Create pavement striping and paint symbol layers to support Transportation Planning and Vision Zero.
Benefits Projected:
The data from the street level imagery is being integrated into the City’s work order and asset management system for planning activities and to document repair and maintenance.
Planners can use the street level imagery provided to the City to take measurements remotely, such as sidewalk width and public right of way impacts at proposed development locations.
City staff can use the street level imagery to plan the location of road markings for pedestrian crossings, bike lanes or other striping.
993
ATTACHMENT 5
City staff can remotely take accurate measurements of infrastructure assets to adequately plan for repair and replacement.
City staff can use the street level imagery to enhance community engagement.
The street level imagery can be used to identify and depict the impact of development such as an intersection restriping plan in order to article before and after conditions.
Costs
Total annual costs for the Surveillance Technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs.
The total cost of the system is $232,401 and is itemized below.
Year
No. Description Cost Notes
1 Licenses $48,000 Resolution No: 69,482-N.S. 30JUN20
1 Professional Services
for asset extraction $139,401 Resolution No: 69,482-N.S. 30JUN20 2 Licenses and Support –
One-Time $45,000
Pending Council approval after imagery
and data extraction work is completed
Licensing Costs included in IT Cost
allocation
3 License and Support –
Ongoing Annual Costs $3,000
Pending Council approval after imagery
and data extraction work is completed
Licensing Costs included in IT Cost
allocation
Total Year 1-3 $235,401
994
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
ACTION CALENDAR
April 26, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the conceptual design for the Hopkins Corridor Project on Hopkins Street between Sutter Street and Gilman Street, and directing the City Manager to proceed with the detailed engineering design of the project.
SUMMARY
The Hopkins Corridor design concept addresses pedestrian and bicyclist safety on Hopkins Street between Sutter and Gilman Streets. Features include a physically protected bikeway, a segment of Class II bicycle lane, bus boarding islands, and intersection safety treatments such as corner sidewalk extensions, a raised crosswalk, and high-visibility pavement markings. Another key design feature is increased public space through the provision of sidewalk bulbouts at the Hopkins/ California Street/ Monterey Avenue intersection. The proposed design concept was developed through a robust public and stakeholder engagement process that included four rounds of public meetings over a period of one and a half years.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The recommendation has no fiscal impacts.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The proposed design concept was developed through the Hopkins Corridor Traffic and Placemaking Study which was initiated as the result of a budget referral by Councilmember Sophie Hahn, dated January 23, 2018. The budget referral allocated funding for a traffic and placemaking study including Hopkins Street from Sutter Street to Gilman Street. It called for the study to use “a ’complete streets’ approach to identify improvements to be integrated into the paving and bicycle infrastructure work already scheduled for this area…with an emphasis on pedestrian safety, bike and vehicle safety and flow.” Complete Streets are streets that are designed and operated to accommodate the needs of all road users. Preceding this referral, the Berkeley Bicycle Plan, adopted by City Council in 2017, calls for evaluation of two-way cycle tracks (protected bike lanes) on Hopkins Street as low-stress biking facilities. More recently,
995
Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR April 26, 2022
Hopkins Street was identified as a high-injury street for severe and fatal traffic crashes in the Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan adopted by City Council in 2020.
Project Goals
The goals developed through and for the Hopkins Corridor Traffic and Placemaking Study are as follows:
Improving the safety of walking along and crossing Hopkins Street, Improving bicycle and vehicular transportation safety and flow along and crossing Hopkins Street,
Transforming Hopkins Street between Sacramento Street and McGee Avenue into a community gathering place,
Managing parking to meet the needs of residents and local businesses, Supporting local businesses by creating a streetscape that attracts customers, Installing green infrastructure to protect the Bay while also providing visual enjoyment, and
Improving aesthetics all along Hopkins Street, employing a design palette consistent with its historic character.
Recommended Design Concept
An iterative design process was implemented due to extensive input from community members and institutions along the corridor. The resulting near-term design recommendations are compromises intended to meet the project’s goals while also minimizing trade-offs and accommodating needs such as on-street parking, curbside access, and bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Broadly, the project would allow for the implementation of the following features. Dedicated bicycle facilities along the corridor, ranging from a two-way protected bikeway to Class II bicycle lanes
Bus boarding islands to facilitate public transportation along the corridor Intersection treatments to improve pedestrian safety and comfort, such as sidewalk extensions (bulbouts), center median islands, pavement markings, and a raised crosswalk. Sidewalk extensions provide additional public space and opportunities for landscaping.
996
Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR April 26, 2022
Sutter Street to The Alameda
The south side of the street would feature a parking-protected bicycle lane with a striped buffer zone between the bicycle lane and parked vehicles. On the north side, a Class II bicycle lane (between on-street parking and the traffic lane) would be installed with a striped buffer on each side – one next to parked vehicles and the other separating cyclists from moving vehicles. On-street parking would be retained on both sides of the street.
Modifications at the intersection with The Alameda would be made to address community input, including adjustments to north- and southbound vehicle alignment and the provision of more clearly defined aprons around the existing raised islands in the intersection, which would have beveled curbs in order to be more forgiving of driver error. Proposed modifications would be designed to aesthetically complement the surrounding area. The intersection islands would have rose coloring and landscaping that harmonize with the existing rose colored sidewalk and vegetation in front of the North Branch Library.
The Alameda to McGee Avenue
A two-way protected bikeway would be constructed on the south side of the street. A buffer zone would provide separation from parked vehicles as well as loading space.
Most on-street parking would be retained on both sides of the street.
At the Hopkins Street intersection with Josephine Street, two sidewalk corner bulbouts are proposed for the southern leg of the intersection to shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians. The bulbouts would realign Josephine to intersect with Hopkins at an angle closer to 90 degrees, reducing vehicle turning speeds. A new raised crosswalk would be placed across Hopkins Street, perpendicular to the roadway, to meet the new bulbout on the southwest corner of the intersection, increasing the visibility of pedestrians while shortening the crossing distance and reducing vehicular speeds.
McGee Avenue to Gilman Street
The bi-directional protected bikeway would continue from McGee Avenue to Gilman Street. From McGee to Monterey Avenue, the bikeway would be protected by parked vehicles separating it from the vehicle travel lanes. All on-street parking with the exception of one stall would be retained along the south side of the street in this commercial block. Between Monterey Avenue and Gilman Street, the bi-directional bikeway along the south side of the street would be protected from the travel lanes with a raised concrete median. All parking would be removed on both sides of the street on these blocks in order to provide enough space for the protected bike lanes.
The project would result in safety improvements at the Hopkins Street / Monterey Avenue / California Street Intersection. A bulbout into California Street on the southwest corner would shorten the pedestrian crossing distance while expanding the sidewalk space at this currently very constrained corner. The crosswalk on the north side of the intersection across Monterey Avenue, which was the location of a pedestrian fatality, will be raised to slow vehicle speeds to and from this street onto Hopkins. Further, a
997
Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR April 26, 2022
raised median would be constructed on the northeast corner to narrow this wide crossing and reduce pedestrian exposure to traffic.
The proposed modifications to the roadway would necessitate changes to the Hopkins Street / Sacramento Street intersection. Specifically, the space for the protected bike lanes would be provided by converting the existing westbound informal left turn / through lane configuration into a single lane that accommodates both through- movements and left turns. These movements would be made more efficient than existing conditions by having a dedicated signal phase for both movements, freeing up time in the signal cycle for a dedicated pedestrian and bicyclist crossing phase on the south side of the intersection.
BACKGROUND
Public Engagement
A total of four sets of virtual workshops were held to get public feedback throughout the project. Each of the four workshops included over 100 attendees. The first workshop was held on October 22, 2020. The purpose of this workshop was to introduce the project as well as the concept of “complete streets” and to present an overview of existing conditions along the corridor. The workshop also included small group discussions where participants provided feedback on the draft project goals and completed a prioritization exercise for improvements that may be considered along the corridor.
Workshop #2, held on March 20, 2021, shared initial proposed corridor-wide design improvements; reviewed options for placemaking opportunities; and solicited feedback from the public on proposed measures through facilitated break-out room exercises.
About 800 comments were received during the public comment period following this meeting.
Workshop #3 was held on October 28, 2021. During this workshop, options for placemaking were reviewed and specific near- and long-term complete street corridor design options were presented. This workshop included a facilitated discussion in virtual break-out rooms where participants could provide their feedback on both the placemaking and complete streets options. A virtual crowd-sourcing platform, called Social Pinpoint, was used to solicit specific public comment on the proposed near- and long-term design options and placemaking opportunities. The public was invited to participate in the Social Pinpoint exercise for approximately five weeks after the workshop. Over 700 individual comments were recorded from the Social Pinpoint exercise over the 5-week period.
Finally, a series of three webinars was held on March 1, 7, and 14, 2022. Each of the webinars included a presentation of the City’s recommended short-term design concepts that would be implemented as part of the 2023 paving project for each of the three segments of the corridor. Participants had the opportunity to ask questions about these designs during the webinar that were addressed by staff after the presentation.
998
Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR April 26, 2022
This public engagement was supplemented by direct conversations held between staff and key stakeholders in the community, including business-owners, residents, and representatives of the numerous institutions along the corridor, such as the schools, pre-schools, churches and the library, among others. This engagement resulted in a greater understanding of the needs of these stakeholders and resulted in adjustments to the design plans to accommodate these needs.
Options Previously Considered
During the course of the study, a range of options were considered, including the following.
Retain existing on-street parking along both sides of Hopkins Street for the entire length from Sutter to Gilman. This option required that bicyclists ride in the general purpose vehicular traffic lanes between McGee and Gilman, not meeting the project goal of improving bicycle transportation safety and flow. Retain existing on-street parking along both sides of Hopkins Street from Sutter to Josephine, and on the south side of Hopkins between Josephine and McGee, but eliminate all on-street parking along both sides of Hopkins from Josephine to Gilman. This option provided space for either a protected bicycle lane or Class II bicycle lane on each side of Hopkins Street for the entire length, but impacted public access to the recreational facilities between Josephine and McGee and to the shops between McGee and California Street.
After much public engagement and analysis, a hybrid design was developed that retained nearly all of the on-street parking as far west as the California/Monterey intersection. This was accomplished by providing a two-way cycle track on one side of Hopkins Street (the south side), requiring space for only one buffer or median between the bikeway and parking lane or vehicular traffic lane.
Project Timeline
Conceptual Design, Preliminary Engineering,
Public Outreach, and Environmental Review
August 2020 to April 2022
Detailed Engineering Design April-December 2022
Advertise project & award construction
contract
December 2022
Construction Summer-Fall 2023
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Installation of protected bikeways and improved pedestrian crossings is anticipated to increase walking and biking, which is consistent with the 2009 Berkeley Climate Action Plan Policy that calls for expanding and improving Berkeley’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The 2009 Berkeley Climate Action Plan sets targets of reducing
999
Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR April 26, 2022
transportation emissions 33% below year 2000 levels by 2020, and 80% below year 2000 levels by 2050. The Plan further states that transportation modes such as public transit, walking, and bicycling must become the primary means of fulfilling the City’s mobility needs in order to meet these targets.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the conceptual designs will keep the project on schedule for detailed engineering design in 2022, allowing the City to award the construction contract in time to receive responsive bids and start construction in 2023.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Council could opt not to approve the conceptual designs for the project or could opt to approve the proposed design concept for only a subset of project segments.
CONTACT PERSON
Farid Javandel, Deputy Director of Public Works for Transportation (510) 981-7061 Beth Thomas, Principal Planner, Public Works (510) 981-7068 Ryan P. Murray, Associate Planner, Public Works (510) 981-7056 Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Hopkins Corridor Design Concept
1000
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
HOPKINS CORRIDOR PROJECT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
WHEREAS, the project corridor includes Hopkins Street from Sutter Street to Gilman Street; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan has documented severe and fatal crashes on Hopkins Street; gaps in the low-stress protected bikeway network on Hopkins Street result in connectivity problems that discourage bicycling for transportation; and the Berkeley Bicycle Plan has recommended evaluating cycle tracks for providing a low-stress bikeway on Hopkins Street; and WHEREAS, to address these needs, the project delivers on the City’s Vision Zero, Complete Streets, and Climate Action Plan policies; and WHEREAS, with the support of an engineering and design consultant team, City staff have identified conceptual design options for the Project corridor; sought public input on and analyzed those conceptual design options; and have selected a recommended conceptual design for consideration by the Berkeley City Council; and WHEREAS, the recommended design includes physically protected bicycle lanes on the south side of Hopkins Street between Sutter and Gilman and a Class II bicycle lane on the north side of Hopkins Street between Sutter and The Alameda, in addition to pedestrian safety features, as shown in Exhibit A to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, approval of the Hopkins Corridor Project recommended conceptual design will keep the project on schedule for detailed engineering design in 2022.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to proceed with the detailed engineering design of the Hopkins Corridor Project, based on the preliminary engineering of the recommended conceptual design.
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
Homeless Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
ACTION CALENDAR
April 26, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Homeless Commission
Submitted by: Paul Kealoha-Blake, Chair, Homeless Commission Subject: Development of Crisis Stabilization Program in Berkeley
RECOMMENDATION
That City Council refer to the City Manager to develop a crisis stabilization program based on the Bend, Oregon crisis stabilization model, tailored to Berkeley.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The exact fiscal impact will have to be determined by the City Manager's office.
However, the costs will be substantially offset by the costs that will be saved by reducing the number of 5150 transports for which the City of Berkeley currently allocates 2.4 million annually from Measure P monies. Grants are also available that will fund the crisis stabilization program.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Berkeley has no options to transport persons in mental health crisis except to the County John George mental health facility or the Santa Rita Jail. As such, the City absorbs the cost of transporting persons which are not covered by insurance and persons, in mental health crisis, are at best, generally, brought to an inpatient facility that stigmatizes them and warehouses them briefly, only to discharge them back to the same situation from where they came, and at worst, acts punitively in placing them into a correctional setting without needed mental health treatment and linkage to resources in their own community.
The United States Department of Justice recently released a scathing investigative report on the lack of community mental health models in Alameda County. .Justice Department Finds that Alameda County, California, Violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the U.S. Constitution.
Disability Rights California has filed litigation based on the same premise. https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/press-release/disability-rights-california-files-lawsuit- against-alameda-county-for-its-failed
Berkeley is one of two mental health divisions in the state that has its own mental health division, independent from the County, with its own mental health streams of funding.
Thus, Berkeley is responsible, in large part, for establishing its own community mental
1015
Development of Crisis Stabilization Program in Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR April 26, 2022
health programs. Yet, Berkeley has provided no alternative for persons in mental health crisis to seek stabilization, on a voluntary basis, nor an alternative for law enforcement to transport persons in mental health crisis, when the Berkeley Police Department is actively engaging with a person in mental health crisis, other than the same County facilities, being John George and the Santa Rita Jail, that the Department of Justice has found to be deficient in providing needed mental health services, and as overly restrictive and punitive.
It has been estimated that 40%-50% of Berkeley's 5150 transports are homeless. Thus, the unhoused are greatly impacted by the inappropriate and punitive transports to John George and Santa Rita because of the lack of community mental health models. The unhoused are also greatly impacted by the lack of models so that they are frequently returned to the streets, in the same situation, instead of facilitating linkage to resources in the Berkeley community. The substantial number of unhoused persons that receive 5150 transport has resulted in 2.4 million of Measure P monies, allocated for homeless services, directed towards this transport.
BACKGROUND
On November 15, 2021, the Homeless Commission passed a motion as follows:
That City Council refer to the City Manager to develop a crisis stabilization program based on the Bend. Oregon crisis stabilization model tailored to Berkeley, consistent and that this report be incorporated into the Homeless Commission's recommendation.
Vote: Ayes: Marasovic, Gomez, Kealoha-Blake.
Noes: None. Abstain: Andrew. Absent: Behm-Steinberg.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Following the implementation of a crisis stabilization program, a substantial number of persons in mental health crisis will be diverted away from transport to farther away unnecessary institutionalization and incarceration into a community-based model in their own Berkeley community.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
As an independent mental health division, Berkeley has a responsibility to step up and establish appropriate treatment community mental health models that are community- based. At this juncture, persons in mental health crisis have no local place to stabilize and voluntarily seek assistance, to take respite and to intensively linked up with other services on a 24/7 model. The Berkeley Police Department has no location to bring persons in mental health crisis other than the inappropriate ones provided by the County.
Bend, Oregon has successfully implemented a 23-hour crisis stabilization program that is an excellent model for Berkeley to tailor to Berkeley needs.
1016
Development of Crisis Stabilization Program in Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR April 26, 2022
There are multiple reasons that the Bend model would work in Berkeley. First, Bend's population, at 93,917, is similar to Berkeley's in numbers. The Bend program is a 24/7 program with recliners where people rest while they are provided intensive mental health support and linkage to community resources as needed. Unlike some crisis stabilization programs elsewhere, Bend's crisis stabilization program is focused on mental health needs. It is not a program directed exclusively towards sobriety or a homeless shelter as are some programs elsewhere. Albeit that they have behavioral health clinicians on staff, Bend's focus is not a medical model. With Bend's current increasing homelessness. they estimate that 30% of persons in mental health crisis utilizing their crisis stabilization program are of homeless status.
Bend's program takes walk-ins unlike some programs. Any person seeking mental health crisis stabilization can walk in voluntarily on a 24/7 basis. There are no financial eligibility requirements. Thus, whether or not a person is medically insured, they will be easily welcomed and accepted into Bend's mental health crisis stabilization program.
Persons can come in from any source as long as they voluntarily choose to do so.
When law enforcement engages with a person in mental health crisis in Bend, they present them with three options: the inpatient mental health facility, the jail or the crisis stabilization program. The choice is that of the person in crisis. They will not otherwise be involuntarily directed into the program but provided the three options where they can be transported. Persons in mental health crisis frequently choose the crisis stabilization program. Doing so not only allows them to receive respite and linkage to resources within their own community, it frees them from the stigma of being involuntarily committed or incarcerated.
A survey of participants in the Bend crisis stabilization program revealed that 3% of persons in mental health crisis who had come to the program (37 persons) had stated that had they not come to the program, they would have taken their lives. There is no greater cost-effectiveness than the cost of saving human lives.
Bend also found that when there was a transport from law enforcement, law enforcement spent only an average of four minutes transitioning persons into the crisis stabilization program as opposed to far longer time required of law enforcement when a person in mental health crisis was directed towards institutionalization or incarceration.
Berkeley's direction will have one distinction in that the Bend program is operated by their County which has an elaborate crisis system. Berkeley's program would be based in Berkeley and contracted out to a nonprofit provider competent to provide 24/7 crisis stabilization program services.
The issues that will have to be addressed by the City Manager's office will be funding issues, staffing (both numbers and qualifications) and location.
1017
Development of Crisis Stabilization Program in Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR April 26, 2022
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED:
The only alternative is to do nothing and to be complicit with the County in providing a lack of appropriate community-based mental health services for persons in mental health crisis.
CITY MANAGER: See companion report.
CONTACT PERSON
Josh Jacobs, Homeless Services Coordinator, (510) 981-5435.
1018
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
ACTION CALENDAR
April 26, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Companion Report: Development of Crisis Stabilization Program in Berkeley
RECOMMENDATION
There has been interest expressed by the Homeless Commission and Mental Health Commission in establishing Crisis Stabilization Units (CSU) within the geographical boundaries of Berkeley.
Given the significant changes coming to the crisis system in Berkeley, the opportunities to increase the use of the Amber House CSU (which persistently has vacant beds) by Berkeley residents, the significant costs in funding and siting a CSU in Berkeley, the complexities of Medi-Cal billing for a CSU funded by Berkeley, staff do not recommend creating a CSU in Berkeley at this time.
Instead, Berkeley could partner with the Alameda County Behavioral HealthCare (ACBH) Plan and Bay Area Community Services (BACS) on increasing the use of Amber House by Berkeley residents and, over the coming 12-18 months, assess the need for additional options for treatment of individuals experiencing a behavioral health crisis. Data from the coming Peer Respite and Specialized Care Unit (SCU) could support informing a plan for building out that crisis system in Berkeley. It is conceivable that better coordination of referrals to Amber House and a non-licensed crisis support program such as the Peer Respite could meet the need in Berkeley at a significantly reduced cost and with far less difficulty than funding and siting a CSU in Berkeley.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
A CSU located in Berkeley would be expensive to both build and operate. As the City of Berkeley is a contract provider for the Alameda County Behavioral HealthCare (ACBH) Plan, and as such cannot subcontract Medi-Cal billing, a CSU in Berkeley would either need to forgo billing Medi-Cal (a very significant revenue stream for funding a CSU), or Berkeley would need to develop a contract with ACBH to transfer funding for a CSU in Berkeley, and ACBH would need to contract for and oversee the construction and operation of a CSU.
If ACBH were to contract for and oversee the construction and operation of a CSU, these elements would need to follow the procurement processes in place for ACBH.
1019
Companion Report: Development of Crisis Stabilization Program in Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR April 26, 2022
Importantly, ACBH leadership has indicated to City staff that they do not currently see the need for a CSU in Berkeley, and would not be inclined to provide any funding for such an effort.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Crisis Stabilization Units are short-term (less than 24 hours) residential treatment programs that provide immediate care to individuals experiencing an acute mental health or co-occurring mental health and substance use concern. CSUs typically provide service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and offer an alternative to hospital emergency rooms or jail for individuals who are facing an urgent behavioral health concern that cannot be adequately addressed in a community setting. CSU services programs are part of many California counties array of crisis services.
Amber House, which is located in Uptown Oakland and operated by Bay Area Community Services (BACS), also contains a 14-bed Crisis Residential Treatment Program (CRT) for individuals in crisis who would benefit from a longer period of support and stabilization and do not meet the criteria for hospitalization. Established in the Fall of 2019, Amber House serves individuals who have Alameda County Medi-Cal or no insurance.
In FY22, Amber House has maintained a daily census (number of individuals utilizing the CSU) of roughly 1.5 clients a day – with a capacity to serve 12 individuals at a time.
This underutilization data aligns with the information presented by BACS staff at the Mental Health Commission meeting on December 16th, 2021, where BACS reported that Amber House CSU has never had to turn away a person due to capacity issues, and usage is generally well under capacity.
Individuals in a mental health crisis that do not meet the criteria for transport to a receiving facility for a 5150 evaluation can be voluntarily transported or referred to Amber House. Amber House reports that clients have been referred by the following categories: Self (28%), Treatment Teams, including Full Service Partnerships (32%), Outpatient Mental Health Clinics (4%), Police Drop Off (2%), Hospital ER (8%), Substance Use Programs (2%), Mobile Crisis Providers (11%), Friends or family (7%), and other sources (6%).
BACKGROUND
On November 15, 2021, the Homeless Commission passed a motion as follows:
That City Council refer to the City Manager to develop a crisis stabilization program based on the Bend. Oregon crisis stabilization model tailored to Berkeley, consistent and that this report be incorporated into the Homeless Commission's recommendation.
Vote: Ayes: Marasovic, Gomez, Kealoha-Blake.
Noes: None. Abstain: Andrew. Absent: Behm-Steinberg.
1020
Companion Report: Development of Crisis Stabilization Program in Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR April 26, 2022
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Following the implementation of a crisis stabilization program, some persons in mental health crisis could be diverted away from transport to further away institutions. There are no other known environmental or climate impacts from this project.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Per report by Alameda County, Amber House is currently underutilized, and consistently has open beds for individuals who would benefit from and are interested in a CSU.
Close to the South Berkeley border, use of this facility should be maximized prior to determining if there is need for additional CSU capacity for Berkeley residents. This could be done through:
Collaborating with ACBH and BACS around a publicity campaign for utilization of Amber House by Berkeley providers, residents, and the Berkeley Police Department (BPD). This could include development of marketing materials and trainings.
Structured training for BPD around utilization of Amber House, and collaboration with ACBH and BACS on developing clear procedures and protocols for BPD referral and drop-off of individuals for Amber House.
Increase the ability of the Mental Health Division Mobile Crisis Team (MCT) to help individuals they interact with utilize Amber House. Currently, the MCT can provide bust tickets or taxi vouchers to individuals who want to access Amber House. Successful MCT referrals to Amber House could be increased by:
o Developing a partnership between MCT/CAT and Amber House, including regular meetings on referrals.
o Tracking MCT successful referrals to Amber House.
o Increasing options for MCT referral to Amber House to include ride-sharing options like Lyft or Uber.
o Evaluating directing the MCT to transport voluntary clients to Amber House.
The MCT currently respond to individuals having a behavioral health crisis in a co-responder model with BPD, but does not transport individuals who do not meet criteria for a 5150 to alternate destinations. This change would include developing clear procedures for transport and assessing current vehicles for safety for transport, and tracking the use of Amber House by individuals referred or transported by MCT. This would likely trigger the need to meet and confer with local 1021 due to a change in working conditions for staff of the MCT. This change would likely be expensive due to need for alternate vehicles for MCT and slow, so pros and cons of this option should be examined.
1021
Companion Report: Development of Crisis Stabilization Program in Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR April 26, 2022
Berkeley could also work with Amber House and ACBH to determine the utilization of beds at Amber House for Berkeley residents, and to identify any issues that Berkeley residents might be experiencing at discharge due to the location of Amber House.
Berkeley is currently in the process of adding two additional elements to the system of care for individuals who are experiencing a behavioral health crisis. When operational, these additional resources may further decrease the need for a new CSU in Berkeley.
These are:
Peer respite at the Berkeley Drop-In Center (BDC). This program will create capacity for BDC to provide peer respite services to individuals who are experiencing a behavioral health crisis.
A Specialized Care Unit (SCU). The SCU is envisioned to provide 24/7, 365 days a year mobile crisis services and support to Berkeley residents, and will have the capacity to transport individuals in crisis to a variety of locations. The SCU is intended to divert individuals having a behavioral health crisis from a law enforcement response, instead having the first point of contact be behavioral health providers. The addition of the SCU to existing crisis response options (MCT, BPD) should give a lot more data on the interest and need for a CSU.
Staff believe that the City should explore the development of a Berkeley-specific CSU and/or other opportunities to serve this vulnerable population only after this current array of resources are exhausted,. Establishing a CSU site in Berkeley would be premature at this time, given the underutilized resources and the County’s current lack of interest in engaging.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Council could site and fund a CSU within the geographical boundaries of Berkeley. In evaluating this option, it is crucial to clearly define the need and the financial viability of funding and siting a CSU in Berkeley.
CONTACT PERSON
Josh Jacobs, Homeless Services Coordinator, (510) 981-5435.
Steve Grolnic-McClurg, Mental Health Manager, (510) 981-5249.
1022
Homeless Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
ACTION CALENDAR
April 26, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Homeless Commission
Submitted by: Paul Kealoha-Blake, Chairperson, Homeless Commission Subject: Expansion of Storm Shelter Program to Emergencies not Otherwise Covered
RECOMMENDATION
To direct the City Manager to expand the Berkeley Emergency Storm Shelter (BESS) to emergencies not otherwise covered including outside the dates of the current contract with Dorothy Day House.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The fiscal impacts of the recommendation are best identified by the City Manager's office. Since the scope of the recommendation is to extend the Berkeley Emergency Storm Shelter to emergencies, the nature of emergencies is that they are unpredictable.
Thus, it is unknown to what degree this recommendation needs additional monies to be implemented and whether it requires a referral to the Council Budget Committee or not.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Dorothy Day House has operated the Berkeley Emergency Storm Shelter for almost 20 years, providing overnight shelter on a first come-first served basis for up to 45 people per night. Initially, the contract for BESS was for 45 days per year but in the last two years has been expanded. The BESS shelter opens if rain or temperatures at or below 40 degrees are expected overnight. The City's contract requires that Dorothy Day House take on this role beginning November 16th of this year.
On October 25, 2021-October 26, 2021, the City of Berkeley had a severe storm. Since this storm transpired prior to the November 10th BESS opening date. unhoused persons throughout Berkeley were left subject to the elements, endangering their health and safety, because they could not access the BESS shelter.
In addition to potential storm conditions, such as the one on October 25th-October 26th, there are no provisions for the emergency storm shelter to be open in other unrelated emergencies such as an earthquake, a fire, pipes bursting in another shelter or any other unanticipated emergency. The shelter should be expanded for these purposes.
BACKGROUND
On November 15, 2021, the Homeless Commission passed a motion as follows:
1023
Expansion of Storm Shelter Program to Emergencies not Otherwise Covered ACTION CALENDAR April 26, 2022
That City Council refer to the City Manager to expand the emergency storm shelter program to emergencies not otherwise covered including outside the dates of the current contract with Dorothy Day House.
M/S/C Marasovic/Kealoha-Blake move that City Council refer to the City Manager to expand the emergency storm shelter program to emergencies not otherwise covered including outside the dates of the current contract with Dorothy Day House.
Vote: Ayes: Marasovic, Andrew, Gomez, Kealoha-Blake.
Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Behm-Steinberg.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
It is the environment that controls the issues in this recommendation. This recommendation is consistent with emergency preparedness needs for the unhoused community.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The need for emergency shelter is not necessarily governed by definitive dates. As the October 25, 2021/ October 26, 2021 storm showed, nature operates on its own timing.
In addition, an emergency storm shelter should be available for the unhoused in other emergencies such as earthquakes, fires or conditions that render where they might be staying uninhabitable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The contract could remain the same in which case the City will not be prepared to provide emergency shelter in any situations outside the scope of the current contract.
CITY MANAGER
See companion report.
CONTACT PERSON
Josh Jacobs, Homeless Services Coordinator (510) 225-8035
1024
Office of the City Manager
ACTION CALENDAR
April 26, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Companion Report: Expansion of Storm Shelter Program to Emergencies not Otherwise Covered
RECOMMENDATION
The Homeless Commission’s recommendation to expand the Berkeley Emergency Storm Shelter (BESS) to emergencies not otherwise covered including outside the dates of the current contract with Dorothy Day House addresses a key need for our most vulnerable citizens. Therefore, staff recommends:
1. Referring this recommendation to the budget process; and
2. Referring this recommendation to staff for analysis of feasibility.
FISCAL IMPACTS of RECOMMENDATION
As the Homeless Commission mentions in their report, the additional budgetary commitment to implement this recommendation is unknown.
CURRENT SITUATION and ITS EFFECTS
Dorothy Day House has operated the Berkeley Emergency Storm Shelter for almost 20 years, providing overnight shelter on a first come-first served basis for up to 45 people per night. The BESS shelter opens if rain or temperatures at or below 40 degrees are expected overnight. The Homeless Commission has recommended that the shelter be extended for additional emergencies beyond the current scope.
In addition to the need for additional shelter capacity during an emergency response, Dorothy Day House operates the Horizon Transitional Village Program shelter at 742 Grayson Street, the lease for which expires in September 2022. Additional shelter capacity will be required to house this vulnerable population that will otherwise be displaced to the streets. Therefore, staff recommend referring this recommendation to staff for analysis, as it should be considered alongside other pressing priorities for shelter space in Berkeley.
BACKGROUND
On November 15, 2021, the Homeless Commission passed a motion as follows:
1025
Companion Report: Crisis Stabilization Program in Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR April 26, 2022
That City Council refer to the City Manager to expand the emergency storm shelter program to emergencies not otherwise covered including outside the dates of the current contract with Dorothy Day House.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY and CLIMATE IMPACT
There are no environmental concerns impacting the issues in this recommendation.
This recommendation is consistent with emergency preparedness needs for the unhoused community.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative sites could also be identified to expand shelter capacity. In addition, current shelter capacity will be expanded once the COVID-19 restrictions are lifted, which will help offset the need for additional emergency shelter resources.
RATIONALE for RECOMMENDATION
Additional capacity for shelter is required to respond to emergency situations as well as the impending lease expiration of the Horizon shelter.
CONTACT PERSON
Josh Jacobs, Homeless Services Coordinator, 510.225.8035
1026
Communications – April 26, 2022
Council rules limit action on Communications to referral to the City Manager and/or Boards and Commissions for investigation and/or recommendations. All communications submitted to Council are public record.
It
em #28: Budget Referral for Accessibility Renovations for Luna Dance Institute
1. Diana Bohn
It
em #29: Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements
2. Diane Garcia
3. Farid Javandel, Deputy Director of Public Works
It
em #33: ZAB Appeal: 1643-1647 California Street, Use Permit #ZP2021- 0001
4. Sunny Grewal, studio g+s Architects
It
em #36: Resolution Accepting the Surveillance Technology Report for Automatic License Plate Readers, GPS Trackers, Body Worn Cameras, and the Street Level Imagery Project Pursuant to Chapter 2.99 of the Berkeley Municipal Code
5. Michael Chang, Chairperson, Police Accountability Board It
em #38a: Development of Crisis Stabilization Program in Berkeley
6. Mental Health Commission
Roa
d Repair
7. Helga Recke
8. Sheila Jordan
9. Miranda Ewell
10. Margot Smith
11. Sam Saxe-Taller
Cl
imate Change
12. Thomas Lord (3)
13. Jeff W.
Oppos
e SB 9
14. Stan Goldberg
Hi
gh Fire Hazard
15. Sally Williams
1027
Be
rkeley Marina South Sailing Basin Dredging
16. Robert Ofsevit
Est
ablishing a Pilot Existing Building Electrification Installation Incentive
17. Jack Kurzwell, on behalf of the Wellstone Club
Hous
ing
18. Avram Gur Arye
Ca
lifornia Theatre Landmark
19. Rebecca Kidd
20. Steven Schuyler
Re
patriations
21. Bob Flasher
Pan
demic Failed Economic Forecasting
22. Barbara Gilbert
Tena
nt Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA)
23. Ariana Thompson-Lastad
24. Sam Sokolsky
25. Keith Ray
26. Eva Shu
27. Katie DaQuino
28. Leah Mealey
29. Sylvia Chapman
30. Hector Malvido
31. Commission on Aging
32. 43 similarly-worded form letters
1028
1 1029
2 1030
1031
1032
1033
3 1034
1035
1036
4 1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
5 1052
1053
6 1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
7 1059
8 1060
9 1061
10 1062
1063
11 1064
1065
12 1066
1067
1068
13 1069
14 1070
15 1071
16 1072
1073
17 1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
18 1083
1084
1085
19 1086
1087
20 1088
21 1089
22 1090
23 1091
24 1092
25 1093
1094
26 1095
27 1096
28 1097
29 1098
30 1099
1100
31 1101
1102
32 1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145