Berkeley City Council
May 10, 2022

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

CITY OF BERKELEY HOUSING TRUST FUND APPLICATION TO LOCAL HOUSING

TRUST FUND AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
A Necessary Quorum or majority of the Council Members of the City of Berkeley (“Applicant”) hereby consents to, adopts and ratifies the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the Department is authorized to provide up to $57 million under the Local Housing Trust Fund (“LHTF”) Program from the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018 (Proposition 1) (as described in Health and Safety Code section 50842.2 et seq. (Chapter 365, Statutes of 2017 (SB 3)) (“Program”); and WHEREAS, the State of California (the “State”), Department of Housing and Community Development (“Department”) issued a Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) dated 4/5/2022 under the LHTF Program; and
WHEREAS, Applicant is an eligible Local or Regional Housing Trust Fund applying to the Program to administer one or more eligible activities using Program Funds; and WHEREAS, the Department may approve funding allocations for the LHTF Program, subject to the terms and conditions of H&S Code Section 50842.2, the LHTF Program Guidelines, NOFA, Program requirements, the Standard Agreement and other related contracts between the Department and LHTF award recipients; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that:

1. If Applicant receives an award of LHTF funds from the Department pursuant to the above referenced LHTF NOFA, it represents and certifies that it will use all such funds on Eligible Projects in a manner consistent and in compliance with all applicable state and federal statutes, rules, regulations, and laws, including, without limitation, all rules and laws regarding the LHTF Program, as well as any and all contracts Applicant may have with the Department (“Eligible Project”).

2. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: That the City of Berkeley Housing Trust Fund is hereby authorized to act as the Manager in connection with the Department's funds to Eligible Projects pursuant to the above described Notice of Funding Availability in an amount not to exceed $5 Million (the "LHTF Award").

3. Applicant hereby agrees to match on a dollar for dollar basis the LHTF Award pursuant to Guidelines Section 104. Applicant hereby agrees to utilize matching finds on a dollar-for-dollar basis for the same Eligible Project for which Program Funds are used, as required by HSC Section 50843.5(c).

4. Pursuant to Attachment 1 and the Applicant’s certification in this resolution, the LHTF funds will be expended only for Eligible Projects and consistent with all program requirements.

5. Applicant shall be subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Standard Agreement, H&S Section 50842.2 and LHTF Program Guidelines.

6. The City Manager or their designee is/are authorized to execute the LHTF Program Application, the LHTF Standard Agreement and any subsequent amendments or modifications thereto, as well as any other documents which are related to the Program or the LHTF Award to Applicant, as the Department may deem appropriate.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the Berkeley City Council this_____ day of ____________, _________ by the following vote:

AYES: _____
ABSTENTIONS: _____
NOES: ____
ABSENT: _____
Approving Officer: _______________________
Signature of Approving Officer
__________________________________________
Exhibits
A: Attachment 1

CERTIFICATE OF THE ATTESTING OFFICER
The undersigned, Officer of _________________________ does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of the Berkeley City Council, which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.

ATTEST: ____________________
Signature of Attesting Officer
________________________________________

Attachment 1
City of Berkeley Housing Trust Fund Pipeline Project Eligible for the California Local Housing Trust Fund

1. Percentage of funds requested used per project: 95% of LHTF funds used for construction of Supportive Housing in People’s Park (2556 Haste Street) with 5% of funds used for administration.

2. Jurisdiction Served: City of Berkeley

3. Funding Request Summary:

The City of Berkeley will apply any Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) award to the City's Housing Trust Fund program. The LHTF award will fund the City's existing funding reservation for the pipeline project Supportive Housing in People’s Park (2556 Haste Street). The City will match the LHTF funding with money from its affordable housing trust fund. This project is planned to provide 119 permanent, safe, sustainable, affordable apartments for low-income households, and formerly unhoused households earning between 10%-50% of the Area Median Income. Supportive Housing in People’s Park will provide 62 apartments reserved as permanent supportive homes for previously unhoused residents.

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

MBNCONSENT

CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Contract No. 32200074 Amendment: Murray Building, Inc. for Cazadero Camp Jensen Dormitory Construction Project

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 32200074 with Murray Building, Inc. for the Cazadero Camp Jensen Dormitory Construction Project by adding $66,450 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $1,528,350.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funds for the contract are currently available in the Camps Fund (125-52-543-581- 0000-000-461-662110). The cost of this contract is anticipated to be covered by insurance payments (partially received to-date). No other funding is required, and no other projects will be delayed due to this expenditure.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On October 12, 2021, City Council authorized a construction contract with the Murray Building, Inc. for the Cazadero Camp Jensen Dormitory Project in the amount of $1,461,900, which includes a 10% contingency (Resolution No. 70,053-N.S.). To-date, four contract amendments have been executed to address unanticipated existing conditions and conflicts, resulting in a current total contract value of $1,357,074.88. In March, 2022, the need for additional site work related to fire sprinkler infrastructure was identified. Project construction is on a tight schedule and will continue through June, 2022. There is a need to increase the total expenditure authority for this contract by $66,450 (5% of the original contract) to provide a contingency for the remainder of the Project.

BACKGROUND
For over 60 years, the 33-acre Cazadero Camp has been leased by the City to Cazadero Performing Arts Camps. The Camp provides a dynamic music education program for young musicians ages 10-18 including both summer camp music programs and JumpStart in Music, a low-cost weekend Camp for school district music programs. A landslide in 2016 destroyed Jensen Dormitory. The reconstruction of the Dormitory will restore the full

14

Contract No. 32200074 Amendment: Murray Building, Inc. MBNCONSENT

CALENDAR
for Cazadero Camp Jensen Dormitory Project May 10, 2022

capacity of the Camp. The total cost estimate for the Cazadero Landslide Repair Project is $3.3M. Project costs are anticipated to be covered by insurance.

On June 17, 2021, the City issued an Invitation For Bids (IFB) for the reconstruction of the Cazadero Camp Jensen Dormitory (Spec No. 21-11443-C). On July 8, 2021 the City received three bids. Murray Building, Inc. submitted a bid of $1,329,000 as the lowest responsible bidder. Staff conducted reference checks and received satisfactory feedback and a construction contract was executed.

To-date, a total of four contract amendments have been executed, with a net total value of $28,074.88. The amendments include revisions to plans due to permit requirements, additional on-site demolition, tree removal, and revised foundation, structural and architectural details to account for unanticipated existing conditions and conflicts.

In March, 2022, through the deferred submittal and review process, the need for additional fire sprinkler infrastructure was identified. This scope includes the construction of an underground pipe and fire department connection and sprinklers to protect exterior decks, and has been authorized by a Construction Change Directive in a not-to-exceed amount of $53,900. The Project construction will continue through June, 2022, and City staff are tracking multiple additional amendments to address unanticipated existing conditions and permit requirements, and anticipate that the existing contingency balance may be exceeded prior to Project completion. Therefore, there is the need to increase the expenditure authority for this contract to increase the construction contingency.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
This Project replaces a destroyed building. The replacement building has been designed to meet modern code, representing a significant improvement in energy and water efficiency compared to the prior structure. The new Jensen Dormitory includes all-electric equipment, systems and appliances. Solar is not feasible in this heavily forested location; however, the design incorporates passive heating and cooling techniques and requires the use of low-carbon concrete. The Project does not include any irrigation systems, and ultra-low-flow fixtures are being installed throughout the building.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This increase to the not-to-exceed contract authority is necessary to address unforeseen conditions, including revised foundation design and additional fire sprinkler infrastructure. The City does not have the in-house labor or equipment resources to complete these construction activities.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, PRW, 981-6700

Contract No. 32200074 Amendment: Murray Building, Inc. MBNCONSENT

CALENDAR
for Cazadero Camp Jensen Dormitory Project May 10, 2022

Liza McNulty, Project Manager, PRW, 981-6437
Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT NO. 32200074 AMENDMENT: MURRAY BUILDING, INC. FOR THE

CAZADERO CAMP JENSEN DORMITORY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City has owned the Cazadero Camp since 1927; and WHEREAS, in April, 2016 a landslide destroyed the Jensen Dormitory; and WHEREAS, an invitation for bids was duly advertised and three bids were opened on July 8, 2021 and Murray Building, Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and WHEREAS, on October 12, 2021, City Council authorized execution of a contract and any amendments, extension, and/or change orders until completion of the Project with Murray Building, Inc. for the Cazadero Camp Jensen Dormitory Project in an amount not to exceed $1,461,900 which included a 10% contingency (Resolution No. 70,053-N.S.); and
WHEREAS, based on executed and projected amendments due to unanticipated existing conditions and conflicts, there is a need to increase the total expenditure authority for this contract by $66,450 (5% of the original contract) to provide a contingency for the remainder of the Project.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32200074 with Murray Building, Inc. for the Cazadero Camp Jensen Dormitory Construction Project to amend it by adding $66,450 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $1,528,350. A record signature of said agreements and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Contract No. 32000230 Amendment: Robert E. Boyer Construction, Inc. for Berkeley Tuolumne Camp Construction Project

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 32000230 with Robert E. Boyer Construction, Inc. for the Berkeley Tuolumne Camp Project by adding $530,832 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $39,350,473.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this resolution. The increase in contract authority is fully covered by the donations made to the City by Friends of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp (FOBTC) to the City to support Project expenses (account code code 125-52-543-583-0000-000-000-481110). No other funding is required, and no other Project will be delayed due to this expenditure.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On January 24, 2020 the City issued an Invitation For Bids (IFB) for the reconstruction of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp (Spec No. 20-11362-C). The City received four bids. On April 14, 2020, City Council awarded the contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, Robert E. Boyer Construction, Inc (“Boyer”), Contract No. 32000230, for a not to exceed amount of $38,819,641 (Resolution No. 69,352).

On December 15, 2020, the Friends of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp (FOBTC) donated an additional $530,832 to the City to fund the construction of shade structures, irrigation, and additional tree planting at Berkeley Tuolumne Camp, costs that are not eligible for insurance or FEMA funding (Resolution 69,655-N.S.). These funds were appropriated in the FY2022 adopted budget, and the scope of work was authorized via amendments to Contract No. 32000230. The project is on an extremely tight timeline for completion. In order to retain the original 10% contingency funding balance for unanticipated conditions during construction, the contract authority needs to be increased by $530,832.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley Tuolumne Camp (BTC), established in 1922, is a 30-acre property operated under a Special Use Permit with the US Forest Service (USFS). The camp has served

16

Contract No. 32000230 Amendment: Robert E. Boyer Construction, Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR for Berkeley Tuolumne Camp Construction Project May 10, 2022

primarily as a family camp, but also offered teen leadership programs, adult hiking camps, and private group rental opportunities. Prior to the fire, BTC had the capacity to host approximately 280 campers, 60 staff members, and 10 counselors-in-training at one time and served over 4,000 campers each year. The major facilities at the Camp included a Dining Hall; a Recreation Hall, 77 small single-story wood-frame camper tent cabins; staff cabins; maintenance and storage structures; a bridge across the river; parking and loading areas, and electric, water supply, and wastewater utilities.

In August of 2013, the Rim Fire destroyed Berkeley Tuolumne Camp and in December 2013 was declared a federal disaster. Most structures at BTC were destroyed by the fire.

Since the fire, the City has been working closely with the USFS to complete an updated master plan in order to rebuild Camp. On June 11, 2019, USFS completed its environmental review and finding of no significant impact for the Berkeley Tuolumne Camp Project. On January 22, 2019, the City adopted the notice of determination of no significant impacts for the Project. On September 30, 2019, the USFS executed a Special Use Permit authorizing the City to reconstruct Berkeley Tuolumne Camp and to operate the Camp for a term of 30-years. The City has also received permits for the Project from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

The property was covered by the City’s insurance policy, and insurance proceeds will be the primary source of reconstruction funds. The City has also been awarded a Public Assistance Grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) to partially fund reconstruction. Friends of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp (FOBTC), a non-profit organization, has fundraised to support the re-construction efforts of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp, and in particular, to fund those Project expenses that are not eligible for insurance or FEMA cost recovery. FOBTC donated funds for the construction of shade structure, irrigation, and larger tree plantings; work that was authorized by amendments to Contract No. 32000230. In order to replenish the original contingency balance, the not to exceed authority needs to be increased by the value of the amendments that were funded by these donations.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The City approved the Project CEQA documents on January 22, 2019. The United States Forest Service issued its final NEPA documents on June 11, 2019. This Project will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to encourage biodiversity, preserve resources, and maintain riparian and other natural habitats while mitigating hazardous conditions.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The work that is being funded by the donation from Friends of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp (FOBTC) can be authorized under the current contract expenditure authority.

However, with the extremely tight project schedule, it is necessary to increase the

Contract No. 32000230 Amendment: Robert E. Boyer Construction, Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR for Berkeley Tuolumne Camp Construction Project May 10, 2022

contract authority by the value of the donation in order to maintain a 10% contingency through the completion of the project.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, PRW, 981-6700
Liza McNulty, Project Manager, PRW, 981-6437
Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT NO. 32000230 AMENDMENT: ROBERT E. BOYER CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR BERKELEY TUOLUMNE CAMP CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
WHEREAS, an invitation for bids (IFB) was duly advertised and four bids were opened on March 12, 2020 and Robert E. Boyer Construction, Inc. was the apparent low bidder; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2020 the City of Berkeley authorized the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extension, and/or change orders until completion of the Project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications with Robert E. Boyer Construction, Inc. for the Berkeley Tuolumne Camp Project (Contract No. 32000230), for a not-to-exceed amount of $38,819,641 (Resolution No. 69,352).; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020 the City Council authorized donations in the amount of $530,832 to the City from the Friends of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp for the construction of shade and revegetation at Berkeley Tuolumne Camp, which is ineligible for funding from other sources (account code code 125-52-543-583-0000-000-000- 481110); and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to increase the total contract authority by the value of the donation in order to maintain a 10% contingency through the completion of the project.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to amend Contract No. 32000230 with Robert E. Boyer Construction, Inc. for the Berkeley Tuolumne Camp Project by adding $530,832 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $39,350,473. A record signature copy of said agreements and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Amendments to On-Call Landscape Architectural Services Contract No. 32000284 with BASE Landscape Architecture, Contract No. 32100002 with PGA Design, Inc., and Contract No. 32000285 with RRM Design Group

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt three Resolutions authorizing the City Manager to execute amendments to Contract No. 32000284 with BASE Landscape Architecture, Contract No. 32100002 with PGA Design, Inc., and Contract No. 32000285 with RRM Design Group, for on-call landscape architectural services by increasing the contract amount by $600,000 and duration by fourteen months each, from April 30, 2023 through June 30, 2024, to a total NTE amount of $900,000 each.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The following funding source and amount is an estimate as funding for these on-call contracts will be identified and expended only for actual landscape architectural services required. $1.8M in funding is available in the FY 2022 budget in Measure T1 Fund and additional funding is subject to appropriation in the FY 2023 budget in the T1, Parks Tax and General Funds.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City has a current list of the following parks capital projects that need to be designed and constructed within the next three years per the requirements of the funding sources comprised of Measure T1, Parks Tax, and outside grants:
 Grove Park Field and Playground Renovations
 Santa Fe Right-of-Way (ROW) New Park Development
 MLK Jr., Civic Center Turtle Island Monument Garden
 Ohlone Park (East) Playground and Site Improvements
 Ohlone Park Restroom and Lighting Improvements
 University Avenue Bike Park
 James Kenney Skate Spot
 Cedar Rose Park Improvements

16

Amendment to Contract No. 32000284 (BASE Landscape Architecture) CONSENT CALENDAR Contract No. 32100002 (PGA Design, Inc.) May 10, 2022
and Contract No. 32000285 (RRM Design Group)

 Glendale La Loma Park Improvements
The current not-to-exceed contract amounts for the three current On Call design firms are projected to be depleted by June 30, 2022. In order to complete these projects in a timely manner, staff recommends increasing the length of time on all three existing on- call contracts by 14 months and increasing the spending authority of all three on-call landscape architecture firms by $600,000 each to accommodate current workload and complete existing projects.

BACKGROUND
On January 24, 2020, the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for On-Call Landscape Architectural Services (Specification No. 20-11378-C). The City received Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) from 12 firms. After evaluation of the SOQs by the review panel, the City selected three firms: BASE Landscape Architecture, PGA Design Inc., and RRM Design Group. On April 21, 2020, Council authorized a $300,000 contract for On-call Landscape Architectural design services with BASE Landscape Architects, PGA Design Inc., and RRM Design Group, respectively, for the period May 1, 2020 through April 30, 2023 (Resolutions No. 69,366-N.S., 69,367-N.S., and 69,368- N.S.).

Every three to four years, the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront (PRW) conducts a competitive Request For Qualifications process (RFQ) for On-Call Landscape Architectural consultant services. This reduces the need for multiple RFQ processes and reduces the time it takes to complete a project, sometimes by up to two years. The next RFQ process will be conducted in FY2024.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Consultants and City staff evaluate water and energy efficiency upgrade opportunities during the design of improvement and renovation projects. Improving City facilities and reducing water and energy consumption is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan goals.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The three On-call firms – BASE Landscape Architecture, PGA Design Inc., RRM Design Group – have the required expertise in design, landscape architecture, project management, and support to meet the City’s on-going capital program needs, and complement the personnel and capacity available in the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Departments to complete existing projects. City staff does not have the expertise to provide landscape architectural services.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront, (510) 981-6700 Evelyn Chan, Supervising Civil Engineer, PRW, (510) 981-6430

Amendment to Contract No. 32000284 (BASE Landscape Architecture) CONSENT CALENDAR Contract No. 32100002 (PGA Design, Inc.) May 10, 2022
and Contract No. 32000285 (RRM Design Group)

Attachments:
1: Resolution: BASE Landscape Architecture
2: Resolution: PGA Design, Inc.
3: Resolution: RRM Design Group

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

AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 32000284 FOR ON-CALL LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES WITH BASE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE WHEREAS, on April 21, 2020 by Resolution No. 69,366-N.S. the City Council authorized Contract No. 32000284 with BASE Landscape Architecture in an amount not-to-exceed $300,000 for on-call landscape architectural design services for various Department of Parks, Recreation and Waterfront capital improvement projects through April 30, 2023; and
WHEREAS, City staff does not have the expertise to provide landscape architectural services; and
WHEREAS, the current contract not-to-exceed amount is projected to be depleted by June 30, 2022 and the City has need of BASE Landscape Architecture’s continued landscape architectural services through June 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, funds are available from Measure T1.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment for Contract No. 32000284 with BASE Landscape Architecture for landscape architectural services increasing the amount by $600,000 for a revised contract amount not to exceed $900,000, and extending the contract to June 30, 2024.

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

AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 32100002 FOR ON-CALL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES BY PGA DESIGN INC.

WHEREAS, on April 21, 2020 by Resolution No. 69,367-N.S. the City Council authorized Contract No. 32100002 with PGA Design Inc. in an amount not-to-exceed $300,000 for on-call landscape architectural design services for various Department of Parks, Recreation and Waterfront capital improvement projects through April 30, 2023; and
WHEREAS, City staff does not have the expertise to provide landscape architectural services; and
WHEREAS, the current contract not to exceed amount is projected to be depleted by June 30, 2022 and the City has need of PGA Design Inc.’s continued architectural services through June 30, 2024; and
WHEREAS, funds are available from Measure T1.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32100002 with PGA Design Inc. for landscape architectural services increasing the amount by $600,000 for a revised contract amount not-to-exceed $900,000, and extending the contract to June 30, 2024.

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

AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 32000285 FOR ON-CALL LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES BY RRM DESIGN GROUP
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019 by Resolution No. 69,368-N.S. the City Council authorized Contract No. 32000285 with RRM Design Group in an amount not to exceed $300,000 for on-call landscape architectural design services for various Department of Parks, Recreation and Waterfront capital improvement projects through April 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, City staff does not have the expertise to provide landscape architectural services; and
WHEREAS, the current contract not to exceed amount is projected to be depleted by June 30,2022 and the City has need of RRM Design Group’s continued landscape architectural services through June 30, 2024; and
WHEREAS, funds are available from Measure T1.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000285 with RRM Design Group for landscape architectural services increasing the amount by $600,000 for a revised contract amount not to exceed $900,000, and extending the contract to June 30, 2024.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Interim Chief of Police
Subject: Contract No. 100692-2 Amendment: Serological Research Institute for DNA Testing Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 100692-2 and any necessary future amendments with Serological Research Institute (SERI) for the Police Department, increasing the contract amount by $500,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $1,500,000 while the contract term expiration will remain until June 30, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the recommendation would support an ongoing operational expense required for solving criminal cases in a timely manner. The funding for this contract is allocated from the State Proposition 172 Fund (budget code 126-71-702-805-0000-000- 421-612990) subject to City’s annual budget appropriation process.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Berkeley Police Department currently contracts with the Serological Research Institute (SERI) for its forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing services. It can be difficult to estimate the dollar amount required annually as it can change significantly from year to year. For FY 2022, the Department will exceed the current $1,000,000 contract limits set when this contract was amended in 2021. This dollar increase will allow the Department to continue to test DNA for criminal investigations. This enables the potential identification of a suspect based on DNA found at a crime scene and may result in the suspect being arrested and charged faster.

Due to the unpredictable nature of the contract usage, the BPD has expended nearly $250,000 since the 2021 amendment and has only $6,000 remaining of the $1,000,000 contract with pending invoices nearing $10,000. In order to continue processing DNA evidence to substantiate charges against suspects, the BPD is requesting this contract amendment.

BACKGROUND
In 2014, the Department entered into a service contract with SERI to obtain their forensic DNA services. SERI was added when two other providers, the Alameda County

17

Contract No. 9668 Amendment: Serological Research Institute CONSENT CALENDAR May 10, 2022

Sheriff’s Crime Laboratory and Forensic Analytical Sciences, Inc. were unable to keep up with increased caseload from the Berkeley Police Department. SERI is accredited through the American Society of Crime Laboratories Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board. SERI is located in Richmond, CA and provides state of the art forensic services, laboratory analysis and expert testimony for its clients.

While maintaining compliance with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing, SERI has consistently provided the fastest case turnaround times of our three contracted vendors. SERI has helped minimize DNA testing backlogs the department was experiencing with other vendors.

Fast DNA testing turnaround times help the department identify serious violent offenders and helps solve criminal cases faster. SERI was originally intended to be an additional DNA Laboratory. However, due to the high level of service provided, they have become our primary provider. During this time, the investigative demand for their services has increased based on several factors including improved DNA recovery techniques and new legislative requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Serological Research Institute provides and maintains an extensive online test request submission and products ordering option. These online forms reduce the amount of paper required to forward and process requests.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The cost associated with DNA testing services is an operational expense for which the Berkeley Police Department is currently responsible. In an effort to solve criminal cases as fast as practical and potentially limit further victimization, the BPD continues to utilize these services. An amendment to increase funds for this contract will allow the Department to continue to meet the DNA testing requirements of its investigations.

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Louis, Interim Chief of Police, 981-5700
Attachment:

1. Resolution

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

CONTRACT NO. 100692-2 AMENDMENT: SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR DNA TESTING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Police Department is responsible for the investigation of criminal cases in Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, closure of criminal investigations will bring relief to the families of the victims and reduce fear in the community; and
WHEREAS, the use of forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing is essential to solving violent crimes; and
WHEREAS, the Department primarily enlists the services of Serological Research Institute for the timely processing of DNA testing; and WHEREAS, it is essential to have an accredited laboratory in order to ensure the consistent processing of DNA evidence; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Police Department has identified DNA testing services as an operational expense for which the Department is responsible and funds from the State Proposition 172 Fund (budget code 126-71-702-805-0000-000-421-612990) will be the primary source of funding; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that, the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 100692-2 with Serological Research Institute to provide DNA testing and analysis services for an additional $500,000 for an amount not to exceed $1,500,000, subject to the City’s annual budget appropriation process.

Civic Arts 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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Civic Arts Commission
Submitted by: Modesto Covarrubias, Chair
Subject: Public Art Funding for Municipal Capital Improvement Projects Ordinance; Adding Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 6.13

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance adding Chapter 6.13 (Public Art Funding for Municipal Capital Improvement Projects, Attachment 1) of the Berkeley Municipal Code to provide for the allocation of one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of the estimated cost of construction associated with eligible municipal capital improvement projects, which shall be used for art and cultural enrichment of public buildings, parks, streets, and other public spaces in the City of Berkeley.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The City of Berkeley’s existing public art funding policy, which was established in 1999 (Attachment 2), stipulates that eligible municipal Capital Improvement Projects are to dedicate 1.5% of the cost of their construction for public art. The proposed Public Art Funding Ordinance for Municipal Capital Improvement Projects increases the percentage from 1.5% to 1.75% for public art. The fiscal impacts of the recommendation are as follows:
 The increased percentage may result in a change to the amount allocated for public art. For example, the annual baseline allocation to the Public Art Fund has been $65,164, which has been calculated as 1.5% of the cost of eligible capital projects. By increasing the percentage to 1.75% the annual allocation would be $76,025, an annual increase of $10,861. However, with the proposed policy change the amount allocated for public art will be tied to the actual amounts appropriated by Council for eligible capital projects, and as such, the allocations for art will rise and fall with any increase or decrease to capital appropriations and the eligibility of those capital projects.
 The proposed Public Art Funding Ordinance also recommends that the City take “reasonable efforts to include funds for public art” in all eligible projects which may allow additional Capital Improvement Project appropriations to comply with the 1.75% for art requirement. This includes any new CIP appropriations (beyond the baseline CIP appropriations) for eligible capital projects on the biennial and

18

Public Art Funding for Municipal Capital Improvement Projects Ordinance CONSENT CALENDAR May 10, 2022

mid-cycle budget adoption (July 1) and any new eligible capital appropriations adopted in the Amendments to the Annual Appropriation Ordinance (November and May). These midyear capital project appropriations have historically not included a set-aside for public art because the policy and procedures developed in 1999 were based upon a once annual budgeting process and did not account for amendments to the annual appropriation ordinance (AAOs 1 & 2).  The fiscal impacts will vary from year to year because the CIP appropriations which occur as part of the AAO1 and AAO2 always vary; and will depend on the eligibility of the projects. An analysis of the CIP appropriations in FY21 and FY22 for both Parks Recreation and Waterfront (PRW) Department and Public Works (PW) Department shows that there were some eligible projects included in the AAOs that would have generated funds for public art. However, the difference in total amount allocated annually to public art utilizing the current budgeting practice versus the proposed methodology was negligible for these two years.  The Public Art Funding amount of 1.75% of the estimated cost of construction will be calculated during the budgeting process at all three times of the year when capital project appropriations are adopted by Council. As part of the budget planning process, City departments will use an accepted percentage of 75% of the total capital project budget amount as the accepted “estimated cost of construction.” This reflects an assumption for excluded “soft costs” of project design and staff time. The resulting estimated cost of construction will be the basis for the calculation of the 1.75% for art amount. This amount will not be revised should the department’s estimates be incorrect, unless there is a future new appropriation, at which time the percent for art calculation will be made based upon the “estimated cost of construction” for the new appropriation.  The Civic Arts Commission shall recommend and the Council, by resolution, shall adopt guidelines for the administration and implementation of this chapter which will specifically describe the process for identifying the eligible capital projects during all three times annually when the City makes budget appropriations.

There will be no fiscal impacts to the majority of the CIP budget because the following types of capital projects are excluded from this policy: (i) ADA compliance projects (not including projects where ADA compliance is a portion of a larger project); (ii) Emergency repair projects; (iii) Cyclical replacement and repair of trails, outdoor furnishings, or fencing (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project); (iv) Studies and environmental review; (v) Roof replacement (not including projects where roof replacement is a portion of a larger project); (vi) Mechanical, security, A/V equipment, and HVAC, upgrades and repairs (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project); (vii) Utilities projects, except where the project includes construction or reconstruction of a building; (viii) Vehicle repair and replacement; (ix) IT purchases and installations; (x) Seismic upgrades and waterproofing (not including projects where

Public Art Funding for Municipal Capital Improvement Projects Ordinance CONSENT CALENDAR May 10, 2022

these are a portion of a larger project); (xi) Projects where the majority (more than 50%) of the cost is allocated to elements located underground; and (xii) Projects where prohibited by federal or state law, including projects or portions of projects funded by grants from non-city sources that prohibit expenditure of funds for art.

The Civic Arts Commission’s Public Art Budgets will designate as separate any funds that are restricted by funding source for specific uses or locations. Appropriations for public art shall only be expended for acquisition of public art in a manner consistent with the specific restrictions established for each funding source.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Public Art Funding Ordinance is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

Throughout the City of Berkeley, creative works of public art breathe life into the built environment and reflect the unique character of our city. Public art engages artists to enhance Berkeley’s public spaces, which in turn improves the quality of life for residents and visitors alike.

While the City of Berkeley has an existing “percent-for-art” policy, which was established by resolution in 1999, funding for public art has not kept pace as a proportion of the City’s capital budget as the CIP budget has increased over the past two decades. In response to the Civic Arts Commission’s request that staff provide clear and transparent information regarding the determination of the Public Art Fund budget, the Office of Economic Development worked in collaboration with staff from the Budget Division in the City Manager’s Office, the Public Works Department, and the Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Department, to analyze the City of Berkeley’s funding for public art (Attachment 3). A key finding of this analysis was that the City of Berkeley’s existing public art funding policy is no longer compatible with the City’s current processes for budgeting and capital planning. The Civic Arts Commission recommends establishing this new public art funding policy to address the findings detailed in the staff analysis.

Additionally, the City of Berkeley established the Public Art in Private Development policy by Ordinance in 2017, which requires qualifying private development projects to either incorporate a public art element or pay an in-lieu fee to the Private Percent for Art fund. The Civic Arts Commission recommends establishing this new public art funding policy for municipal projects as an Ordinance so that the two public art policies have parity.

Lastly, the Civic Arts Commission recommends increasing the municipal public art percentage from 1.5% to 1.75% to align with the percentage for “On-Site” public art required for qualifying private development in Berkeley.

On February 23, 2022, Berkeley’s Civic Arts Commission voted unanimously to

Public Art Funding for Municipal Capital Improvement Projects Ordinance CONSENT CALENDAR May 10, 2022

recommend that City Council adopt a City of Berkeley ordinance: Public Art Funding for Municipal Capital Improvement Projects. (M/S/C: Bullwinkel/Passmore. Ayes — Anno, Blecher, Bullwinkel, Covarrubias, Dhesi, Ozol, Passmore, Woo; Nays — None; Abstain — None; Absent — None.)

BACKGROUND
The City has completed over 80 public art projects since its inception in 1967, with many of the early works commissioned through the City’s own voluntary contributions, philanthropic donations, and grant funding. The City’s longstanding Public Art Program includes a City collection valued at $3 million dollars with numerous public artworks installed throughout the city.

On June 1, 1999, the Berkeley City Council adopted Resolution No. 60,048-N.S., thereby establishing the City’s current public art funding policy and program. Under this policy and program, each of the City of Berkeley’s eligible capital projects are to dedicate 1.5% of the project’s construction costs for the commissioning of a public art element for incorporation into the project, or contribute an equivalent amount to the City’s Public Art Fund for the creation of off-site works of public art.

The 1999 Resolution established that, as part of the development of the City’s budget, City staff should engage with the Civic Arts Commission in a planning process to determine the list of eligible capital projects; the ultimate determination of the list is left to the discretion of the City Manager. The policy includes an exemption for “any improvement for which the source of funding, or any applicable law or regulation, prohibits or restricts the use of funds for [public art].” The policy also established that a project’s ‘soft costs’—including project management, architectural and engineering costs, planning costs, environmental review, legal fees, and feasibility studies—are exempt.

In practice, the Budget Office has determined an annual contribution to the Public Art Fund by applying the 1.5% calculation to the original budget figures for a limited number of baseline capital funding sources and project categories. The planning process as detailed by the 1999 public art funding resolution is no longer compatible with the City’s current processes and procedures for capital project planning and related budget appropriations. Currently, due to the multiple sources of small allocations of funding received into the Public Art Fund, the vast majority of public art projects are implemented as off-site works of art. For some major capital projects, the determination of the public art contribution is determined at the project level, and the funding is used for an on-site public art element, a supplemental contribution to the Public Art Fund, or a combination of the two approaches. An example of public art integrated into a City capital improvement project includes the new public art at San Pablo Park, which was funded by Measure T-1.

Public Art Funding for Municipal Capital Improvement Projects Ordinance CONSENT CALENDAR May 10, 2022

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

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
There are no identifiable California Environmental Quality Act effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Civic Arts Commission recommends establishing a new Public Art Funding policy for municipal capital improvement projects in order to align public art funding determinations with the City’s current processes for budgeting and capital planning.

Furthermore, establishing the new Public Art Funding policy for municipal projects as an Ordinance will allow the two public art policies to have parity. Lastly, the Civic Arts Commission recommends increasing the municipal public art percentage from 1.5% to

1.75% to align with the percentage for “On-Site” public art required for qualifying private development in Berkeley. The additional one quarter of one percent (0.25%) is a small increase relative to the overall budgets of eligible capital improvement projects, but this percentage will provide more funding for public art which may be used to commission new work or to care for the artwork already in the City’s public art collection.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The Civic Arts Commission considered leaving the Public Art Funding policy as a resolution, however decided to recommend the policy be adopted as an Ordinance so that the requirement would be formally adopted into the City’s municipal code in order to have legislative parity with the Public Art on Private Development requirement of the Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 23.316. The Civic Arts Commission also considered recommending that the percentage set aside from municipal capital improvement projects for public art be increased to two percent (2%), however there was an interest in aligning the municipal requirement with the Public Art on Private Development policy, which is one and three quarters percent (1.75%) for on-site public art projects.

CITY MANAGER
The City Manager concurs with the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report. The revised implementation plan for this process will result in no significant financial impacts to departmental operations as (1) the majority of capital projects will be considered to be exempt; (2) the proposed General Fund baseline allocation to the Public Arts Fund will be increased to offset the additional percentage charged to eligible capital projects.

Public Art Funding for Municipal Capital Improvement Projects Ordinance CONSENT CALENDAR May 10, 2022

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Lovvorn, Secretary, Civic Arts Commission, Office of Economic Development, 981-7533
Attachments:
1: Ordinance: Public Art Funding on Municipal Capital Improvement Projects 2: Resolution No. 60,048-N.S. (1999 “1.5% for Art” Resolution) 3: Analysis of Public Art Funding from City of Berkeley Construction Projects

Attachment 1 Page 1
ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

PUBLIC ART FUNDING FOR MUNICIPAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS; ADDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.13
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 6.13 is added as follows:

6.13 APPROPRIATION FOR PUBLIC ART FOR MUNICIPAL CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

6.13.010 Purpose.

The City of Berkeley believes that the cultivation and development of a livable city is enhanced by the presence of public art and creative expressions available for the enjoyment of all members of the community. Public art enhances community vitality, fosters a sense of belonging, and provides opportunities to meaningfully involve community members in the design of their environment. Furthermore, public art provides professional opportunities for artists, which contributes to the economic sustainability of the arts community. The City of Berkeley is committed to strengthening its municipal public art program by enhancing the funds available for public art and ensuring flexibility to provide equitable public art experiences in the City of Berkeley that are timely, meaningful, and relevant. Therefore, it is the purpose of this Chapter and the policy of this City to provide for the allocation of one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of the estimated cost of construction associated with municipal capital improvement projects to be paid into the Public Art Fund, which shall be used for art and cultural enrichment of public buildings, parks, streets, and other public spaces in the City of Berkeley.

6.13.020 Public Art Fund Allocation.
(a) It shall be City policy to set aside one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of its estimated capital improvement project (CIP) budgets, as defined in this section, for the purpose of providing public art. Except as provided in this section, all CIP projects shall be subject to this policy, including but not limited to buildings, shelters, parking garages and lots, restrooms, small structures, parks, medians, landscaping, plazas, gateways, bridges, walls, tunnels, street and road construction. CIP projects include new construction, as well as renovations and alterations. Salaries and benefits of public employees supporting CIP projects shall not be included in the CIP budget subject to this ordinance. This policy shall apply to all capital improvement projects included in the annual capital improvement program (CIP) budget, as well as capital improvement projects funded through any amendment to the annual appropriation ordinance.
(b) The following CIP projects are excluded from this policy:

Attachment 1 Page 2
(i) ADA compliance projects (not including projects where ADA compliance is a portion of a larger project).
(ii) Emergency repair projects.
(iii) Cyclical replacement and repair of trails, outdoor furnishings, or fencing (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project). (iv) Studies and environmental review.
(v) Roof replacement (not including projects where roof replacement is a portion of a larger project).
(vi) Mechanical, security, A/V equipment, and HVAC, upgrades and repairs (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project). (vii) Utilities projects, except where the project includes construction or reconstruction of a building.
(viii) Vehicle repair and replacement.
(ix) IT purchases and installations.
(x) Seismic upgrades and waterproofing (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project).
(xi) Projects where the majority (more than 50%) of the cost is allocated to elements located underground.
(xii) Projects where prohibited by federal or state law, including projects or portions of projects funded by grants from non-city sources that prohibit expenditure of funds for art.

6.13.030 Reasonable efforts to include funds for public art. (a) City staff shall use reasonable efforts to obtain appropriate approvals from any funding source for any capital improvement project, to allow use of one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of such funds for the acquisition of public art as provided in this title. Such efforts shall include, without limitation, identifying public art in grant applications for capital improvement projects, efforts to include expenditures for public art in developer funded infrastructure projects, and efforts to allocate for public art in developer-constructed infrastructure and public facilities. (b) If the city enters into an agreement with another public entity, whereby city funds are transferred to such other public entity for the capital improvement project that

Attachment 1 Page 3
would otherwise be deemed subject to the public art requirements under this title, city staff shall use reasonable efforts to include in such agreement, whenever it is lawful to do so, a requirement that the recipient entity or its successor in interest shall take appropriate measures to insure that not less than one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of the city funds so transferred are expended for acquisition of public art. (c) Before proposing a bond issue or making a request for an appropriation for the construction of any of the projects set forth in this Chapter, the officer, board or commission concerned shall add thereto for the Public Art allocation associated with the proposed CIP project, one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of the gross estimated construction cost. Where funding eligibility is limited by law or funding agency rules, the Public Art allocation shall be based upon one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of eligible construction costs. For any public bond raising funds for capital percentage, the designated Public Art allocation percentage will be stated in the bond language presented to voters.
(d) Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit the city council from adopting an ordinance or resolution establishing a public art contribution for any project otherwise excluded from this policy or setting the public art contribution for any project at greater than one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of the CIP budget. (e) Aggregation of Funds. Funds shall be deposited into the Public Art Fund. Per BMC Chapter 6.14, the Civic Art Commission shall determine public or publicly-accessible sites for art funded by the one and three quarters percent (1.75%) for art policy. Funds may be expended on public art at any appropriate site within the city. Funds from two or more CIP projects may be pooled to fund a single work of art. Funds may be used for permanent or temporary public art.
(f) The Civic Arts Commission shall recommend and the Council, by resolution, shall adopt guidelines for the administration and implementation of this chapter.

6.13.040 Definitions. For purposes of this Section:
 "Alteration" of a building, aboveground structure, or transportation improvement project shall include substantial changes to elements such as walls, partitions, or ceilings on 2/3 or more of the total floor space, excluding basements. "Substantial changes" shall include additions to, renovation of, removal of, and modification of such elements.
 "Construction cost" shall mean the total estimated construction contract award amount, including the costs of all built-in fixtures, unless otherwise agreed to by the Civic Arts Commission. "Construction cost" shall not include movable or personal property or construction cost contingency.

Attachment 1 Page 4
 "Public Art" shall mean the acquisition and installation of original works of art (including limited editions), or temporary installation, display, or presentation of the same, on City property for aesthetic and cultural enhancement of public buildings and public spaces and engagement of the public with the creative work of artists, as approved by the Civic Arts Commission.
 "Public Art Collection" shall mean the various artworks owned by the City under the jurisdiction of the Civic Arts Commission that are accessioned by action of the Commission into the Public Art Collection.
 "Transportation improvement project" refers to Public Works projects which include both aboveground and below-ground transportation-related projects; boarding ramps; transit platforms; terminals and transportation systems with their attendant passenger amenities, such as shelters, seating, lighting, landscaping, and signage; transportation-related structures such as maintenance and operating facilities; power substations; and street/highway-related transit improvements such as bridges and overpasses.

6.13.050 Administrative Fees.

The Civic Arts Commission shall supervise and control the expenditure of all funds appropriated for public art and shall allocate up to twenty percent (20%) of said funds for all necessary and reasonable administrative costs incurred in connection therewith unless such administrative fee is limited or prohibited by the funding source.

6.13.060 Maintenance and Conservation Funds.

The Civic Arts Commission may set aside and expend up to ten percent (10%) of the total public art allocation for each project for maintenance and conservation of artworks in the Public Art Collection. When permitted by the funding source, funds set aside pursuant to this Section shall be invested in an interest-bearing account when the total of such funds set aside exceeds $10,000.

6.13.070 Miscellaneous Provisions.
(a) Construction and installation of public art shall comply with the requirements of all applicable building codes, laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. (b) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit or abridge the jurisdiction of the officer, board or commission of the participating City department to supervise and control the expenditure of project funds other than the one and three quarters percent (1.75%) allocation for public art.
(c) This ordinance shall not be applied retroactively to projects for which a public art allocation previously would not have been required, nor to those projects for which project funding has been approved by prior voter action but not yet appropriated or expended. Nor shall this ordinance be construed to allow for an increase in the total

Attachment 1 Page 5
public art allocation for a project that is already underway or for which the public art allocation has already been established.
(d) Ownership. All art acquired pursuant to this chapter shall be acquired in the name of the City of Berkeley as part of the Public Art Collection and title shall vest in the City of Berkeley.

6.13.080 Superseding Effect.

The ordinance codified in this chapter shall supersede and supplant Resolution No. 60,048-N.S. adopted by City Council on June 1, 1999.

Section 2. The provisions of this Ordinance apply to all municipal capital appropriations approved for Fiscal Year 2023 and beyond.

Section 3. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Office of Economic Development
2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 | http://www.cityofberkeley.info/oed/ TEL: 510-981-7530 TDD: (510) 981-6903 FAX: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] December 26, 2019
To: David White, Deputy City Manager
From: Jordan Klein, Economic Development Manager
Subject: Public Art Funding from City of Berkeley Construction Projects Introduction
Over the past five years, the annual contribution to the Public Art Fund has decreased, even as the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget has generally increased (see Table 1).

The Civic Arts Commission has requested that
staff provide clear and transparent information
regarding the determination of the Public Art
Fund budget, and that the City Auditor audit the
determination of the Public Art Fund budget. In
response, the Office of Economic Development,
working in collaboration with staff from the
Budget Division in the City Manager’s Office ,
the Public Works Department (PW) and the
Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Department
(PRW), has prepared this memo to (1)
summarize the current situation regarding
funding for the City of Berkeley’s p
ublic art program; (2) identify outstanding issues regarding the Public Art program budgeting; and (3) make recommendations for near-term and longer-term actions to address those issues.

Background
On June 1, 1999, the Berkeley City Council adopted Resolution No. 60,048-N.S. (Attachment 1 , hereafter referenced as ‘the 1999 Resolution’ ), thereby establishing the City’s current public art policy and program, and the Public Art Fund.2 Under this policy and program, each of the City of Berkeley’s eligible capital projects must dedicate 1.5% of the project’s construction costs for the commissioning of a public art element for incorporation into the project, or to contribute an equivalent amount to the City’s Public Art Fund for the creation of off-site works of public art. 1: This table does not include the public art contribution for the Center Street Garage, which comprised fund transfers to the Public Art Fund in FY2017 ($222,860) and FY2019 ($51,924), and design and construction of the Cube Gallery ($106,060).
2: In 2017 the City of Berkeley established the Public Art in Private Development policy and program, which requires qualifying private development projects to either incorporate a public art element or pay an in lieu fee to the Private Percent for Art fund. That program is distinct from the program described in this memo.

Fiscal
Year
Capital
Improvement Plan,
Original Budget
Public Art
Fund,
Original
Budget1
2021 $59,765,721 $65,164
2020 111,962,162 65,164
2019 39,926,908 65,164
2018 81,571,653 69,364
2017 32,908,296 70,940
2016 36,151,639 71,502
Table 1: CIP and Public Art Budget, 2016-2021

Public Art Funding from City of Berkeley Construction Projects 12/26/2019

The 1999 Resolution establishes that as part of the development of the City’s budget, City staff should engage with the Civic Arts Commission in a planning process to determine the list of eligible capital projects; the ultimate determination of the list is left to the discretion of the City Manager. It also notes that the policy should not be applied to “any improvement for which the source of funding, or any applicable law or regulation, prohibits or restricts the use of funds for [public art].” The Resolution also establishes that a project ’s ‘soft costs ’— including project
management, architectural and engineering costs, planning costs, environmental review, legal fees, and
feasibility studies—are not eligible for application of the policy.

In practice, the Budget Office has determined an annual contribution to the Public Art Fund by applying the 1.5% calculation to the original budget figures for a limited number of capital funding sources and project categories. For some (but not all) of those ‘off the top’ funding contributions, a deduction is made for soft costs. The vast majority of public art projects are implemented as off- site works of art. For some major capital projects (including Center Street Garage as the most recent example), the determination of the public art contribution is determined at the project level, and the funding is used for an on
-site public art element, a supplemental contribution to the Public Art Fund, or a combination of the two approaches.

Staff Review of 2020 CIP and Public Art Budget
Office of Economic Development (OED) staff, in consultation with staff from the Budget Office, PW, and PRW, reviewed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 capital program by project, together with the FY 2020 Public Art Fund calculation spreadsheet provided by the Budget Office, to determine which projects had been identified as eligible capital projects for application of the public art requirement, and which projects had been excluded (see Attachment 2). Staff found the following:
 FY 2020 eligible capital projects. The following list includes those projects that were funded
by expense accounts from which a contribution to the Public Art Fund was made. o ADA Building Improvements
o FY 2020 Street Rehabilitation Projects
o ADA Curb Ramp Repairs
o Traffic Calming Program
o Finger Dock & Piling Replacement
o Rose Garden-Phase II
o San Pablo Play Structure
o West Campus Pool Filter
o George Florence Play Equipment
o King School Play Area
o Ohlone Basketball Court
o Parks Minor Maintenance Projects
o Public Works Building Maintenance Projects
The total budget amount for these projects is $4,894,278, or 4.4% of the total FY 2020 CIP budget. Capital Planning staff observed that the budgets for several of these projects include soft costs; thus if the guidelines established in the Resolution were more strictly enforced, it could result in a reduction of the Public Art Fund contribution.  Staff identified the following capital projects that could be eligible for application of the public art
policy, but to which the policy has not yet been applied. o EV Charging stations ($600,000)
o Police Parking Marina facility ($481,570)

Public Art Funding from City of Berkeley Construction Projects 12/26/2019

o Sacramento Street Complete Street Project ($47,000)
o Telegraph Channing Elevator Replacement ($300,000)
The total budget for these projects is $1,428,570. Application of the public art policy would require a contribution of up to $21,429 to the Public Art Fund.3  Many of the funding streams that are used to finance CIP projects prohibit the use of funds for public art projects. These funding streams include state and regional gas taxes (e.g., Measure B, Measure BB, and Vehicle Registration Fees), special property assessments (e.g., Street Lighting Fee, Sanitary Sewer Fee, Storm Drain Fee), certain grant funds, development agreement proceeds, and insurance claims for camp repairs. In FY 2020, these funding streams accounted for $79,730,929, or 71.2% of the total CIP budget.  Sixteen CIP projects, totaling $14,106,220 or 12.6% of the total CIP budget, are funded through Measure T1 Bond proceeds. One (1) percent of the total bond proceeds have been dedicated to public art projects; those funds are managed separately from the general Public Art Fund, and are being used to implement public art projects at North Berkeley Senior Center and San Pablo Park. The Civic Arts Commission has expressed frustration and disappointment that the public art contributed was calculated at 1% rather than 1.5% in accordance with the 1999 Resolution.

In staff’s review of the CIP, we noted that some of the Measure T1 Bond proceeds are being used to fund non-construction projects (e.g., conceptual plans and studies) and project management costs. In addition, each of the construction projects has associated soft costs that are ineligible for application of the public art policy. Therefore, if staff used the 1999 Resolution methodology (1.5% of construction costs) rather than the current methodology (1% of total bond proceeds), the resulting contribution to public art might actually be less.
 The CIP includes non-construction projects and soft costs that are ineligible for application of the public art policy, including debt service, vehicle and other equipment replacement, software, and design and engineering costs. In FY 2020 the budget for these projects totaled $
10,116,148, or 9.0% of the total CIP budget.

Outstanding Issues
 The process for calculation of the annual contribution to the Public Art Fund that is outlined in the 1999 Resolution is not compatible with the City’s other regular pro cesses for budgeting and capital planning. The consensus among staff—including staff from the Civic Arts program, PW and PRW capital planning, and Budget Office—is that except for major projects (e.g., projects greater than $10 million) the Budget Office’s current process (a flat application to qualifying funding streams and project categories) should be maintained.  Staff also observes that budget appropriations that occur in November and spring typically exclude funds for the public art program. At least two of the FY 2020 projects noted above, where the public art requirement has not been applied but may warrant application, fall into this category
– Police Parking Marina Facility, and Sacramento Street Complete Streets. 3: The total budget for these projects ($1,428,570) may include soft costs, or other costs that are ineligible for application of the public art calculation. Those costs would need to be excluded from the calculation, which could reduce the Public Art Fund contribution.

Public Art Funding from City of Berkeley Construction Projects 12/26/2019

 Actual expenditures on major projects sometimes exceed budgeted amounts, and those additions are often excluded from the public art program. For example, actual expenditures on construction of the Center Street Garage increased by roughly $5.4 million over the originally budgeted expenditures; however, the project’s public art contribution was calculated based on the original budget. The project’s compliance with the public art policy required
an additional contribution of $81,306 to the Public Art Fund, which was allocated by City Council on December 3, 2019.
 The public art policy was applied to the majority of, but not all, maintenance projects and expenditures from qualifying funding sources. Capital planning staff noted the vast deferred maintenance needs of the City’s infrastructure and capital assets, and the urgent need to direct as much funding as possible towards the completion of those projects. Parks staff observed that the application of the policy to Measure F funds expended on ‘Minor Maintenance’ projects is incorrect and should be reversed for FY21.

Civic Arts program staff noted that the City’s public art collection also suffers from deferred maintenance issues, and that there is a nexus for application of the public art policy to expenditures on maintenance projects in order to provide a reliable funding source for collection maintenance.

Recommendations
The following near-term and mid-term activities could address and resolve the outstanding issues identified above.

Near-term actions:
 Include allocations to the Public Art Fund, for the purpose of bringing the projects referenced above into compliance with the public art policy, for inclusion in the mid-cycle budget update. This would include an allocation of $21,429 to the Public Art Fund for the EV Charging Stations, Police Parking Marina facility, Sacramento Street Complete Street Project, and Telegraph Channing Elevator Replacement.
 Establish as a regular practice that staff from the Budget Office, Civic Arts Program, and PW and PRW capital planning teams engage twice per year to review and plan for public art policy implementation.
 Incorporate into any mid-year budget expenditures on capital projects a review by Budget Office staff for public art policy applicability.
 Consider whether and how the policy should be applied to minor maintenance projects (versus major projects and new improvements).

Longer-term actions:
 Amend the 1999 Resolution to update the public art policy, in collaboration with the City Manager’s Office, Capital Planning staff from PW and PRW, and the Civic Arts Commission, and with careful consideration of the following:

Public Art Funding from City of Berkeley Construction Projects 12/26/2019

o Update the process and timing for the determination of the annual contribution to the Public Art Fund to be better aligned with the City’s budgeting and capital planning processes, and with consideration of staffing and budget constraints. o Establish more clear criteria to determine which projects and capital funding sources are eligible for application of the public art policy, especially with regards to expenditures on maintenance and repairs.
 Establish as a regular practice that grant applications for capital projects include expenditures on public art in the proposed budget, whenever possible without jeopardizing the application.
 For future bond measures for public construction projects, ensure that the public art policy is appropriately incorporated into the final bond language.

Attachments:
1- Resolution No. 60,048-N.S. Establishing the Percent for Art Program 2- FY2020 Capital Improvement Plan Budgeted Expenditures By Project By Fund, with Percent for Art Applicability
Cc:

Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager
Teresa Berkeley-Simmons, Budget Manager
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront
Phil Harrington, Director, Public Works
Civic Arts Commission

Citywide Capital Program By Project, with Public Art Requirement Applicability Citywide Capital Program by Project, by Fund
Public Art Policy Applicability
Fund Category Project Name FY2020 Total
Funds
Eligible for
Public Art
Policy
Application
Ineligible
Funds Notes / Rationale for Ineligibility
FY2020
Public Art
Fund
Contribution
Transportation Pavement Markiings (incl. Roadway Thermo Marking) 50,000$ - $ 50,000$ Funded by Excess Property Transfer Tax $ - EV Charging Stations @ Corp Yard and Marina 600,000$ - $ 600,000$ Funded by Excess Property Transfer Tax; may
warrant policy application $ -
10 Total General Fund 650,000$ - $ 650,000$ $ - 330 PRW Berkeley Tuolumne Camp (BTC) 49,795,822$ - $ 49,795,822$ Funding source prohibition $ - Cazadero Camp - Landslide Repair 854,306$ - $ 854,306$ Funding source prohibition $ - 330 Total Camp Fund 50,650,128$ - $ 50,650,128$ $ - 369 Unallocated Transportation Traffic Calming Devices Replacement & Maintenance 50,000$ - $ 50,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 369 Streets Street Rehabilitation FY 2020 State Transportation Tax 445,303$ - $ 445,303$ Funding source prohibition $ - Street Rehabilitation FY 2020 SB1 1,500,000$ - $ 1,500,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - Street Rehabilitation FY 2021 State Transportation Tax 50,000$ - $ 50,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 369 Total Gas Tax 2,045,303$ - $ 2,045,303$ $ - Pavement Marking Program 150,000$ - $ 150,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 391 Streets Street Rehabilitation FY2020 700,000$ - $ 700,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 391 Total
Measure B
LS&R 850,000$ - $ 850,000$ $ - 392 Milvia Bikeway Project 76,000$ - $ 76,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 392 Citywide Bicycle Parking 13,334$ - $ 13,334$ Funding source prohibition $ - 392
Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study & Transportation Impact Study Guidelines 28,183$ -$ 28,183$ F unding source prohibition $ - Bike & Ped CIP (Contingency) 75,000$ -$ 75,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 392 Total Measure B B&P 192,517$ -$ 192,517$ $ - 1

Citywide Capital Program By Project, with Public Art Requirement Applicability Fund Category Project Name FY2020 Total
Funds
Eligible for
Public Art
Policy
Application
Ineligible
Funds Notes / Rationale for Ineligibility
FY2020
Public Art
Fund
Contribution
397 Streets Street Rehabilitation FY2020 155,000$ -$ 155,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 397 Sidewalks Proactive and Respons ive Sidewalk Repair Projects 200,000$ 200,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 397 Total Measure F 355,000$ 355,000$ $ - 406 Transportation San Pablo/Ashby Inters ection Traffice Signal Improvements 76,000$ -$ 76,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 406 Streets Street Rehabilitation FY2020 - BB LSR Sales Tax 2,200,000$ -$ 2,200,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 406 Sidewalks Proactive and Respons ive Sidewalk Repair Projects 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 406 Transportation Traffic Calming Program 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 406 Transportation Traffic Signal Maintenance 250,000$ -$ 250,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 406 Transportation
Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study & Transportation Impact Study Guidelines 28,183$ -$ 28,183$ Funding source prohibition $ - 406 Total
Measure BB
LS&R 2,704,183$ -$ 2,704,183$ $ - 407 Transportation Shattuck Reconfiguration 118,354$ -$ 118,354$ Funding source prohibition $ - 407 Transportation Ninth Street Pathway Phase II 83,557$ -$ 83,557$ Funding source prohibition $ - 407 San Pablo/Ashby Intersection Traffice Signal Improvements 110,000$ -$ 110,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 407 Sacramento St./North Berkeley BART Complete Sts 273,253$ -$ 273,253$ Funding source prohibition $ - 407 Citywide Bicycle Parking 26,664$ -$ 26,664$ Funding source prohibition $ - 407 Total
Mesure BB
B&P 611,828$ -$ 611,828$ $ - 450 Minor
Maintenance 550,000$ 412,500$ 137,500$ Soft costs excluded $ 6,188 450 Gilman Reserve/ Facility Assmt./ Sewer-Laterals 100,000$ 75,000$ 25,000$ Soft costs excluded $ 1,125 450 W. Campus Pool Filter 175,000$ 131,250$ 43,750$ Soft costs excluded $ 1,969 450
Rose Garden-Phase II
(see Meas. T1 proj wksht) 50,000$ 37,500 $ 12,500 $ Soft costs excluded $ 563 450
San Pablo Play Equipment
(see Meas. T1 proj wksht) 200,000$ 150,000 $ 50,000 $ Soft costs excluded $ 2,250 450
George Florence Play Equipment
(see Meas. T1 proj wksht) 125,000$ 93,750 $ 31,250 $ Soft costs excluded $ 1,406 450 King School Park Play Area 50,000$ 37,500 $ 12,500 $ Soft costs excluded $ 563 450 Ohlone Basketball 300,000$ 225,000 $ 75,000 $ Soft costs excluded $ 3,375 450 Total Parks Tax 1,550,000$ 1,162,500$ 387,500$ $ 17,438 2

Citywide Capital Program By Project, with Public Art Requirement Applicability Fund Category Project Name FY2020 Total
Funds
Eligible for
Public Art
Policy
Application
Ineligible
Funds Notes / Rationale for Ineligibility
FY2020
Public Art
Fund
Contribution
607 T1 PRW

AQUATIC PARK TIDE TUBES
220,835$ - $ 220,835$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 PRW

FRANCES ALBRIER COMMUNITY CENTER
425,000$ - $ 425,000$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 PRW
GROVE PARK PHASE 2
880,325$ - $ 880,325$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 PRW

LIVE OAK COMMUNITY CENTER
4,232,106$ - $ 4,232,106$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 PRW

UNIVERSITY AVE,MARINA,SPINNAKER ST
83,022$ - $ 83,022$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 PRW

MUNICIPAL PIER
2,056,908$ - $ 2,056,908$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 PRW

GEORGE FLORENCE PLAY STRUC
531,703$ - $ 531,703$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 PRW

SAN PABLO PLAY EQUIP
1,056,715$ - $ 1,056,715$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 PRW
STRAWBERRY CREEK PARK PH 2
1,131,389$ - $ 1,131,389$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 PRW

ROSE GRDN PTHWAYS,TENNIS CRT,PERG
345,835$ - $ 345,835$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 PRW
GILMAN N. FLDHOSE/RSTRM
172,025$ - $ 172,025$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 PRW

WILLARD CLUBHOUSE RENO
197,025$ - $ 197,025$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 Facilities Veteran's Building 148,215$ - $ 148,215$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 Corporation Yard 50,467$ - $ 50,467$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 Public Safety Building 19,762$ - $ 19,762$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 Streets Street Rehabilitation FY 2020 2,554,888$ -$ 2,554,888$ 1% for Public Art Accounted Separately $ - 607 Total T1 Bonds 14,106,220$ -$ 14,106,220$ $ - 609 IT ERP Replacement Fund 2,734,552$ 2,734,552$ Non-construction project $ - 609 Total
ERP
Replacement 2,734,552$ 2,734,552$ $ - 891 IT PC Replacement (PC-R) and Server Replacement 540,370$ 540,370$ Non-construction project $ - 891 Total 540,370$ 540,370$ $ - 3

Citywide Capital Program By Project, with Public Art Requirement Applicability Fund Category Project Name FY2020 Total
Funds
Eligible for
Public Art
Policy
Application
Ineligible
Funds Notes / Rationale for Ineligibility
FY2020
Public Art
Fund
Contribution
610 Facilities Roof Replacement 290,000$ 164,773$ 125,227$ Emergency repairs and maintenance - included at
approximately 58% $ 2,472
610 Building Assesment (Contingency) 70,000$ 39,773$ 30,227$ Emergency repairs and maintenance - included at
approximately 58% $ 597
610 Civic Center Carpet Replacement 440,000$ 250,000$ 190,000$ Emergency repairs and maintenance - included at
approximately 58% $ 3,750
610 Fire Station 6 Drill Tower 45,000$ 25,568$ 19,432$ Emergency repairs and maintenance - included at
approximately 58% $ 384
610 HazMat Storage Upgrade 35,000$ 19,886$ 15,114$ Emergency repairs and maintenance - included at
approximately 58% $ 298
610 Police Parking Enforcement Marina Facility and Parking Lot Improvem 250,000$ 250,000 $ May warrant policy application $ - 610 ADA Building Improvements 100,000$ 100,000$ -$ $ 1,500 610 PRW Rose Garden-Phase II 100,000$ 75,000$ 25,000$ Soft costs excluded $ 1,125 610 PRW San Pablo Play Structure 300,000$ 225,000$ 75,000$ Soft costs excluded $ 3,375 610 Debt Svc Ball Fields Acquisition Debt Service 249,971$ 249,971$ Non-capital project $ - 610 Debt Svc Animal Shelter Debt Service/2010 COP Animal Shelter 402,613$ 402,613$ Non-capital project $ - 610 Debt Svc Theater Debt Service 249,971$ 249,971$ Non-capital project $ - 610 Debt Svc University Ave. W/C Debt Service 406,952$ 406,952$ Non-capital project $ - 610 Streets Street Rehabilitation FY2020 1,825,050$ 1,725,000$ 100,050$ Soft costs excluded $ 25,875 610 Street Rehabilitation FY2021 99,950$ -$ 99,950$ Design costs $ - 610 5302-431-6520 Sidewalks 50/50 Program 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ Project deemed ineligible (sidewalk repairs) $ - 610 Sidewalks 50/50 Catch-up 500,000$ -$ 500,000$ Project deemed ineligible (sidewalk repairs) $ - 610 Sidewalks Proactive and Responsive Sidewalk Repair Projects 285,000$ 285,000$ Project deemed ineligible (sidewalk repairs) $ - 610 Sidewalks Pathway Repairs 50,000$ 50,000$ Project deemed ineligible (sidewalk repairs) $ - 610 Sidewalks ADA Curb Ramp Program 200,000$ 200,000$ -$ $ 3,000 610 Transportation Bicycle Plan Implementation 119,278$ 119,278$ $ 1,789 610 Transportation San Pablo/Ashby Intersections Improvements 606,662$ -$ Bayer Mitigation $ - Funding source prohibition $ - 4

Citywide Capital Program By Project, with Public Art Requirement Applicability Fund Category Project Name FY2020 Total
Funds
Eligible for
Public Art
Policy
Application
Ineligible
Funds Notes / Rationale for Ineligibility
FY2020
Public Art
Fund
Contribution
610 Transportation Sacramento St Complete Streets/North Berkeley BART 47,000$ 47,000$ May warrant policy application $ - 470 5307
Other
Infrastructure Coucil Supp. - Funding for Street Lighting 416,608$ 416,608$ Property Fee - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - Other
Infrastructure Underground Utility Distrcit No. 48 Project 250,000$ 250,000$ Placeholder for fire safety project w/PG&E; monies
gathered from unspent fund balances (where art funds
have already been taken), salary savings, etc. $ - Transportation Traffic Calming Program 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ $ 750 610 Total
Capital
Improvement 7,489,055$ 2,994,278$ 4,494,777$ Rama's spreadsheet for Public Art calculation
shows $2,994,278 from this fund. Please indicate
which additional projects were included. $ 44,914 613
Bay Area Air
Quality Citywide Bicycle Parking 60,000$ 60,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - 613 Total 60,000$ 60,000$ $ - 642 Sidewalks 50/50 Program 100,000$ 100,000$ Funding source prohibition (Money is from private
property owners for sidewalk repairs) $ - 642 Total
Private Party
Sidewalk 100,000$ 100,000$ $ - Milvia Bikeway Project 273,000$ 273,000$ Funding source prohibition $ - Sacramento St./North Berkeley BART Complete Sts 1,364,202$ 1,364,202$ Funding source prohibition $ - Southside Complete Streets 506,640$ 506,640$ Funding source prohibition $ - 674 Total CALTRANS 2,143,842$ 2,143,842$ $ - 820 Facilities Transfer Station AirCo building upgrade for office use 385,000$ 385,000$ Design, planning and other soft costs $ - 820 Facilities
Transfer Station Rebuild Final Geotechnical Site investigation to support engineering design 100,000$ 100,000$ Design, planning and other soft costs $ - Solid Waste & Recycling Transfer Station Rebuild CEQA process 1,200,000$ 1,200,000$ Design, planning and other soft costs $ - 820 Total Zero Waste 1,685,000$ 1,685,000$ $ - 5

Citywide Capital Program By Project, with Public Art Requirement Applicability Fund Category Project Name FY2020 Total
Funds
Eligible for
Public Art
Policy
Application
Ineligible
Funds Notes / Rationale for Ineligibility
FY2020
Public Art
Fund
Contribution
825 Finger Dock & Piling Replacement 250,000$ 187,500$ 62,500$ Soft costs excluded $ 2,813 825 Sewer Lateral Work 100,000$ 100,000$ $ - 825 Marina Debt Service 485,719$ 485,719$ Non-capital project $ - 825 PRW Minor Maintenance 150,000$ 150,000$ $ - 825 Total
Marina
Operations 985,719$ 187,500$ 798,219$ $ 2,813 830 Sewers Sewer Rehab - Sanitary Sewer Master Plan 623,106$ 623,106$ Enterprise Fund - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 830 Sewers San Pablo (City's Limit to Limit) 3,256,112$ 3,256,112$ Enterprise Fund - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 830 Neilson, Berryman, et al 4,515,649$ 4,515,649$ Enterprise Fund - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 830 Seawall Dr, Seventh St, et al 5,099,864$ 5,099,864$ Enterprise Fund - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 830 West Frontage (Caltrans ROW) 182,617$ 182,617$ Enterprise Fund - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 830 Urgent Repairs FY 2020 503,457$ 503,457$ Enterprise Fund - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 830 MH Rehab FY 2020 503,457$ 503,457$ Enterprise Fund - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 830 Parker St, MLK Wy, et al 1,035,441$ 1,035,441$ Enterprise Fund - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 830 MLK Wy, Cedar St, et al 782,526$ 782,526$ Enterprise Fund - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 830 Walnut St, The Alameda, et al 593,927$ 593,927$ Enterprise Fund - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 830 Urgent Repairs FY 2021 84,731$ 84,731$ Enterprise Fund - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 830 MH Rehab FY 2021 84,731$ 84,731$ Enterprise Fund - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 830 Total Sanitary Sewer 17,265,619$ 17,265,619$ $ - 831 Berkeley Rose Garden Drainage 679,239$ 679,239$ Property Fee - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 831 GI Allston Way Permeable Paver Maintenance 200,000$ 200,000$ Property Fee - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 831 Storm Drainage Repairs - Wildcat/Shelby Trail 75,000$ 75,000$ Property Fee - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 831 Piedmont Avenue Green Infrastructure 25,000$ 25,000$ Property Fee - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 831 Storm Drain Planning & Studies 750,000$ 750,000$ Property Fee - 218 Funding source prohibition $ - 831 Total Clean Storm 1,729,239$ 1,729,239$ $ - Telegraph Channing Elevator Replacement 300,000$ 300,000$ May warrant policy application $ - 835 Total
Off Street
Parking 300,000$ 300,000$ $ - Police Parking Enforcement Marina Facility and Parking Lot Improvement 231,570$ 231,570$ May warrant policy application $ - 840 Total
Parking Meter
Fund 231,570$ 231,570$ $ - 860 Equipment Vehicle Replacement 2,611,000$ 2,611,000$ Non-construction project $ - 6

Citywide Capital Program By Project, with Public Art Requirement Applicability Fund Category Project Name FY2020 Total
Funds
Eligible for
Public Art
Policy
Application
Ineligible
Funds Notes / Rationale for Ineligibility
FY2020
Public Art
Fund
Contribution
860 Total
Equip.

Replacement 2,611,000$ 2,611,000$ $ - Grand Total 111,591,145$ 4,344,278$ 107,246,867$ 65,164$ 7

Energy 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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Energy Commission
Submitted by: Bentham Paulos, Chairperson, Energy Commission Subject: Recommendation that Vision 2050 Infrastructure Bond Prioritize Clean Mobility

RECOMMENDATION
The Energy Commission recommends that the Vision 2050 infrastructure bond contemplated for the 2022 ballot prioritize transportation, with an emphasis on building the clean mobility network of the future.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No fiscal impacts are associated with this recommendation at this time.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Council will soon be considering a ballot measure to provide revenues for infrastructure improvements. There are three major reasons for those funds to focus on transportation. First, the majority of Berkeley’s greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation, as do California’s. Transportation is also the largest local contributor to conventional pollutants, such as particulates, nitrogen oxides, and smog, which impact public health. This is especially true along arterial roads, where a substantial amount of new housing is being built. There are two strategies to reduce global warming pollution from cars: we can get gasoline out of cars by encouraging electric vehicles, and we can get people out of cars by encouraging a suite of mobility options, such as transit, walking, biking, and other electric devices like scooters.

Second, Berkeley has been encouraging and is planning for a substantial increase in housing to meet growing population demand, lower the cost of living, and provide housing to the unhoused. Housing and transportation are two sides of the same coin.

The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) envisions almost 9000 new housing units this decade, in addition to plans UC Berkeley has to increase enrollment and housing.1 This substantial increase in population will boost demands for transportation, putting a premium on non-car mobility. Expanding the population without improving transportation will quickly erode quality of life.

Third, the need to repair streets is an opportunity to follow through on the many plans formulated in recent years on safety, biking, walking, and safe routes to schools (collectively referred to as complete streets). It is a chance to build the diverse low- 1 City of Berkeley Housing Element Update 2023-2031, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/housingelement/

19

Energy Commission Recommendation for Vision 2050 CONSENT CALENDAR May 10, 2022

carbon, low-stress, and low-danger transportation system for the Berkeley of tomorrow.

Enabling more transportation options will lower the cost of living and increase the quality of life for all.

At its March 23, 2022 meeting, the Energy Commission voted to send this recommendation to City Council by a vote of 5-0-0-0 [(Zuckerman), Second (Guliasi), Ayes: (Paulos, Wolf, Tahara, Guliasi, Zuckerman). Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent:

None].

BACKGROUND
The Commission was briefed on the concept of a ballot measure by Public Works Director Liam Garland on December 1, 2021. Mr. Garland laid out the many pressing needs Berkeley has for improvement, as reflected in the Vision 2050 plan. We think transportation is the most important thing to focus on, and think that voters will agree.

Specifically we would call attention to
Measure B, passed by voters in Austin, Texas in
2020. Proposition B raised $460 million in general obligation bonds for transportation infrastructure including sidewalks, transportation-related bikeways, urban trails, transportation safety projects (Vision Zero), safe routes to school, and substandard streets.2 We believe this structure is a good model for Berkeley to emulate. The Austin Council’s resolution is included as Attachment 1 to this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
An infrastructure bond is an opportunity to make the capital investments that guide the future of the city in ways that address sustainability and climate priorities. No infrastructure is more important right now, and more of our City government’s responsibility, than transportation.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Energy Commission recommends that the City focus on transportation for this infrastructure bond, with specific allocations in the measure to ensure sufficient funding is available for the full range of complete streets measures.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
We did not consider alternative actions.

CITY MANAGER
The City Manager takes no position on the content and recommendations of the Commission’s report.

CONTACT PERSON
Billi Romain, Energy Commission Secretary, 510-981-7432 2 City of Austin, 2020 Mobility Elections Proposition B, https://www.austintexas.gov/2020PropB.

Energy Commission Recommendation for Vision 2050 CONSENT CALENDAR May 10, 2022

Attachments:
1: Austin, Texas City Council, “Proposition B Contract with Voters,” (Council Resolution No. 20200812-011), August 12, 2020.

RESOLUTION NO. 20200812-011
WHEREAS,equitablemobilityand accessibilityare vital to a functioningand prosperoussociety;and
WHEREAS,the averageAmericanfamilyspendsmore on transportation-related expensesthanall othertypesof expensesexcepthousing;and
WHEREAS,transportationcosts are regressiveandlower-incomeresidentsspenda largershareof their resources on mobility;and
WHEREAS,Black,Latinx,lower-income,immigrant,and differently-abled residentshavedisproportionatelylower access to car ownership;and WHEREAS,transportationandmobilitysystems,at 35 percent,accountedfor the largestsharerelative to any othercategoryof greenhousegasemissionsin TravisCounty in 2010;and
WHEREAS,between2012and2019,an averageof 79peoplediedeachyear using Austin's transportationsystem,accountingfor a total of 635 fatalities,210 of whom were peoplewalking;and
WHEREAS,the ImagineAustin ComprehensivePlan (2012)calls for a "complete- streets designthat includesfeaturessuch as traffic calmingelements,street trees,wide sidewalks,andpedestrian,bicycle,and transit access throughoutAustin,consideringthe safetyneedsof peopleof all agesandabilities";and
Page1 of 9

WHEREAS,the Austin StrategicMobilityPlan(ASMP)(2019)calls for a 50/50 modesharewhereby50percentof commutes are madein ways otherthandrivingaloneand envisionscompletingtheBicycle,Sidewalk,andUrbanTrails Plansby2039;and WHEREAS,the ASMP directstransportationdecisionsto be centeredon equity, includinga policyto "partnerwith the publicand privatesectors to expandandimprove mobilitysolutionsfor historicallyunderservedcommunities";and WHEREAS,the Vision Zero Action Plan(2016)setsthegoalof eliminatingtraffic deathsandseriousinjuriesby2025;and
WHEREAS,in June 2020,Council adoptedOrdinance No. 20200611-045, approvingspecificchangesto implementspeedmanagement;and WHEREAS,theAustin SidewalkPlan/ADA TransitionPlan(2016)sets a targetto "addressall very highandhighprioritysidewalkswithin one-quartermile of all identified schools,busstops,andparks"byconstructingsidewalksat a rate of 39 miles per year; and WHEREAS,theAustinBicyclePlan(2014)sets thegoalof implementing,by2025, 80 percentof an all-ages-and-abilitiesbicyclingnetworkto increaseridership,improve safety,andprovideequitableaccess; and
WHEREAS,the Austin CommunityClimatePlan(2015)set the goalof reaching net-zero community-widegreenhousegasemissionsby2050;and WHEREAS,Council's StrategicDirection2023hasas one of its mobilitygoalsto:
"Provide equitableaccess to multimodal transportationchoices to link peopleto Page2 of 9

opportunities,such as education,healthcare,healthyfood includingcommunityamenities suchas grocery stores,open space,andjobs,especiallyin historicallyunderservedand underrepresentedcommunities";and
WHEREAS,CityCouncilis orderinga SpecialElectionto beheld on November3, 2020for thepurposeof askingthevoters to authorize$460million in generalobligation bondsfor transportationandmobilitypurposes;and
WHEREAS,CityCouncil desiresthatthe$460million bondprogrambecompleted within six yearsfrom the dateCouncil approvesthe first projectfundedwith thesebond fundsandin accordancewith theguidanceandproceduresset forth in this resolution;and WHEREAS,The Corridor ProgramOffice (CPO)is strategicallyleveraging transportationimprovementbonddollars to achievecomprehensivecommunityoutcomes and policyinitiatives bypartneringwith other Citydepartments,developers,non-profit organizationsandagenciesto extendthe scopeof the corridortransportationimprovement projectsso that togetherwe can amplifythe community,culture,and the mobility experience;and
WHEREAS,CPO has identified highimpactopportunityareas that fall within districts,gatewaysor nodesalongthenineCorridorsin theCorridorConstructionProgram, includingWilliam Cannon,North andSouthLamar,EastMLK,EastRiverside,Guadalupe, Bumet,SlaughterLane,andAirportBoulevard;NOW,THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN:

Page3 of 9

TheCouncil,bythis official action,reaffirmsits commitmentto thevoters regarding the conditionsandguidancecontainedin the ordinancecallingthe November2020 Bond election. Further,Council,by this official action,clarifies and declaresits intent and commitmentto thevoters to create a contract with the voters thatspecifiesthattheproceeds from the bonds and notes shall be used for the projects and programsidentified in the ordinancecallingtheNovember2020Bondelection.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:

Council,bythis official action declaresits intent to contract with thevoters as to the followingpermissiblepurposes for which bond proceedsmust be expendedand the processesthatmust be followedin determiningandprioritizingthoseexpenditures.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:

CityCouncil desiresto allocatethe $460million for transportationimprovements identifiedin the Austin StrategicMobilityPlan as follows:
• $80Million for Sidewalks,includingconstructionand rehabilitationof high-and very-highprioritysidewalksegmentsandeliminationof ADA barriersandgapsin the sidewalksystem.
• $80Million for UrbanTrails,includingconstructionof transportation-relatedTier I urban trails and identificationof alignmentsand developmentof designsfor transportation-relatedTier II urbantrails.

Page4 of 9

• $40Million for transportation-relatedBikeways,includingimplementationof theAll AgesandAbilities BicycleNetwork.
• $65Million for Safety/VisionZero,includingprojectsthat reduce conflicts and improvesafetyfor all users by systematicallyimplementingboth major reconstructionand rapidimplementationof low-cost,high-impactengineering countermeasures,includingspeedmanagement.
• $20Million for implementationof SafeRoutesto SchoolsInfrastructurePlans. • $19Million for Local Transit EnhancementProgramas describedin the Austin StrategicMobilityPlan,includingprojectsnot beingdeliveredbyProjectConnect thatimprovethespeedandreliabilityof publictransportationservice. • $1 Million for NeighborhoodPartneringProgram,includingactive transportation mobilityprojectsthatleveragecommunity-ledpartnerships.
• $53Million for Improvementsto SubstandardStreets,prioritizingfullyfunding JohnnyMorris Drive and at a minimum $35million towardthe full constructionof RossRoadper the April19th,2019engineerstudyboththe north andsouthportions of RossRoad,CooperLane,Circle SRoad,andincludingthe2016list of substandard streets reflected in the contract with the voters for the 2016bondelection,as well as the PreliminaryEngineeringReports(PER)for Nuckols CrossingRoad and BradshawRoad.

Page5 of 9

• $102Million for MajorCapitalImprovementsto be usedfor the LonghornDam Bridge,CongressAvenue Urban DesignInitiative,Barton SpringsRoad Improvements,andSouthPleasantValleyCorridorImprovements,as well as, in an amount not to exceed$5million,CorridorProgramProjectsnot fundedthroughthe Corridor Construction Program(CouncilResolution 20180426-028)to build pedestrianand associatedinfrastructure includedin the corridorprogramsfor the followingroads:SlaughterLane,North LamarBoulevard,SouthLamarBoulevard, GuadalupeStreet,Martin Luther KingJr. Boulevard,Burnet Road,and Riverside Drive.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:

Fundingfor BartonSpringsRoadImprovementsshallonlybeusedfor improvements between Barton Boulevard and Lou Neff Road after completionof the preliminary engineeringstudyfor a Barton SpringsBridge,which shall include a community engagementprocess,andafterpresentationof improvementoptions,a publichearing,and approvalof optionsbyCityCouncil.Anyimprovementsshallbe alignedwith the Zilker Park Vision Plan once approvedbyCouncil.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:

Thefundingshallbeusedin a manner thatprovidesequitableaccess to transportation choicesthat connect peopleto opportunities,suchas education,healthcare,healthyfood Page6 of 9

and grocery stores,open space,and jobs,especiallyin historicallyunderservedand underrepresentedcommunities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:

The CityManageris directedto developrecommendationsfor implementationof these proposalsin manner that prioritizesinvestments in traditionallyunderserved communities,low-incomecommunities,andothervulnerablecommunities;andanticipates unintendedconsequencesthat may disproportionatelyaffect historicallyunderservedand underrepresentedpopulationsand proactivelymitigatestheseeffects. Existingproject prioritizationcriteriafor all programsidentifiedin thisresolutionshouldbereevaluatedand, wherenecessary,modifiedto furtherprioritizeequitableoutcomes.

BE IT FURT_ ER RESOLVED:

Councilcontracts with the voters to adoptguidelinesfor the implementationof this bondprogramin a manner that maximizesopportunitiesfor local hiring,apprenticeships, andotherworkforcedevelopmentactivitiesin traditionallyunderservedcommunities,low- incomecommunities,andothervulnerablecommunities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:

Council contracts with the voters to adoptguidelinesfor implementationof the projectsfunded with thesebond funds that maximizesopportunitiesto integrategreen infrastructure,increasethe urban tree canopy, completeopen space connections,and enhancewater quality.

Page7 of 9

BE IT FUR-HER RESOLVED:

TheCityManageris directedto analyzeexistingcapitalprojectdeliverysystemsand processesin orderto recommendpotentialchangesandresource requirementsto accelerate projectdeliveryandmaximizethe numberof projectsto be includedin the $460Million Bond Programto be completedwithin six years of Councilapprovalof the first project fundedwith thesebondfunds.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:

Council hastakenformalaction to approvethe reimbursementof expendituresof funds to construct certain streets that are part of the QuarterCent program with the expectationto issue certificatesof obligationto finance the street improvements,and council contracts with the voters that proceedsof thebondswill not be usedto fund those streetsfor which councilhaspreviouslyissuedthe reimbursementresolutions.

BE IT FUFT
-
El RESOLVED:

Councilcontracts with the voters thatproceedsof thebondswill not be usedto fund streets,sidewalksandrelatedmobilityinfrastructurein connectionwith theredevelopment of propertiesat 7211 N. Interstate 35,Austin,T exas,and 7309 N. Interstate 35,Austin, T exas.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:

The Citymay amendthe fundinglevelsandpurposesestablishedin this resolution, after a bondpropositionpasses,onlyto the extent thatthe amendmentscomplywith the Page8 of 9

law,complywith theballotlanguagepassedbythevoters,complywith theguidancein the precedingBe It ResolvedClausesin this resolution,andwith an affirmative vote from the CityCouncil.

ADOPTED: August12 . 2020 ATTESTS.lz?u_ozr•1Jt-rrO,oi
JannetteS. Goodall
CityClerk
Page9 of 9

Landmarks Preservation 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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC)
Submitted by: Charles Enchill, Chairperson, Landmarks Preservation Commission Subject: Budget Referral: City-wide Historic Context Statement

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the FY 2023 June budget process an amount between $250,000 to $275,000 from the General Fund for Berkeley’s first City-wide Historic Context Statement.

BACKGROUND
At a regular meeting of the Landmarks Preservation Commission on March 3, 2022, the LPC took action to send to Council the attached Letter of Support (Vote: 7-0-0-2; Moved: Leuschner; Second: Schwartz; Yes: Adams, Crandall, Enchill, Finacom, Leuschner, Montgomery, Schwartz; No: none; Abstain: none; Absent: Johnson, Twu).

SUMMARY
The LPC recommends that City Council refer an amount between $250,000-275,000 to the FY 2023 budget (in June 2022) for preparation of Berkeley’s first City-wide Historic Context Statement (HCS). The HCS would respond to the increasing growth pressures facing the city and the resultant conflicts between growth and preservation of existing housing. It would create a centralized resource for developers and property owners in place of the piecemeal requirements which are costly to them and time-consuming for city staff. It would conform to the practice of the National Park Service and other California Certified Local Governments which have prepared such statements; and it could provide the framework for a City-wide historical survey in the future.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
This referral refers to the budget process the consideration of an amount between $250,000-$275,000 from the General Fund for a citywide Historic Context Statement.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Historic studies and surveys can help protect existing buildings which are associated with substantial embodied carbon.

20

Budget Referral: Citywide Historic Context Statement CONSENT CALENDAR May 10, 2022

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
City Council may consider this item for a future budget cycle.

CITY MANAGER
The City Manager takes no position on the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report.

CONTACT PERSON
Fatema Crane, Secretary, Landmarks Preservation Commission, 510-981-7413 Attachments:
1: Letter of Support – Landmarks Preservation Commission to City Council, dated March 3, 2022

Attachment 1
Date: March 3, 2022
To: City Council
From: Landmarks Preservation Commission
Subject: Funding Request for Development of a City-wide Historic Context Statement Executive Summary
The Landmarks Preservation Commission is requesting that City Council refer $250,000- 275,000 to the FY 2023 budget (in June 2022) to fund a Historic Context Statement (HCS). We believe that this budget will realistically cover the cost of an HCS that addresses the chronological/neighborhood development of Berkeley, a selection of chapters on thematic/cultural histories in Berkeley, and an additional evaluative framework. It is difficult to estimate the costs of an HCS until the RFP period, and the costs of public hearings/input may inflate the budget, hence a range. The impacts of COVID-19 may also affect the HCS budget, which is another reason for this range. _________________________________________________
The City of Berkeley is facing enormous growth pressure which impacts its existing historical fabric. This growth comes from, but is not necessarily limited to: growth in enrollment of the UC campus; growth in the Bay Area job market for technical workers who desire to live in Berkeley; changes in State Law permitting greater density in a majority of neighborhoods; and lack of privately-owned undeveloped land. As a result, the City’s jurisdictional bodies (Zoning Adjustments Board, Landmarks Preservation Commission, and City Council) face increasing conflicts between preservation of existing housing and construction of new housing. In addition, homeowners, housing developers and design professionals, must already work under the constraints of government regulation and financing implications, and even the uncertainty about historic preservation of individual properties.

Resolving these conflicts is extremely difficult. For a medium-sized city, the history of Berkeley is remarkably complex. A bayfront workers settlement, largely immigrant; farms and dairies; an academic community who commissioned a selection of impressive architects for their homes; development of blue-collar housing in the flats, including a significant population of African-Americans and Japanese immigrants; and development of the streetcar suburbs in the hills are just some of the large themes in Berkeley’s history.

Even a single block of the built environment is an expression of the people, movements,

and histories that have occupied it. A given block in Berkeley might contain a Bernard Maybeck, a nondescript building significant for Berkeley’s pre-World War II Japanese American community, or a garage where revolutionaries planned a renowned protest.

None of these sites, however, exist in a vacuum. They are the results of larger-scale forces, movements, ideas, and contexts. Berkeley’s built environment — more than most — is the result of many pioneering ideas on living and architecture. The city’s history is one of the most dimensional in California (if not the United States), and its built environment expresses that.

The history of Berkeley, its university, its residents, architects, politicians have been the subject of many studies and books, but never have they been centralized in any formal manner — or at least in a manner which seeks to make history central to city planning efforts. It is a standard preservation practice for cities as culturally and historically rich as Berkeley commission a citywide HCS, or ultimately, a Historic Resources Survey (HRS).

Berkeley has only an outdated “windshield survey” from the 1970s and an HCS of Downtown Shattuck with a district survey from 2015. Because of this, historical information is fragmented, at times inaccessible, and difficult to reference.

A Historic Context Statement, the integral piece to a City-wide survey, would serve to not only resolve conflicts that are being accelerated from growth, but also centralize historical information, and further the policies within Berkeley’s General Plan. An HCS would provide a more complete and robust picture of Berkeley’s history and illuminate other areas to further document and survey. An HCS is a sizable document with many “chapters,” but there are typically two sections. The first is a general historical overview of a city where each chapter addresses a chronological period of growth and development (e.g.: Founding of the College of California and Berkeley 1860-1870). (The Downtown Shattuck Avenue survey would essentially be under the umbrella of this section of a HCS.) The second part of an HCS, which is more flexible and subject to the ideas of the commission, explores significant themes. These chapters might address the history of ethnic community, a political movement, or other histories which aren’t confined to a single period of growth.

A city-wide survey is a long-term goal for LPC, but staff’s current workload only allows for an HCS. However, an HCS is the first step of a city-wide survey (a more quantitative, case-by-case evaluation of a City’s built environment). Given more staff time, perhaps from a reduced workload because of the HCS, a city-wide survey could be commissioned in the future and the HCS could be its first piece. Regardless, the following are examples of Historic Context Statements completed by other cities:

● Palm Springs: Historic Resources Inventory & Context Statement ○ Note: the Historic Context Statement is the main piece of the city-wide survey. Palm Springs also has a good example of the general development/growth chapters, which are the first section as previously discussed.
● San Francisco: Historic Context Statements
○ San Francisco has completed numerous individual HCSs as well, but organizes them under categories: Cultural, Geographic, Thematic, and Architectural. They have very good examples of thematic chapters, the second section of a HCS as previously discussed.
● San Diego: Historic Contexts and Surveys
○ The City of San Diego does an excellent job organizing their HCSs with and without surveys (bottom of webpage).

In addition, we’d like to point out two documents which refine the scope of the HCS and a City-wide survey (a plausible future goal, but not a current goal):
● The Los Angeles Historic Resource Survey Report: A Framework for a Citywide Historic Resource Survey (see pages 19-30)
○ Perhaps the most complete and definitive guide to creating a city-wide survey in California, as well as the HCS.
● “Writing Historic Context Statements” by the CA Office of Historic Preservation More than anything, however, the HCS creates a comprehensive understanding of a city’s history and where it is expressed in the built environment. This serves a valuable function in the planning department, particularly for a city with such a stock of historic resources.

In outlining these important sites, the HCS aids Planning in targeting development (or in other cases, aids developers in understanding properties are most likely to be historic resources). The different chapters of the HCS are easily paired with Specific and Neighborhood Plans, if not the General Plan.

Since the 1970s, the City has not invested money in primary historic resource research and documentation. Because of this, Berkeley has no centralized resource to reference, much of its preservation planning is reactive and discretionary. One example of this is the Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE), a requirement which is expensive for property- owners, time consuming for staff, and overwhelmingly does not result in identification of historic resources. When a structure >40 years old files a permit for “substantial” changes (which may include an ADU or a bedroom addition), an HRE is required to analyze whether the property could be a historic resource. HREs cost homeowners anywhere

between $3,000 and $10,000 which is yet another way project costs pile up, projects are prolonged for both staff and the property owner, and unpermitted work is galvanized.

The HCS could aim to reduce costs or the need of stand-alone studies. (The HRE would still be required for demolitions and projects which affect historic resources.) This would be accomplished by adding an “Evaluative Framework” to the HCS, an addendum which clarifies historic resource designation criteria, eligibility, and would further streamline staff time. The Evaluative Framework sets a guiding framework for staff and LPC decisions on historic resources in addition to saving countless homeowners thousands of dollars per project. Because an HCS is most effective as it stays updated or periodically captures additional themes, it provides guidance on properties most likely to be historic resources.

The HCS, however, does not prohibit any property from being designated a Landmark/Structure of Merit based on new information that may have been unknown during the time of the HCS.

Berkeley is a city with an incredible history that is reflected in its built environment. A Historic Context Statement is a standardized preservation practice, not to mention an expected practice by the Certified Local Government program, of which Berkeley has been a member since 2000. As our city undergoes housing development, battles over preservation are only going to worsen. An HCS is integral to avoiding these conflicts, targeting sustainable development, and incentivizing preservation. It is a resource for historians and city planners alike, one that seeks to assemble the many histories which make Berkeley such a historic place.

To this effect, the Landmarks Preservation Commission is requesting that City Council refer $250,000-275,000 to the FY 2023 budget (in June 2022) to fund a Historic Context Statement. We believe that this budget will realistically cover the cost of an HCS that addresses the chronological/neighborhood development of Berkeley, a selection of chapters on thematic/cultural histories in Berkeley, and an additional evaluative framework. It is difficult to estimate the costs of an HCS until the RFP period, and the costs of public hearings/input may inflate the budget, hence a range. The impacts of COVID-19 may also affect the HCS budget, which is another reason for this range.

Signed by Charles Enchill, LPC Chairperson
On behalf of the Landmarks Preservation Commission
Vote: 7-0-0-2
Yes: Adams, Crandall, Enchill, Finacom, Leuschner, Montgomery, Schwartz; No: none: Abstain: none;

Absent: Johnson, Twu.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Councilmember Ben Bartlett, Councilmember Sophie Hahn, Councilmember Kate Harrison
Subject: Support SB 1173 – Divestment from Fossil Fuels

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution in support of SB 1173 (Gonzalez), which would require the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) to divest from fossil fuel companies. Send a copy of the Resolution to Governor Gavin Newsom, State Senators Nancy Skinner and Lena Gonzalez, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.

BACKGROUND
The impacts of human-caused climate change are becoming increasingly unavoidable.

Without taking bold and immediate action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the world will heat above 2C by 2100. Such an event would lead to vast ecological destruction and mass extinctions, in addition to increased drought and food crop failures that could destabilized human society, disproportionately impacting those living in poverty.

California has been a leader in addressing climate change. Under State law, California must procure 60% of all electricity from renewable resources by 2030, and be carbon- free by 2045. SB 32, approved in 2016, requires California’s greenhouse gas emissions to be 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. State policies around climate change have been evolving based on the latest science, with an acceleration of these efforts necessary to address the projections in the latest report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which says that the only way to stay below 1.5C is to have carbon emissions peak in 2025, followed by a rapid decline and reaching net-zero by the middle of the century.

Locally, extensive work has been done to mitigate our impacts on the climate. There is a goal to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2045 or earlier. Electrification policies and improvements to transportation infrastructure to encourage moving away from gasoline- powered vehicles have also been approved. Under the City of Berkeley’s Investment Policy, there has been a divestment from publicly traded fossil fuel companies and banks that finance pipelines and fossil fuel infrastructure. The rational for this is the cost of the impacts of climate change outweigh any return on investment from such companies.

Support SB 1173 – Fossil Fuel Divestment CONSENT CALENDAR May 10, 2022

SB 1173, introduced by State Senator Lena Gonzalez, will help meet the State’s climate action goals by prohibiting the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) from investing in fossil fuel companies. Additionally, divestment from such companies must be done by 2027. Currently, CalPERS and CalSTRS have almost $9 billion invested in fossil fuel companies. This bill builds upon the work we have done locally to divest from fossil fuels.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100
Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Text of SB 1173
3: SB 1173 Fact Sheet

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

IN SUPPORT OF SB 1173 – DIVESTMENT FROM FOSSIL FUELS
WHEREAS, California is susceptible to the consequences of climate change, with more drought, shrinking water supplies, rising sea levels, and larger and more frequent wildfires all likely to be experienced in the coming decades; and WHEREAS, climate change is an issue of environmental justice, disproportionately impacting Indigenous communities, communities of color, and low-income communities due to historical oppression, inequity of power, and lack of access to resources for prevention and relief; and
WHEREAS, immediate action is need to keep the world from heating above 2C by 2100, which would result in to vast ecological destruction and mass extinctions, in addition to increased drought and food crop failures; and
WHEREAS, according to the latest report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the only way to stay below 1.5C is to have carbon emissions peak in 2025, followed by a rapid decline and reaching net-zero by the middle of the century; and
WHEREAS, California has several policies to address climate change, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% of 1990 levels by 2030 and becoming carbon free by 2045; and
WHEREAS, Berkeley has acted to mitigate our impacts on the climate, including a goal to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2045 or earlier, and to encourage moving away from gasoline-powered vehicles, with transportation accounting for 60% of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions; and
WHEREAS, under the City of Berkeley’s Investment Policy, there has been a divestment from publicly traded fossil fuel companies and banks that finance pipelines and fossil fuel infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, currently, the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) have almost $9 billion invested in fossil fuel companies; and
WHEREAS, a Corporate Knights study found if CalPERS and CalSTRS had divested in 2010 they would have gained $11.9 and $5.5 billion respectively by 2019; and

Support SB 1173 – Fossil Fuel Divestment CONSENT CALENDAR May 10, 2022

WHEREAS, SB 1173, introduced by State Senator Lena Gonzalez, will help meet the State’s climate action goals by prohibiting CalPERS and CalSTRS from investing in fossil fuel companies and to divest from such companies by 2027.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it hereby supports SB 1173.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be sent to Governor Gavin Newsom, State Senators Nancy Skinner and Lena Gonzalez, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.

AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 6, 2022
SENATE BILL No. 1173
Introduced by Senators Gonzalez and Wiener
February 17, 2022
An act to amend Section 16642 of, and to add Section 7513.76 to, the Government Code, relating to public retirement systems. legislative counsel’s digest
SB 1173, as amended, Gonzalez. Public retirement systems: fossil fuels: divestment.

The California Constitution grants the retirement board of a public employee retirement system plenary authority and fiduciary responsibility for investment of moneys and administration of the retirement fund and system. These provisions qualify this grant of powers by reserving to the Legislature the authority to prohibit investments if it is in the public interest and the prohibition satisfies standards of fiduciary care and loyalty required of a retirement board.

Existing law prohibits the boards of the Public Employees’ Retirement System and the State Teachers’ Retirement System from making new investments or renewing existing investments of public employee retirement funds in a thermal coal company, as defined. Existing law requires the boards to liquidate investments in thermal coal companies on or before July 1, 2017, and requires the boards, in making a determination to liquidate investments, to constructively engage with thermal coal companies to establish whether the companies are transitioning their business models to adapt to clean energy generation.

Existing law provides that it does not require a board to take any action unless the board determines in good faith that the action is consistent

98

with the board’s fiduciary responsibilities established in the California Constitution.

This bill would prohibit the boards of the Public Employees’ Retirement System and the State Teachers’ Retirement System from making new investments or renewing existing investments of public employee retirement funds in a fossil fuel company, as defined. The bill would require the boards to liquidate investments in a fossil fuel company on or before July 1, 2027.

The bill would temporarily suspend
the above-described liquidation provision upon a good faith determination by the board that certain conditions materially impact normal market mechanisms for pricing assets, as specified, and would make this suspension provision inoperative on January 1, 2035.

The
bill would provide that it does not require a board to take any action unless the board determines in good faith that the action is consistent with the board’s fiduciary responsibilities established in the California Constitution.

This bill would require the boards, commencing February 1, 2024, and annually thereafter, to file a report with the Legislature and the Governor, containing specified information, including a list of fossil fuel companies of which the board has liquidated their investments.

The bill would provide that board members and other officers and employees shall be held harmless and be eligible for indemnification in connection with actions taken pursuant to the bill’s requirements, as specified.

V ote: majority.

Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.​
State-mandated local program: no.​
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 7513.76 is added to the Government line 2 Code , to read:
line 3 7513.76. (a)  The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 4 following:
line 5 (1)  The combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas, known as fossil line 6 fuels, is the single largest contributor to global climate change. line 7 (2)  Climate change affects all parts of the California economy line 8 and environment, and the Legislature has adopted numerous laws line 9 to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to a changing line 10 climate.
98 — 2 — SB 1173

line 1 (3)  Fossil fuel companies’ plans to expand production, public line 2 relations campaigns, and efforts to obstruct climate stabilization line 3 policies are incompatible with California’s climate goals, and our line 4 obligation to current and future generations.
line 5 (4)   The production of fossil fuels and the effects of climate line 6 change resulting from the use of fossil fuels all lead to line 7 disproportionate adverse impacts on low-income communities and line 8 communities of color.
line 9 (5)   A transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy will line 10 create greater employment, support the economy, and improve line 11 public health.
line 12 (6)  The purpose of this section is to require the Public line 13 Employees’ Retirement System and the State Teachers’ Retirement line 14 System, consistent with, and not in violation of, their fiduciary line 15 responsibilities, to divest their holdings of fossil fuel company line 16 investments as one part of the state’s broader efforts to decarbonize line 17 the California economy and to transition to clean, pollution-free line 18 energy resources.
line 19 (b)   As used in this section, the following definitions apply:
line 20 (1)   “Board” means the Board of Administration of the Public line 21 Employees’ Retirement System or the Teachers’ Retirement Board line 22 of the State Teachers’ Retirement System, as applicable. line 23 (2)   “Company” means a sole proprietorship, organization, line 24 association, corporation, partnership, venture, or other entity, or line 25 its subsidiary or affiliate, that exists for profitmaking purposes or line 26 to otherwise secure economic advantage.
line 27 (3)   “Investment” means the purchase, ownership, or control of line 28 publicly issued stock, corporate bonds, or other debt instruments line 29 issued by a company. “Investments” also includes purchase, line 30 ownership, or control of mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, line 31 unless the board is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a mutual line 32 fund or exchange-traded fund is unlikely to have in excess of 2 line 33 percent of its assets, averaged annually, directly or indirectly line 34 invested in fossil fuel companies.
line 35 (4)  “Public employee retirement funds” means the Public line 36 Employees’ Retirement Fund described in Section 20062 of this line 37 code, and the Teachers’ Retirement Fund described in Section line 38 22167 of the Education Code.
line 39 (5)   “Fossil fuel” means petroleum oil, natural gas, and thermal line 40 coal. Thermal coal is coal used to generate electricity, such as that 98 SB 1173 — 3 —

line 1 which is burned to create steam to run turbines. Thermal coal does line 2 not mean metallurgical coal or coking coal used to produce steel. line 3 (6)  “Fossil fuel company” means one of the 200 largest publicly line 4 traded fossil fuel companies, as established by carbon content in line 5 the companies’ proven oil, gas, and coal reserves. line 6 (c)   The board shall not make additional or new investments or line 7 renew existing investments of public employee retirement funds line 8 in a fossil fuel company.
line 9 (d)   (1)  The board shall liquidate investments in a fossil fuel line 10 company on or before July 1, 2027.
line 11 (2)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1), this subdivision shall be line 12 suspended upon a good faith determination by the board that an line 13 act of God, war, or other unforeseeable event creates conditions line 14 that materially impact normal market mechanisms for pricing line 15 assets and shall only be reinstated upon a subsequent good faith line 16 finding of the board that market conditions have substantially line 17 returned to normal ex-ante. Upon such a finding, the board shall line 18 have six months to liquidate any remaining investments in a fossil line 19 fuel company
line 20 (3)  Paragraph (2) shall remain in effect only until January 1, line 21 2035, and as of that date is inoperative.
line 22 (e)   (1)  Commencing February 1, 2024, and annually on line 23 February 1 thereafter, the board shall create a report that includes line 24 the following:
line 25 (A)   A list of fossil fuel companies of which the board has line 26 liquidated its investments pursuant to subdivision (d). line 27 (B)  A list of fossil fuel companies with which the board still line 28 has not liquidated its investments.
line 29 (C)   A list of fossil fuel companies of which the board has not line 30 liquidated its investments as a result of a determination made line 31 pursuant to subdivision (f) that a sale or transfer of investments is line 32 inconsistent with the fiduciary responsibilities of the board as line 33 described in Section 17 of Article XVI of the California line 34 Constitution and the board’s findings adopted in support of that line 35 determination.
line 36 (D)  An analysis of methods and opportunities to rapidly and line 37 effectively reduce dependence on fossil fuels and transition to line 38 alternative energy sources in a realistic timeframe that avoids line 39 negatively contributing to economic conditions particularly 98 — 4 — SB 1173

line 1 damaging to public employee retirement funds and to overall net line 2 employment earnings of the state’s workforce.
line 3 (2)   The board shall submit the report to the Legislature, in line 4 compliance with Section 9795, and to the Governor, and shall post line 5 the report on the board’s internet website.
line 6 (f)   Nothing in this section shall require a board to take action line 7 as described in this section unless the board determines in good line 8 faith that the action described in this section is consistent with the line 9 fiduciary responsibilities of the board described in Section 17 of line 10 Article XVI of the California Constitution.
line 11 SEC. 2. Section 16642 of the Government Code, as amended line 12 by Section 3 of Chapter 459 of the Statutes of 2019, is amended line 13 to read:
line 14 16642. (a)  Present, future, and former board members of the line 15 Public Employees’ Retirement System or the State Teachers’ line 16 Retirement System, jointly and individually, state officers and line 17 employees, research firms described in subdivision (d) of Section line 18 7513.6, and investment managers under contract with the Public line 19 Employees’ Retirement System or the State Teachers’ Retirement line 20 System shall be indemnified from the General Fund and held line 21 harmless by the State of California from all claims, demands, suits, line 22 actions, damages, judgments, costs, charges, and expenses, line 23 including court costs and attorney’s fees, and against all liability, line 24 losses, and damages of any nature whatsoever that these present, line 25 future, or former board members, officers, employees, research line 26 firms as described in subdivision (d) of Section 7513.6, or contract line 27 investment managers shall or may at any time sustain by reason line 28 of any decision to restrict, reduce, or eliminate investments line 29 pursuant to Sections 7513.6, 7513.7, 7513.74, 7513.75, and line 30 7513.76.
line 31 (b)  This section shall remain in effect only until Section 7513.74 line 32 is repealed, and as of that date is repealed.
line 33 SEC. 3. Section 16642 of the Government Code, as added by line 34 Section 4 of Chapter 459 of the Statutes of 2019, is amended to line 35 read:
line 36 16642. (a)  Present, future, and former board members of the line 37 Public Employees’ Retirement System or the State Teachers’ line 38 Retirement System, jointly and individually, state officers and line 39 employees, research firms described in subdivision (d) of Section line 40 7513.6, and investment managers under contract with the Public 98 SB 1173 — 5 —

line 1 Employees’ Retirement System or the State Teachers’ Retirement line 2 System shall be indemnified from the General Fund and held line 3 harmless by the State of California from all claims, demands, suits, line 4 actions, damages, judgments, costs, charges, and expenses, line 5 including court costs and attorney’s fees, and against all liability, line 6 losses, and damages of any nature whatsoever that these present, line 7 future, or former board members, officers, employees, research line 8 firms as described in subdivision (d) of Section 7513.6, or contract line 9 investment managers shall or may at any time sustain by reason line 10 of any decision to restrict, reduce, or eliminate investments line 11 pursuant to Sections 7513.6, 7513.7, 7513.75, and 7513.76. line 12 (b)   This section shall become operative upon the repeal of line 13 Section 7513.74.

O
98 — 6 — SB 1173

SB 1173 (Gonzalez) Fossil Fuel Divestment

SUMMARY
Senate Bill (SB) 1173 will prohibit the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and the
California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS)
from investing in fossil fuel companies, and require that they divest any current investments by 2027.

BACKGROUND/PROBLEM
Californians, along with states and nations around the
globe, are facing the real and immediate threats of
climate change and its ever-growing impacts on our
health, safety, environment, and our ability to pass on a livable planet to future generations.

California has been a world leader in taking steps to
combat the causes of climate change, and have set
historic carbon reduction goals and taken meaningful
actions to help prevent environmental destruction and
protect communities who bear the overwhelming brunt
of carbon emissions.

Despite these forward-thinking actions, California’s multi billion dollar retirement pension funds are actively
investing billions of dollars in the very fossil fuel
companies that are causing climate change.

CalPERS and CalSTRS, which invest the pension funds of
state employees and teachers, have an investing power
of $469 billion and $327 billion, respectively. A recent report estimates that out of these funds CalPERS
invests $5.5 billion in fossil fuel companies and CalSTRS invests $3.4 billion.1
1https://climatesafepensions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/CSPN-The-Quiet Culprit.pdf
carbon-free technologies, and consumer choice and
governmental regulation driving markets away from fossil fuels, it has become clear that the fossil fuel industry may be a risky and myopic financial investment. Major
investment management firms, BlackRock and Meketa,
have concluded that divestment from fossil fuels actually improves, not weakens, investment returns.2 A further
study has shown that if CalPERS and CalSTRS had divested from fossil fuels in 2010 they would have gained $11.9
and $5.5 billion in returns by 2019.3
Many of the beneficiaries and union members
whose retirement futures are invested by
CalPERS and CalSTRS have passed resolutions
calling for the divestment of fossil fuels,
including the United Teachers of Los Angeles,
the California Federation of Teachers, and the
California Faculty Association.

An estimated 1,500 institutions with over $39
trillion in assets have already committed to
divestment, including the University of
California, the California State University, the
State and City of New York, the State of
Maine, the Vatican, and the province of
Quebec.

The Legislature already began the work of divesting from dangerous carbon emitting companies through the
passage of SB 185 (De Leon, Chapter 605, Statutes of
2015), which required CalPERS and CalSTRS to liquidate
their investments in thermal coal companies. Further,
Governor Newsom also recently issued an Executive
Order on Climate Change (EO N-19-19) which called on
CalPERS and CalSTRS to “leverage the state’s $700 billion investment portfolio to advance California’s climate
leadership."
2https://ieefa.org/major-investment-advisors-blackrock-and-meketa-provide-a fiduciary-path-through-the-energy-transition/
3https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k27W2oTzaqueEZrvit4RLfve6pvakqMI/view

SOLUTION
SB 1173 seizes the momentum of the worldwide
divestment movement and continues the bold and
progressive actions that California must take to address climate change. SB 1173 ends the contradictory and
incongruous policies that position the state as a leader in the fight against climate, while simultaneously
investing billions in the fossil fuel companies that are causing climate change.

Specifically, SB 1173 will prohibit CalPERS and CalSTRS from investing in the top 200 fossil fuel companies, and require that they divest any current investments in those fossil fuel companies by 2027. Additionally, SB 1173 will require CalPERS and CalSTRS to annually report,
beginning in 2024 on their divestment progress.

SUPPORT
California Faculty Association (Sponsor)
Fossil Free California (Sponsor)

CONTACT
Trevor Taylor, Legislative Director
(916) 651-4033
[email protected]
SB 1173 · (Lena Gonzalez) Fact Sheet · 02/17/22

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
To: Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Councilmember Ben Bartlett, Councilmember Sophie Hahn
Subject: Healthy Black Families: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Fund

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of $20,000 from the Mayor’s Office Budget to Healthy Black Families (HBF) for the purposes of covering costs, from February – May 2022, associated with supporting the Ideation of financing for greater affordable housing at BART station developments. This time period coincides with the end (January 2022) and beginning (June 2022) of grants from the Partnership for the Bay’s Future awarded to the City of Berkeley in partnership with HBF.

BACKGROUND
On November 30, 2021, City Council approved Resolution #70,117-N.S. for a grant from the San Francisco Foundation for Ideation Facilitation for funding affordable housing at the BART stations, North Berkeley and Ashby. The Mayor’s Office, in partnership with Health Black Families (HBF), submitted the Breakthrough Grant application to Partnership for the Bay’s Future and were successful in their efforts. The Breakthrough Grant will fund a fellow and also HBF for two (2) years in order to move forward the work of the Ideation Team. Funding for the Breakthrough Grant begins in June 2022.

HBF has been engaged as a participant in the Ideation Process and has also been engaging with the South Berkeley community in support of the Joint Vision Priorities document developed by the Community Advisory Group for the BART development projects, and also the local preference policy since February 1, 2022. This effort has required, and will continue to require, many hours of staff time without a source of payment.

Additionally, HBF has continued to move forward the work of the Local Preference Policy (also funded by a Breakthrough Grant for Protection and Preservation of Affordable Housing that began in February 2020 and ended January 2022) that was recommended in the Adeline Corridor Plan and is proposed to be incorporated into the Ashby BART project and EBB. A proposed Local Preference Policy was recommended by the HAC on April 7, 2022 and will be coming to the Council for future action. As the

22

2022 Bay Area Book Festival CONSENT CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

policy will be coming to the Council, additional support is needed for community engagement on the draft proposal.

On March 16, 2022, HBF reached out to the Mayor’s Office to inquire as to funding availability to support these efforts from February through May 2022. There is no other contract with HBF, incorporating a similar scope of work, that could be increased to reimburse HBF for the time that is being expended. The Mayor’s Office budget has the resources to cover the HBF request due to the impact of COVID-19 on the timing of filling vacant staff positions.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No General Fund impact; $20,000 is available from Mayor Arreguín’s Office Budget discretionary accounts.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100
Attachments:

1. Resolution

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, Mayor Jesse Arreguin has surplus funds in his office expenditure account; and
WHEREAS, a California non-profit tax exempt corporation, Healthy Black Families seeks funds in the amount of $20,000 to provide the following public services: to provide support and participation in the Equitable Black Berkeley Ideation Process from February – May 2022; and
WHEREAS, the provision of such services would fulfill the following municipal public purpose: of paying personnel expenses associated with participation in ideating creative affordable housing financial support in a reparative framework for the BART development projects at North Berkeley and Ashby stations.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor from his Council Office Budget of $20,000 shall be granted to Healthy Black Families to fund personnel expenses for their participation in Equitable Black Berkeley Ideation.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
To: Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Councilmember Sophie Hahn,
Councilmember Kate Harrison, Councilmember Ben Bartlett Subject: Budget Referral: Continuing Anti-Displacement Programs

RECOMMENDATION
Refer $1,800,000 ($900,000 annually) to the FY 2023-2024 Budget Process for continued funding of the following anti-displacement programs (launched in 2017) with the proposed funding source from General Fund tax revenues:
1) Housing Retention Program (administered by the Eviction Defense Center EDC): $250,000 per fiscal year. This funding will supplement the current COVID-19 emergency rental assistance program to provide funding after the emergency expires
2) Legal Counseling, Services and Problem Solving for Extremely-Low, Very-Low, Low and Moderate Income Tenants ($275,000 each to the East Bay Community Law Center and EDC): $550,000 per fiscal year
3) Flexible Housing Subsidies for Homelessness Prevention: $100,000 per fiscal year

BACKGROUND
Housing Retention Program/COVID Emergency Rental Assistance The Housing Retention Program is an essential tool in preventing tenant displacement and preserving Berkeley’s racial, economic and cultural diversity. In 1993, the City of Berkeley began the Homeless Prevention Grants Program, which in 2008 became the Housing Retention Program (HRP).

The program was reconstituted and bolstered in 2017 with an increased allocation of $250,000 annually which was continued in all budgets since FY 2019. The City Council’s annual allocation of General Fund revenues was made possible due to the passage of Measure U1 in 2016 which increased the business license tax for large rental properties, generating between $4-7 Million annually.

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting shelter in place order, the City Council launched the Berkeley Relief Fund and allocated $3 Million to initially capitalize the fund, to be split three ways between rental assistance, grants for arts non-profits and grants to small businesses. Tenant rent assistance was funded $1,000,000 to expand the Housing Retention Program during this emergency with an additional

Budget Referral: Anti-Displacement Programs CONSENT CALENDAR May 10, 2022

$900,000 added as private donations came in through the East Bay Community Foundation. Approved households were eligible to receive up to $5,000 as a one-time grant, and an additional one-time grant of up to $10,000 during the specified COVID-19 emergency. Additional funding was provided through a CBDG CARES grant from the Federal Government. A separate budget referral to continue funding of the COVID Emergency Rental Assistance Program with funds available through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was approved at the April 26, 2022 City Council meeting.

Funding for this program is needed as many low-income households remain in massive debt that has accrued over the course of the pandemic. Under Berkeley’s eviction moratorium, people cannot be evicted for lack of payment of rent during the local state of emergency, but property owners can seek back payment of rent through the courts.

Additionally, increased inflation and cost of living, which disproportionately impacts low- income households, could put some people in a position of falling behind on rent in the coming months.

The purpose of this additional $250,000 annual allocation for rental assistance is to supplement the Housing Retention Program to support more eligible households who have outstanding rent debt due to the pandemic and to continue the Housing Retention Program after the expiration of the local state of emergency.

Legal Counseling, Services and Problem Solving for Extremely-Low, Very-Low, Low and Moderate Income Tenants
The unprecedented rental housing crisis has resulted in increased displacement and eviction of low-income residents in Berkeley. One of the priorities of the City Council is to provide services to low-income households to prevent displacement.

At the June 25, 2019 City Council Meeting, the FY 2020-21 Biennial Budget was approved, allocating $900,000 each year for anti-displacement programs. Of this, $550,000 was earmarked for eviction defense and housing counseling each year. Due to the adoption of Measure U1 at the 2016 election, and new additional General Fund revenues, the Council initially authorized an annual funding of $300,000 for this purpose for both FY 2018 and 2019 at its July 25, 2017 meeting. Measure U1 also required the Housing Advisory Commission to advise the City Council on programs to prevent homelessness and expand affordable housing. As part of its charge, the HAC recommended that the Council allocate a portion of General Fund revenues derived from the Measure U1 tax for anti-displacement programs. To more expediently implement Council’s action, these funds were transferred to the Rent Board whose staff administered, monitored, and reported to Council regarding the program funding during those years. This action also took place during FY 22.

When this item was initially considered in 2017, Council expressed interest in expanding the scope of services provided by Eviction Defense Center (EDC) and East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC) to provide counseling and advocacy to tenants seeking to avoid displacement by exercise of rights afforded by other local laws. The funding provided by the Rent Board is not adequate to achieve the Council’s objective

Budget Referral: Anti-Displacement Programs CONSENT CALENDAR May 10, 2022

of fully preventing displacement during the current housing emergency, when low and middle-income tenants are particularly vulnerable to displacement if not provided with sufficient and competent legal defense. There is also a need for additional funding to provide counseling and representation to tenants relating to city ordinances such as the Tenant Protection Ordinance and Tenant Buyout Ordinance. Both EDC and EBCLC have once again requested $275,000 to cover this expanded scope of work to serve the broadest number of Berkeley tenants.

Flexible Housing Subsidy Pool
In June 2017, the City Council established the Flexible Housing Subsidy Pool as a new anti-displacement tool. These funds can be used for a variety of purposes, including emergency rental subsidies for people who have been evicted or are experiencing homelessness. Since the fund was established it has helped tenants with emergency funding of up to $1,500 per incident and $5,000 maximum per household in grants.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Total allocation of $1,800,000 ($900,000 annually) from General Fund revenues.

Since 2017, the City has funded these three programs out of Measure U1 tax receipts, and it is recommended that the Council continue this funding for the next two fiscal years.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100

CONSENT CALENDAR
Office of the Mayor May 10, 2022
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7100 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7199 E-Mail: [email protected]
TO: Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín
Subject: Berkeley Housing Authority Loan Forgiveness

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution forgiving a $300,000 Housing Trust Loan to the Berkeley Housing Authority. Forgiving this outstanding loan will enable BHA to provide additional housing to families in Berkeley.

BACKGROUND
In April 2012 the Berkeley City Council adopted Resolution 65,672-N.S. approving fund reservation of General Funds from the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) to Berkeley Housing Authority in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to pay for predevelopment costs associated with the disposition and rehabilitation of 75 units of rental housing owned by BHA.

On February 13, 2013, BHA entered into a Public Housing Disposition Predevelopment Loan with the City of Berkeley for $300,000 at an annual interest rate of 3%, payable in five years. BHA used the loan proceeds to pay for relocation expenses of former low- income housing tenants and for fees associated with the disposition of the 75 low income housing units. The Berkeley City Council approved Resolution 66,076-N.S. on April 2, 2013, changing annual interest rate to 0% and extending the term for another five years. The loan will become due and payable in 2023.

BHA has requested that the City of Berkeley forgo repayment of the $300,000 loan balance to cover short-falls in the Housing Choice Voucher Program that would have been covered through the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) funding or disposition proceeds. Forgiveness of the loan will allow BHA to serve/assist up to fifteen low income families in Berkeley for one year, providing more affordable housing units in Berkeley.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$300,000 from the Housing Trust Fund

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

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100

24

RESOLUTION NO. _____

FORGIVENESS OF THE CITY OF BERKELEY HOUSING TRUST FUND LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,000 TO THE BERKELEY HOUSING AUTHORITY WHEREAS, in December 2009, the Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA) submitted an application to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to transfer its public housing units to another entity to rehabilitate and manage the units more effectively; and
WHEREAS, in February 2010, HUD approved BHA’s disposition application and selected Related Companies of California as the entity to serve as the developer, manager, and long-term owner of BHA’s 75 rental housing units; and WHEREAS, in April 2012 the Berkeley City Council adopted Resolution 65,672-N.S. approving fund reservation of General Funds from the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) to BHA in the amount not to exceed $300,000 to pay for predevelopment costs associated with the disposition and rehabilitation of 75 units of rental housing owned by BHA; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2013 the Berkeley Housing Authority entered into a Public Housing Disposition Predevelopment Loan with the City of Berkeley for $300,000 at an annual interest rate of 3%, payable in five years; and WHEREAS, on April 2, 2013 the City of Berkeley Council approved Resolution 66,076-N.S. changing the annual interest rate of the loan to 0% and extending the term for another five years; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Housing Authority used the loan proceeds to pay for relocation expenses of former low-income housing tenants and fees associated with the disposition of the 75 low income housing units; and WHEREAS, the loan is scheduled to mature on February 7, 2023; and WHEREAS, BHA has requested that the City of Berkeley forgo repayment of the $300,000 loan proceeds in order to cover administrative costs in the Housing Choice Voucher Program rather than using the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) funding or disposition proceeds; and
WHEREAS, forgiveness of the loan would allow BHA to serve/assist up to fifteen low income families in Berkeley for one year and create more affordable housing units in Berkeley.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Berkeley City Council forgives repayment of the $300,000 loan made to the Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA) in February 2013.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 1 CONSENT CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Author)
Subject: Addition of Semi-diverter Traffic Bollards at the intersection of Newbury Street and Ashby Avenue.

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Budget Process, an allocation of $50,000 to install semi-diverter traffic bollards at the east corner of the intersection at Newbury Street and Ashby Avenue.

CURRENT SITUATION
Recently, Newbury Street has been plagued with dangerous driving behaviors that threaten pedestrians, cyclists, property, and other vehicles. The observed behaviors include speeding, substance-impaired awareness, not stopping at stop signs, and not yielding to pedestrians and bicyclists.

Within the past few years, dangerous driving behaviors along Newbury Street have resulted in numerous episodes of near-miss accidents for pedestrians and bicyclists, collision damage to parked vehicles, and residential property damage collisions from vehicles speeding into Newbury Street to escape police pursuits along Ashby Avenue.

Of the greatest safety concern is that, within the past year, the intersection of Newbury Street and Ashby Avenue (Highway SR-13) has been the site of one fatal vehicle accident and two near-fatal vehicle accidents.

BACKGROUND
Newbury Street is one block long, narrow, and extends from Russell Street to Ashby Avenue. The community it serves is residential, and it has an increasing number of families with infants and young children. Decades ago, the street was bordered by a coal yard at one end and a lightly used thoroughfare at the other end. Outside of use by residents, there was very little vehicle traffic. Over the recent decades, the coal yard, at one end of the street, was replaced by the Berkeley Bowl Market. At the other end of the street, the lightly used thoroughfare became Highway SR-13. In addition, the Ashby Bart Station (with its cross-bay commuters) was built only a block away.

Individually, each of these changes had impacts on the vehicle traffic along Newbury Street. Combined, these changes have significantly contributed to Newbury Street being increasingly dangerous for both residents and non-residents. Now, with planned major housing projects in the immediate area, there may be further increases in vehicle traffic along Newbury Street and, with it, additional vehicle hazards.

The City must support infrastructure that promotes pedestrian and bicyclist safety and reduces traffic collisions in order to avoid further tragedies. Further work needs to be done in order to deter traffic violations and ensure pedestrian and bike safety. The

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 2 residents of the neighborhood that is plagued by dangerous and illegal driving want to see clear safe passage for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as a reduction of vehicle collisions and property damage.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
In Berkeley, street safety is a priority. Based on consultations with constituents and reported vehicle incidents, action must be taken to substantially decrease traffic violations and prevent the potential for serious injury on this street. The urgency for this action is particularly high given the number of young children who live at or near this street as well as patrons of the Berkeley Bowl Market, BART commuters, and the increasing number of cyclists.

Based on consultation with community residents, there is a consensus of opinion that vehicle traffic along Newbury Street has become increasingly dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists, parked cars, and property. There is overwhelming support for measures that reduce the traffic dangers along Newbury Street, especially at the intersection of Newbury Street and Ashby Avenue (Highway SR-13).

At the intersection of Newbury Street, vehicles traveling along Ashby Avenue (Highway SR-13) are not controlled by traffic lights or stop signs. Vehicles that are speeding along Ashby Avenue tend to maintain an excess speed as they turn to enter Newbury Street.

In addition, vehicles illegally parked in yellow zones at the east corner of the intersection create blind spots for west-bound vehicles that are speeding onto Newbury Street.

These unsafe conditions significantly contribute to vehicle dangers on Newbury Street.

VEHICLE TRAFFIC BOLLARD DIVERTERS
Traffic bollard diverters are a recognized method for reducing vehicle traffic dangers in Berkeley. According to a 2015 study, “Traffic diversion has been quite effective in many of the neighborhoods where the bollards have been installed. The Claremont neighborhood is a prime example of this success. Traffic that used to spill into the neighborhood during peak commuter hours is now unable to penetrate the interior.

Children can safely walk from their homes to Monkey Island Park without encountering commuters slicing frantically through the back streets to get from Claremont Blvd. to Derby St. At the same time, cyclists and pedestrians are able to pass through the barriers and therefore have unrestricted access to any part of the neighborhood.” Berkeley is currently served by two types of traffic bollard diverter systems; Full-diverter bollards and Semi-diverter bollards. A full diverter bollard completely blocks access to, and exit from, one end of the street. The blocked end of the street creates a cul-de-sac.

Although this method is effective at reducing vehicle traffic, it may contribute to other street problems such as impaired access for emergency and delivery vehicles, vehicle and property damage from drivers making a u-turn at the blocked end of the street, and illegal dumping of trash at the “dead end” cul-de-sac. This is especially true for full- diverter bollards that are installed on narrow streets.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 3 Semi-diverter traffic bollards block only half of one end of the street. The bollard prevents entrance to the street on one side, while it maintains exit from the street on the other side. This allows for a smooth flow of traffic along the street. It avoids the potential bollard problems of impaired emergency and delivery vehicle access as well as the need for vehicle u-turns to exit the street. In addition, it reduces the motivation for illegal dumping.

Installation of a semi-diverter bollard system at the east corner of the Newbury Street and Ashby Avenue (Highway SR-13) intersection would significantly reduce the traffic vehicle dangers along Newbury Street. The bollard system would prevent access to Newbury Street from vehicles traveling along Ashby Avenue (Highway SR-13). This safety measure is especially important for west-bound vehicles that are speeding along Ashby Avenue and are partially blinded by illegally parked vehicles on the east corner of the intersection prior to turning into Newbury Street.

Vehicles can enter Newbury Street from Russell Street. Vehicles traveling along Ashby Avenue can turn onto Adeline Street and travel one block to Russell Street. Exit from Newbury Street can be by Russell Street, as well as by the non-barricaded section of Newbury Street at the Ashby Avenue intersection. Doing this would contain the traffic flow, make it easier for pedestrians, cyclists, and property along Newbury Street, and decrease the number of traffic violations. Although this item is not a silver bullet in addressing all of the problems, it is a needed step in order to bring much-needed safety to the area.

TRAFFIC BOLLARD DIVERTERS ALONG ASHBY AVENUE
Traffic bollard diverters are especially recognized as a preventive measure for vehicle traffic along Ashby Avenue (Highway SR-13). From Telegraph Avenue to Shattuck Avenue, all streets along the Ashby Avenue corridor are currently protected by bollard traffic diverters. Newbury Street is the only street between the major thoroughfares of Telegraph Avenue and Adeline Street that is not protected by a bollard traffic diverter system (see photos).

Both types of traffic bollard diverter systems are located along Ashby Avenue; Full- diverter bollards and Semi-diverter bollards. Newbury Street would best be served with a semi-diverter traffic bollard system.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No adverse effects on the environment are anticipated. A semi-diverter bollard conversion will help mitigate traffic, promote pedestrian safety, and create a safer intersection for families, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Drivers heading along Ashby Avenue can easily access Newbury Street by utilizing Russell Street, one block away.

FISCAL IMPACTS
Staff time and additional costs are to be determined by the Public Works Department.

CONTACT PERSON

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 4 Councilmember Ben Bartlett 510-981-7130
James Chang 510-981-7131
Hillary Phan 510-981-7131

Kate Harrison
Vice Mayor, District 4

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Councilmember From: Vice Mayor Harrison, Councilmember Bartlett
Subject: Dwight Way Traffic Calming Budget Referral

RECOMMENDATION
Refer a one-time allocation of $50,000 to the June budget process for traffic calming intersection improvements on Dwight Way between Grant Street and California Street.

CURRENT SITUATION, EFFECTS, AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION With the City Council’s adoption of Vision Zero goals in March 2018, Berkeley embarked on a mission to eliminate all traffic deaths and severe injuries by the year 2028.1 Along with the Pedestrian Plan and the Bicycle Plan, the Vision Zero Action Plan outlines a broad path to accomplish this ambitious goal as well as specific infrastructural recommendations to make Berkeley’s streets safer for all who use them. Despite the ambitious goals set by Vision Zero and the recent progress of improvements to infrastructure, motorists continue to strike pedestrians and cyclists at an alarming rate.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley Residents have identified the section of Dwight Way between Grant Street and California Street as an area of particular concern where drivers have routinely failed to adhere to posted speed limits creating an unsafe environment for pedestrians.

Improvements at Dwight and California – including pedestrian bulb-outs, relocated crosswalks and a center median that serves to slow traffic and provide a safe stopping point for bicyclists and pedestrians have already made that intersection safer.

However, there are 9 blocks on Dwight between Sacramento and Martin Luther King Boulevard and only California has enjoyed these improvements. Between 2016 and 2021 there were 13 motor vehicle collisions on Dwight between Grant and California, of which 8 occurred at the intersection between Dwight Way and Grant Street.

Residents of the neighborhood have gathered signatures for a Neighborhood Request 1 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Public_Works/Level_3_- _Transportation/Berkeley_Vision_Zero_Action_Plan_Approved_03102020.pdf

26

Dwight Way Traffic Calming Budget Referral

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
for Traffic Calming Study which was submitted to the City of Berkeley’s Public Works Department in December 2021.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$50,000 for design and materials for treatments such as bulb-outs, center medians, rectangular flashing beacons or other intersection improvement treatments recommended by the City of Berkeley Public Works Department.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
By making intersections safer for bicyclists and pedestrians, we incentivize use of carbon-neutral modes of transportation. The City estimates that transportation-related emissions accounts for approximately 60% of our community’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions.2 By encouraging alternatives to car transportation by making pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure safer and more accessible, these improvements stand to lower the emissions from our community’s dominant source of carbon emissions.

CONTACT PERSON
Vice Mayor Kate Harrison, Council District 4, 510-981-7140 ATTACHMENTS:
1: Neighborhood Request for Traffic Calming Study

2. Collision Statistics for Dwight Way
2 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2018/12_Dec/Documents/2018-12- 06_WS_Item_01_Climate_Action_Plan_Update_pdf.aspx

3/17/2022

Midblock Collisions
Arterial: DWIGHT WAY
Date Range Reported: 7/1/2016 - 6/30/2021
Date
Time
Report No. Type of Collision Motor Veh.

Involved With DOT1 DOT2 PCF
Limit 1: CALIFORNIA ST
Limit 2: GRANT ST
MPC 1 MPC 2
City of Berkeley
#
Inj
#
KldDist/Dir Location
Total Number of Collisions: 13
11/18/16
16:41
Auto R/W ViolationBroadside Other Motor
Vehicle
1 0East WestMaking Left Turn Proceeding
Straight
0'
In Int.

Dwight Way/Mcgee Ave8293014
4/21/17
8:02
Traffic Signals and
Signs
Broadside Bicycle 1 0North EastProceeding
Straight
Proceeding
Straight
0'
In Int.

Dwight Way/California St8398225
5/17/17
13:00
Improper TurningSideswipe Parked Motor
Vehicle
0 0East EastProceeding
Straight
Parked60'
West of
Dwight Way/Grant St8446878
9/26/17
7:42
Auto R/W ViolationBroadside Bicycle 1 0North WestProceeding Straight
Proceeding
Straight
0'
In Int.

Dwight Way/California St8501081
11/6/17
15:48
Traffic Signals and
Signs
Broadside Bicycle 1 0East EastProceeding
Straight
Proceeding
Straight
0'
In Int.

Dwight Way/Grant St8543119
11/27/17
17:45
Ped R/W ViolationSideswipe Pedestrian 1 0East Not
Stated
Proceeding
Straight
Proceeding
Straight
3'
East of
Dwight Way/Grant St8543059
3/16/18
16:41
Auto R/W ViolationBroadside Motor Vehicle on
Other Roadway
1 0East Not
Stated
Proceeding
Straight
Proceeding
Straight
0'
In Int.

Dwight Way/Grant St8647226
3/19/18
11:38
Traffic Signals and
Signs
Broadside Other Motor
Vehicle
0 0South EastProceeding
Straight
Proceeding
Straight
0'
In Int.

Dwight Way/Grant St8653976
1/6/19
10:00
Unsafe SpeedRear-End Other Motor
Vehicle
1 0West WestSlowing/Stopping Stopped in Road0'
In Int.

Dwight Way/Grant St8841694
2/14/19
12:30
Auto R/W ViolationBroadside Other Motor
Vehicle
1 0North WestProceeding
Straight
Proceeding
Straight
0'
In Int.

Dwight Way/California St8835210

3/17/2022

Midblock Collisions
Arterial: DWIGHT WAY
Date Range Reported: 7/1/2016 - 6/30/2021
Date
Time
Report No. Type of Collision Motor Veh.

Involved With DOT1 DOT2 PCF
Limit 1: CALIFORNIA ST
Limit 2: GRANT ST
MPC 1 MPC 2
City of Berkeley
#
Inj
#
KldDist/Dir Location
Total Number of Collisions: 13
5/7/19
8:45
Traffic Signals and
Signs
Broadside Other Motor
Vehicle
0 0North WestProceeding
Straight
Proceeding
Straight
0'
In Int.

Dwight Way/Grant St8909488
12/7/20
19:28
Auto R/W ViolationBroadside Other Motor
Vehicle
0 0West SouthProceeding
Straight
Proceeding
Straight
0'
In Int.

Grant St/Dwight Way9218807
3/2/21
16:01
Unsafe SpeedRear-End Other Motor
Vehicle
4 0East EastProceeding
Straight
Stopped in Road0'
In Int.

Dwight Way/Grant St9254723

3/17/2022

Midblock Collisions
Arterial: DWIGHT WAY
Date Range Reported: 7/1/2016 - 6/30/2021
Date
Time
Report No. Type of Collision Motor Veh.

Involved With DOT1 DOT2 PCF
Limit 1: CALIFORNIA ST
Limit 2: GRANT ST
MPC 1 MPC 2
City of Berkeley
#
Inj
#
KldDist/Dir Location
Total Number of Collisions: 13
Total Number of Collisions: 13 Segment Length: 0.25 miles (1,296') Settings Used For Query
Parameter Setting
Limit 1 Include Intersection Related
Limit 2 Include Intersection Related
Intermediate Intersections Include Intersection Related Sorted By 'Date and Time'

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
May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Wengraf, Councilmember Taplin, Councilmember Hahn Subject: Resolution Declaring May as Jewish American Heritage Month

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution declaring the month of May as Jewish American Heritage Month in appreciation of the achievements and contributions made by members of the Jewish Community.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None

BACKGROUND
Jewish Americans are an important part of American history and have greatly contributed to all areas of American life and culture since our nation’s earliest days.

Generations of Jews have come to the United States in search of a better life for themselves and their families, and made invaluable contributions in support of equality and civil rights through their leadership and achievements.

Jewish Americans connect to their Jewish identity in a variety of ways; culturally, ethnically, religiously and by embracing Jewish ethics and values. Jewish Americans are racially, ethnically, socially, politically and economically diverse, with approximately 25 percent of Bay Area Jewish households including a person of color.

In recent years, Jewish Americans have increasingly experienced antisemitism, including but not limited to physical attacks, vandalism, verbal and physical harassment, and hateful comments posted on social media. There is a need for education and policies that are culturally competent when describing, discussing, or addressing the impacts of being Jewish in all aspects of American society, including discourse and policy.

The City of Berkeley condemns antisemitism wherever it exists, and stands with the Jewish American community against hatred or bigotry in our city and country. Berkeley calls upon all residents to celebrate Jewish Americans who have contributed to our country and community, and support opportunities to learn more about Jewish American history and culture.

27

Resolution Declaring May as Jewish Heritage Month CONSENT CALENDAR May 10, 2022

Berkeley will continue its efforts to confront antisemitism and other forms of hate impacting the Jewish community, support local education about the diversity of our Jewish American community, and integrate Jewish American culture into future programs, activities, and ceremonies throughout the year. Declaring the month of May as Jewish American Heritage Month in the City of Berkeley supports that work.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
This item does not address environmental sustainability.

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

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

JEWISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
WHEREAS, Jewish Americans are an important part of American history and have greatly contributed to all areas of American life and culture since our nation’s earliest days; and
WHEREAS, generations of Jews have come to the United States in search of a better life for themselves and their families, and made invaluable contributions in support of equality and civil rights through their leadership and achievements; and WHEREAS, Jewish Americans connect to their Jewish identity in a variety of ways; culturally, ethnically, religiously and by embracing Jewish ethics and values; and WHEREAS, Jewish Americans are racially, ethnically, socially, politically and economically diverse, with approximately 25 percent of Bay Area Jewish households including a person of color; and
WHEREAS, in recent years, Jewish Americans have increasingly experienced antisemitism, including but not limited to physical attacks, vandalism, verbal and physical harassment, and hateful comments posted on social media; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley condemns antisemitism wherever it exists, and stands with the Jewish American community against hatred or bigotry in our city and country; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for education and policies that are culturally competent when describing, discussing, or addressing the impacts of being Jewish in all aspects of American society, including discourse and policy.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City of Berkeley hereby declares the month of May as Jewish American Heritage Month in appreciation of the achievements and contributions made by members of the Jewish community. We call upon all residents to celebrate Jewish Americans who have contributed to our country and community, and support opportunities to learn more about Jewish American history and culture.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Berkeley will continue its efforts to confront antisemitism and other forms of hate impacting the Jewish community, support local education about the diversity of our Jewish American community, and integrate Jewish American culture into future programs, activities, and ceremonies throughout the year.

Lori Droste, District 8

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Lori Droste, Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Councilmember Susan Wengraf, and Councilmember Kate Harrison
SUBJECT: Budget Referral for Charter Officer Performance Review

RECOMMENDATION
Refer $120,000 to the budget process to procure professional services from a qualified consultant to assist the City Council in establishing a collaborative review process for performing regular evaluations of the City Attorney and Police Accountability Board Director’s performance and direct the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to contract with an experienced firm that will engage the City Council and the City Attorney and Police Accountability Board Director in performance evaluation similar to the City Manager’s evaluation process. The RFP shall be reviewed by the City Council Agenda and Rules Committee prior to issuance. The Agenda and Rules will make a recommendation to the entire City Council, for approval, prior to entering into any contract.

The performance evaluation process should begin following the scheduled approval of the Biennial Budget in June of 2022 and establish an annual evaluation schedule that includes interim updates on a quarterly basis—similar to the City Manager’s evaluation process described in the May 14, 2019 Council referral for performance evaluations.

BACKGROUND
In 2019, Mayor Jesse Arreguín and Councilmember Kate Harrison cited the various benefits for regular independent annual evaluations for charter officers, including opportunities to improve communications, establish goals and objectives, set expectations, and improve organizational function, resulting in a more effective City government.

28

The City Charter gives the City Council explicit authority to appoint and potentially remove charter officers who directly report to City Council; it also provides a basis for the Council conducting reviews of individuals serving in this position, and outlines a number of performance considerations that could be part of this process.

Article XVIII of the City Charter, which governs the Police Accountability Board and Director of Police Accountability, contains multiple provisions which reflect the City Council’s authority over the Director of Police Accountability. Section 14(a) reads, in part: “The City Council shall appoint the Director of Police Accountability at a noticed public meeting.” Section 14(e) reads in part:
“The City Council may remove the Director of Police Accountability by a two-thirds vote either on its own motion or based on the recommendation of the Police Accountability Board.” And Section 14(b) reads: “The Director of Police Accountability shall carry out the work of the Board as described herein, which may include the day-to-day operations of the Board office and staff, and performance appraisals and discipline of all subordinate employees of the Board. All such individuals, to the extent that they are employees of the City of Berkeley, shall be subject to the personnel rules governing City of Berkeley employees.”
Taken together, the sections referenced above make clear that the City Council bears authority and responsibility to appoint and remove the Director of Police Accountability, and that as an employee of the City of Berkeley under the authority of the Council, the Director of Police Accountability is subject to regular evaluation/review by the same.

In 2020, Berkeley voters approved Measure KK with 75 percent in support. Per the City Charter amendments adopted under Measure KK, Article XVI Section 113 now reads in part: “The City Attorney shall be an officer of the City of Berkeley, appointed by a vote of five members of the Council, serving at the will of the Council for an indefinite period, and removed only by a vote of five members of the Council…”
Additionally, the contract for the current City Attorney includes the following provisions:
“Within three months of appointment, the City Council shall jointly establish objective, verifiable measures of her performance to be completed during the first year and the City Council shall provide Ms. Brown with a performance evaluation at the end of the first year. During the initial performance evaluation, Ms. Brown shall present to the City Council on her goals and priorities for the City Attorney Department. An assessment of salary increase shall be part of the evaluation process. For each subsequent year during the term of this Agreement, the parties shall endeavor to establish prospective objective, verifiable measures of performance for the ensuing year. As part of the annual performance evaluation, Ms. Brown shall present on goals and priorities for the City Attorney Department and key accomplishments over the past year.” Therefore both the City Charter and the contract for the current City Attorney provide clear authority for the Council to evaluate the performance of the City Attorney and to make retention/hiring decisions based on these considerations.

Due to staffing demands and other exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic, the City Council and City Attorney were unable to engage in the evaluation processes established in the City Attorney’s contact. Abrupt shifts to remote work, a large and unexpected budget shortfall, maintenance of an Emergency Operations Center, and other factors converged to make an evaluation process impracticable at its originally anticipated time. It is now critical that the City Council resume evaluation procedures for the City Attorney and other Charter officers.

In collaboration with the City Attorney, the Police Accountability Board, and the selected consultant, the City Council can develop criteria for evaluation and recommendations for operational improvements using best practices from other municipalities, similar to approaches from the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) used for evaluation of the City Manager.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$120,000

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

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Lori Droste
510-981-7180

Item Removed From
Agenda
This item has been removed from the agenda by the
City Manager.

If you have questions regarding this report, please
contact the person noted on the agenda.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900
The City of Berkeley, City Council’s Website
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil/

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
May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Interim Chief of Police
Subject: Police Equipment & Community Safety Ordinance Impact Statements, Associated Equipment Policies and Annual Equipment Use Report

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the Controlled Equipment Impact Statements, Associated Equipment Use Policies and equipment.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The fiscal impacts are minimal as the Berkeley Police Department has possessed the equipment outlined in the impact statements for many years. The majority of the fiscal impacts are limited to staff time for reporting and continuous training.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance and Assembly Bill No.481 require the Police Department to submit documents outlining details of specific equipment defined as “military equipment.” The definition of “military equipment” differs between the city ordinance and state law. The Berkeley Police Department impact statements and their associated policies are comprehensive and address equipment from both the ordinance and state law. All equipment outlined within the impact statements was previously acquired to the passage of this legislation and has been in the possession of the Berkeley Police Department and utilized for many years.

BACKGROUND
On May 11th, 2021 the city of Berkeley adopted the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance, Ordinance NO. 7,760-N.S. This ordinance addresses military equipment funding, acquisition, and use. This ordinance requires the Berkeley Police Department to submit impact statements and associated equipment policies on certain equipment that the Berkeley Police Department already possesses to the Police Accountability Board and City Council for approval. An annual report is also mandated by the city ordinance for the usage of specified equipment.

On January 1st, 2022 Assembly Bill No.481 took effect. Similar to the city ordinance, this assembly bill also addresses military equipment funding, acquisition, and use. The

Annual Reporting and Impact Statements:

Police Equipment and Community ACTION CALENDAR
Safety Ordinance May 10, 2022

assembly bill and the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance address similar equipment and have similar requirements. However, Assembly Bill No.481 addresses additional equipment that the city ordinance does not and requires addition impact statements and addition equipment policies.

The city ordinance provides the Police Accountability Board 90-days to review Impact Statements and their associated use policies before making recommendations and before City Council’s consideration of approval. After reconciling the city ordinance and new state law mandates, the required documents were provided to the Police Accountability Board on February 24th, 2022. On April 6th, 2022 the Police Accountability Board provided the Berkeley Police Department with their recommendations on the Impact Statements and their associated use policies. The Police Accountability Board’s recommendations are submitted as an attachment to this council item pursuant to section 2.100.040 (H)(1), which requires the Berkeley Police department provide City Council with the Police Accountability Board’s recommendations 15 days prior to a public meeting.

It should be noted that Section 2.100.040 (H)(2) states “If the City Council does not approve such item within four (4) regular City Council meetings from when the item is first scheduled, the Police Department shall cease its use of the Controlled Equipment until such review and approval occurs.”
The Impact Statements and their associated use policies and Annual Report have been submitted as attachments to this council item. The attached Impact Statements and their associated use policies were also posted onto the Berkeley Police Department’s website thirty days prior to the May 10, 2022 Council Meeting, in line with the requirements of Assembly Bill No.481.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance and Assembly Bill No.481 require the approval of “military equipment” by a “governing body.”

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
If the equipment outlined in the Impact Statements and their associated policies are not approved, the Berkeley Police Department is required to cease its use, per the city ordinance. Public safety and the safety of Berkeley Police Officers will be detrimentally impacted if the continued use of this equipment by the Berkeley Police Department is not approved. This equipment has been relied on for many years, assisting in keeping the Berkeley community safe.

Annual Reporting and Impact Statements:

Police Equipment and Community ACTION CALENDAR
Safety Ordinance May 10, 2022

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

1. Resolution

2. Impact Statements and their associated use policies

3. 2021 Annual Equipment Use Report

4. Police Accountability Board Recommendation

5. Military Equipment Policy

Annual Reporting and Impact Statements:

Police Equipment and Community ACTION CALENDAR
Safety Ordinance May 10, 2022

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

ANNUAL REPORTING AND IMPACT STATEMENTS: POLICE EQUIPMENT AND

COMMUNITY SAFETY ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the Berkeley City Council adopted Ordinance NO. 7,760-N.S., the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance on May 11, 2021; and WHEREAS, Section 2.100.020 of the city ordinance mandates Impact Statements and their associated equipment policies for certain equipment that the Berkeley Police Department possesses; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.100.050 of the ordinance mandates an annual report for the deployment of certain equipment that the Berkeley Police Department possesses; and WHEREAS, per city ordinance, the Impact Statements, associated equipment policies, and the first annual report shall be submitted within one year of approval; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill No.481 was passed September 30, 2021; and mandates similar requirements to the city ordinance including “use policies” and “annual use report;” and
WHEREAS, the equipment outlined between Assembly Bill No.481 and the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance are similar.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it accepts the Berkeley Police Department Impact Statements, associated equipment policies, and Annual Report, and approve the equipment outlined in the Impact Statements.

Police Equipment and
Community Safety Ordinance
Impact Statements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to the subject matter experts for helping author this report.

Officer Corey Bold –
Patrol Officer and chemical agent instructor
Officer Semir Muratovic –
Patrol Officer and Bomb Squad Technician
Officer Derek Radey –
Patrol Officer and less lethal coordinator/instructor
Lieutenant Kevin Reece –
Special Response Team Commander
Officer Scott Salas –
Patrol officer and Special Response Team high ground team leader Lieutenant Jennifer Tate –
Traffic Lieutenant and defensive tactics instructor
Officer Jason Tillberg –
Department trainer and Department Armorer
Officer Sean Tinney –
Department trainer and Special Response Team member

1 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
M4 rifle/Patrol Rifle …………………………………………………………………………… 3
Penn Arms 40MM Single Launcher ………………………………………………….. 8
Milkor LTL Multi-Launcher ……..………………………………………………………… 13 FN 303 Launcher & FN Pava Impact Projectile …………………………………. 19 Oleoresin Capsicum Spray………………………………………………………………… 24
Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile and Oleoresin capsicum .……………… 27 Remington 700 Rifle ………………………………………………………………………… 32
ReconRobotics Recon Scout XT Robots…………….………………………………. 35 Andros Remotec HD-1 Hazardous Duty Robot …………………………………. 38 Light/Sound Diversionary Device ……………………………………………………... 41 Long Range Acoustic Device .……………………………………………………………. 45 36” Batons ……………………….……….…………………………………………………..… 48
Mobile Command Vehicle…………………………………………………………………. 52
Barret Model 99 …………………………………………………………………………….... 54
Appendix …………………………………………………………………………………………. 58

2 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION
On May 11, 2021 the Berkeley City Council passed Ordinance NO. 7,760-N.S., the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance. Section 2.100.020 of the ordinance mandates an impact statement for certain equipment that the Berkeley Police Department possesses. An impact statement is defined in section

2.100.020 (C) and is a publicly released written document that includes the following details for each equipment:
1) Description
2) Purpose
3) Fiscal cost
4) Impact
5) Mitigation
6) Alternatives
7) Third Party Dependence
An impact statement for each of the following equipment has been authored by subject matter experts in their respective fields:
• M4 rifle/Patrol Rifle
• Penn Arms 40MM launcher
• Milkor LTL multi-launcher
• FN 303 Launcher & FN Pava rounds
• Oleoresin capsicum (OC spray)
• Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile and Oleoresin capsicum (tear gas) • Remington 700 Rifle
• ReconRobotics Recon Scout XT Robots
• Andros Remotec HD-1 Hazardous Duty Robot
• Light/sound distraction device
• Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD)
• 36” batons
• Mobile Command Vehicle
• Barret Model 99
The impact statements required by the City ordinance also fulfill the obligations set forth in Assembly Bill 481. Impact statements were compiled in this report in a

3 | P a g e
prioritized ranking for the Police Accountability Board to consider in determining the order in which to perform its review per the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance.

M4 Rifle and Associated Ammunition
(1) Description:

A. Background:

The “M4” was developed and produced for the United States government by Colt Firearms and was based off of the original Armalite Rifle (AR) patent purchased by Colt in 1959. Although Colt owned the trademarked name of “M4”, a number of other manufacturers offer M4-like firearms under various model names. The M4 and its variants fire 5.56×45mm NATO (and .223 Remington) ammunition, and are a gas-operated, magazine-fed firearm with a barrel length ranging from

11.5” to 16”.

The current Berkeley Police Department (BPD) rifle ammunition used is the .223 Remington, a rimless, bottlenecked rifle cartridge. The round was developed in 1957 by Remington Arms and Fairchild Industries. The .223 Remington is considered one of the most popular cartridges and is currently used by a wide range of semi-automatic and manual-action rifles as well as handguns. While the military uses the similar 5.56x45 NATO cartridge, BPD uses the more common and often regarded civilian cartridge of .223 Remington for all training and duty uses.

Currently, BPD uses two different kinds of .223 Remington ammunition: 55 grain FMJ (full metal jacket) for training purposes and 62 grain soft point for duty purposes. This is done for several reasons.

1. FMJ ammunition is cheaper to purchase. While many agencies use the same ammunition for training and duty use, the department saves a significant amount of money by using FMJ ammunition for training.

2. The observed performance between the two rounds is negligible for training purposes. Officers can use the FMJ ammunition in a training course and see no difference in operation and performance versus using 62 grain soft point duty ammunition.

3. The 62-grain soft point ammunition has been shown to have less over penetration and over travel compared to FMJ ammunition.

4 | P a g e
This means that rounds fired are less likely to hit unintended targets.

B. Quantity:

The Berkeley Department currently owns and maintains 96 rifles.

Quantity of rifle ammunition fluctuates significantly depending on training attended, including the standard basic police academy, officer assignments, and yearly mandate training cycles. For example, most police academy recruits are required to bring approximately 1,000 rounds to the basic POST approved academy. Most academies have a 16-24-hour rifle training course. The training is required for all officers who are issued a rifle and mandates between 800 and 1,200 rounds. As such, the inventory at the Berkeley Police Department fluctuates significantly depending on how many officers are attending state mandated training and can range from 10,000 round (our current inventory) to less than 1,000 rounds (our anticipated inventory at the end of December after scheduled department training in November.)
C. Capability:

The M4 pattern rifle is used only in situations when a potential life-threatening situation exists. While a pistol is the common firearm used by police in these dangerous situations, the M4 patterned rifle has numerous advantages over it.

The ability to shoulder the rifle, coupled with the rifle’s lengthened barrel and ammunition, result in higher accuracy and lessens the chance of officers missing the intended target. Additionally, due to the design of the rifle’s bullet, the round is less likely to over penetrate commercial and residential walls should the officer miss the intended target. The rifle is also easier to use compared to a pistol because of the bullet’s low recoil. Finally, as the rifle can be adjusted and customized, it can be configured to accommodate officers of any stature (hand size, strength, etc.).

The .223 Remington cartridge, depending on the weight of the bullet, 55 grain or 62 grain, travel at approximately 3,000 feet per second and 2,700 feet per second respectively. The round is highly regarded as having a high degree of consistency and accuracy, which is why it is the most common rifle round used in Law Enforcement around the world.

D. Lifespan:

Due to the rifle’s ability to be maintained by department armorers, these rifles have a relatively long-life span if properly maintained. However, the design has

5 | P a g e
changed little in the last 60 years and we can expect new variations and designs to become the new industry standard in the coming years.

Like all ammunition, if kept cool and dry, ammunition lifespan can exceed ten years. Due to BPD’s and State mandates on training, the majority of ammunition is cycled through within a year of purchase.

E. Use:

Used in the defense of life or great bodily injury to potential victims of violent crimes, general public, and officers.

F. How it Works:

The M4 patterned rifle works the same as a majority of all modern firearms.

When the trigger is pressed, a firing pin strikes the primer of a bullet loaded into the chamber of the rifle. The ignited primer ignites gun powder contained in the bullet which pushes the bullet down the barrel and out the muzzle. As the bullet travels down the barrel, gas from the ignited powder also escapes from the muzzle. Some of that gas is recycled back into the chamber of the firearm which causes the firearm to cycle its action and load another bullet. From there the process repeats with each pull of the trigger.

The .223 Remington cartridge is made up of several parts, primarily the primer, casing, gunpowder, and bullet. The bullet is seated into the front or opening of the casing. Gunpowder is placed between the bullet and the interior of the casing and a primer is seated in the rear part of the casing. When the trigger of a firearm is pulled, it releases the hammer, which strikes the firing pin, driving it forward. The firing pin collides with the rear of the cartridge, where the primer is seated, which ignites the primer. The spark from the primer ignites the gunpowder. Gas converted from the burning powder rapidly expands in the cartridge. The expanding gas forces the bullet out of the cartridge and down the barrel with great speed. The rifling in the barrel causes the bullet to spin as it travels out of the barrel. The bullet's speed and escaping gases produce a "bang." After the bullet exits the barrel, the spent casing which housed the bullet, gunpowder, and primer are ejected from the firearm.
(2) Purpose:

The M4 patterned rifle and associated ammunition is intended as a means to safely stop a lethal threat. While a pistol is the firearm that all officers are minimally

6 | P a g e
equipped with, the rifle is an ancillary firearm for situations where increased distance and accuracy are needed to safely resolve the situation. (3) Fiscal Cost:

A. Initial Cost:

Rifle prices, like other firearms, will range depending on current market demand and availability. While M4 rifles purchased several years ago cost between $1,000 and $1,200 a piece, current rifles cost between $1,400 and $1,600. It should be expected that these prices will fluctuate and likely increase over time.

Ammunition costs fluctuate with the costs of components (brass, primers, gunpowder, and bullets) and supply/demand. Current costs for .223 Remington range from $0.50 to $0.75 a round for training ammunition (55 grain) and $1.25 to $1.50 a round for duty ammunition (62 grain).

B. Cost of Use:

Cost of use for all firearms should be based on the ammunition used in training and on duty. This will fluctuate based on whether the rifle is issued to a patrol officer, a firearms instructor, or a Special Response Team member as each assignment has different training requirements.

C. Cost of Potential Adverse Effects:

Adverse effects of improper use of a firearm are not calculable. It could lead to the loss of life or serious injury. Additionally, the improper use could result in civil liabilities.

D. Annual and Ongoing Costs:

See section B. above, these costs are determined based on the rifle’s assignment.

E. Training Costs:

Every officer that is authorized to carry a rifle on duty must attend a 16-hour CA POST approved rifle instruction course before being authorized to carry the rifle on duty. This course may be administered by Berkeley Police Firearm Instructors or by other POST approved agencies. Tuition for the CA POST approved class is dependent on the hosting agency. If conducted in house the cost only includes the officer’s hourly wage, range fee, and ammunition costs (all vary). Outside agencies charge between $25 to $500 depending on the range location and duration (some classes are 32-hours while POST only requires 16-hours.) Additionally, all officers issued a rifle receive specific 8-hour rifle training every two years by POST certified BPD firearm instructors.

7 | P a g e
Typical round count for such classes range between 800 rounds and 1200 rounds per student. Additionally, all officers issued a rifle receive specific 8-hour rifle training every two years by a BPD firearm instructor which constitutes an additional 500 or so rounds per officer.

F. Maintenance and Storage Costs:

Maintenance costs vary depending on use over time. Traditionally, various springs and pins need to be replaced every five years and may cost between $3 and $30 per rifle. Other parts such as the barrel and bolt need replaced around ten years and range between $150 and $300 per rifle.

There are no costs associated with maintenance or storage of ammunition. All ammunition is stored in a climate-controlled room in the Berkeley Police Department.

G. Upgrade Costs:

Upgrade costs and Maintenance cost are synonymous due to the consistent design and lack of changes of the rifle over the last 60 years. Improvements in technology and new designs may be an additional cost but we can’t predict what those will be at this time.

Should advancements be made in ammunition manufacturing, those upgrade costs are unknown at this time.
(4) Impact:

The Berkeley Police Department is committed to preserving and protecting human life and welfare. The M4 patterned rifle, which fires the .223 Remington cartridge, is a superior firearm to stop a lethal threat compared to the issued pistols to police officers, in that officers equipped with this firearm shoot less rounds, fire more accurately, and are less likely to fire errant rounds. Highly volatile and violent incidents, such as a hostage situation, can be more safely and efficiently resolved with a rifle.

The M4 patterned rifle, and the accompanying .223 Remington cartridge it fires, is intended as a tool to increase the safety and welfare of citizens and officers alike.

The M4 patterned rifle and .223 Remington cartridge, both inanimate objects, have zero impact on things such as civil rights or civil liberties of the public. Any abuses of authority or power would be the result of an individual who violates the Berkeley Police Department’s policies, including state and federal laws.

8 | P a g e
(5) Mitigations:

Per Policy 300, “Deadly force may only be used when it is objectively reasonable that such action is immediately necessary to protect the officer or another person from imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

Officers shall not use deadly force if it is objectively reasonable that alternative techniques will eliminate the imminent danger and ultimately achieve the law enforcement purpose with less risk of harm to the officer or to other persons.” (6) Alternatives:

There are no suitable alternatives to the M4 rifle for the intended purpose. The M4 rifle is a law enforcement standard across the US and other countries due to its reliability, ease of use, ease of maintenance, and increased accuracy over other options.

There are no suitable alternatives to the .223 Remington cartridge, as the current BPD M4 rifle is designed for that particular cartridge. The .223 Remington cartridge is a law enforcement standard across the US and other countries due to its reliability, availability, and increased accuracy over other options. (7) Third Party Dependence:

Berkeley Police Department armorers are trained and capable to handle any and all issues related to the maintenance or repair of the M4 rifles. Additionally, BPD firearm instructors are fully certified by state and private training institutes to fully educate and train BPD officers. No third party is required for maintenance, repair, or instruction.

All ammunition purchased by BPD, like all equipment, is dependent on Third Party vendors. Vendor stock and availability is outside BPD control or management. Once ammunition is purchased and in BPD custody there is no additional need for Third Party assistance.

Penn Arms 40mm Single Launcher
(1) Description:

A. Background:

The 40mm impact projectile was developed as an alternative to the 12-gauge bean bag round and other more indiscriminate less lethal options. Early 12-gauge

9 | P a g e
bean bag round designs had somewhat unpredictable flight patterns and could cause significant unwanted injury. The 40mm foam baton round was developed as a direct fire projectile designed to minimize the risk of unintended injuries.

Currently, the Berkeley Police Department utilizes the CTS 4557 foam baton projectile and the Penn Arms L-140 single shot launcher.

B. Quantity:

The Berkeley Police Department currently owns and maintains 20 Penn Arms less lethal launchers.

C. Capability:

The Penn Arms single launcher is capable of firing a single projectile out to a maximum manufacturer recommended range of 45 meters. The Penn Arms 40mm projectiles are direct fire with a pliable “sponge” tip designed to mold to the body. The projectiles are about the size of a large egg. Upon impact, the projectile transfers kinetic energy to the body to gain pain compliance. Large muscle groups such as the upper legs or lower abdomen are approved target areas unless a higher level of force is justified. This level of force is considered to be similar to that of a baton strike.

D. Lifespan:

The manufacturer expected lifespan is about 10 years depending on use and regular maintenance.

E. Use:

The Penn Arms 40mm single launcher is designed to reduce the potential for a violent confrontation. Less lethal projectiles are less likely to result in serious bodily injury or death and can be used to de-escalate a potentially deadly situation.

F. How it works:

The Penn Arms 40mm single launcher is a double action, break open less lethal launcher. The launcher is capable of firing a single 40mm projectile. When fired, the hammer strikes the munition primer which ignites gun powder in the primer insert. Expelled gases propel the projectile through the rifled barrel. The projectile has a rear plastic portion called the ogive which catches the barrel rifling and provides spin. The spin provides a greater degree of accuracy and eliminates any potential the projectile will tumble when exiting the barrel.

10 | P a g e
The projectiles utilized by the Berkeley Police Department are the CTS 4557 40mm sponge baton round. The CTS 4557 has a maximum effective range of 45 meters. The tip of the projectile is a pliable rubber material which molds to the body upon impact. The projectile travels at an estimated 240 feet per second which is slower than the FN 303 projectile. However, the larger mass, about 60 grams, creates more kinetic energy upon impact which is similar to that of a baseball thrown by a pitcher. The additional kinetic energy becomes important when the suspect has on thick or layered clothing or demonstrates a high pain tolerance.

The Penn Arms single launcher is a basic design making it easy to operate and maintain.
(2) Purpose:

The purpose of kinetic energy impact projectiles, commonly referred to as “less lethal” is to preserve life, minimize the use of force and allow time for de-escalation.

Less lethal projectiles allow the user to maintain a safe distance from a subject who is armed and/or demonstrates the intent to be violent. The ability to maintain a safe distance – while still providing a level of control over the subject – allows officers to employ de-escalation techniques, request additional resources and develop a plan to safely resolve the situation with the least amount of risk.

Violent or armed confrontations are inherently dangerous to all those involved.

Officers are required to make split second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. An Officer’s threat perception of a person who is in close proximity as opposed to a person who is at a distance of 20 yards is naturally different. A person in close proximity intent on violence has the ability to immediately utilize personal body weapons, a bludgeoning device or cutting instrument. The immediacy requires the Officer to react instantly and there is a greater potential that a higher level of force will be needed.

On the other hand, a person at a distance of 20 yards may not be perceived as having the immediate ability to violently attack the Officer. The person must first close the distance before certain weapons can be utilized. This fact may allow the Officer time to decide the most appropriate course of action, such as the use of a “less lethal” projectile.

The projectiles are designed to provide a high level of accuracy which minimizes the risk of unwanted impacts. The ability to apply force from a distance reduces the

11 | P a g e
potential for violent confrontation and aides in reducing the level of force needed to safely resolve a conflict.

Additionally, it has been our experience that a 40mm projectile impact will almost always resolve a violent confrontation with 1 or 2 applications. The larger projectile produces more kinetic energy than the FN 303, which may require several applications to gain compliance.

Since 2015, there have been 31 incidents where Officers utilized less lethal applications. These applications have potentially prevented higher-level uses of force.
(3) Fiscal Cost:

A. Initial Cost:

Less lethal prices, like other equipment, varies depending on market demand and availability. The most recent Penn Arms purchased by the department cost $815.00 each.

B. Cost of Use:

Cost for Penn Arms single launcher use should be based on the projectiles used in training and on duty. This will fluctuate based on department trainings, projectile availability and events that unfold in the city and surrounding region.

C. Cost of Potential Adverse Effects:

Adverse effects from improper use of less lethal are not calculable. Improper use could lead to serious bodily injury or death.

D. Annual and Ongoing Costs:

See section B above
E. Training Costs:

Every officer authorized to deploy a less lethal launcher must pass a certification course administered by a Berkeley Police Department Firearms Instructor. The certification class consists of classroom, range qualification and scenario application if the venue allows. This class is largely handled in house thus the cost only includes staff time, range fees, and projectile costs which all vary.

12 | P a g e
F. Maintenance and Storage Costs:

Maintenance costs vary depending on use. Generally, various springs and pins need to be replaced every 5 years which can cost $3 to $30.

G. Upgrade Costs:

There are no foreseeable upgrade costs. The Penn Arms single launcher has few working parts and is of a simple design.
(4) Impact:

The main function of a less lethal device is to preserve the sanctity of human life. The Berkeley Police Department is committed to reducing the potential for violent confrontations. Less lethal projectiles, when used properly, are less likely to result in serious bodily injury or death and can be used to de-escalate a potentially deadly situation. A less lethal application is an acknowledgment a given situation has the potential to elevate to lethal force and the Officers determined a less lethal application is not only objectively reasonable and objectively necessary, but hopefully the minimal amount of force needed to safely resolve the incident.

The Penn Arms single launcher, with its high level of accuracy can be utilized in a large violent group confrontation to specifically target those who are committing acts of violence on other members of the group, involved persons, or law enforcement personnel. It allows a more immediate action to stop a violent assault, overcome their resistance, and aid in the attempt to safely take them into custody.

This tool does not require officers to overcome a hostile crowd to stop a violent assault.
(5) Mitigation:

Per Policy 300, “In all cases where physical force is used, officers shall use a minimum amount of force that is objectively reasonable, objectively necessary, and proportional to effectively and safely resolve a conflict.” All uses of force require documentation that is completed by the supervisor in a use of force report and reviewed by the Chain of Command. Furthermore, all deployments of equipment outlined in the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance are documented according to the reporting requirements as mandated in the ordinance.

Per Policy 303, “Officers are not required or compelled to use approved projectiles in lieu of other reasonable tactics if the involved officer determines that deployment of these projectiles cannot be done safely. Circumstances appropriate for deployment include, but are not limited to, situations in which: (a) The suspect is armed with a weapon and the tactical circumstances allow for the safe application of approved

13 | P a g e
projectiles. (b) The suspect has made credible threats to harm him/herself or others. (c) The suspect is engaged in riotous behavior or is throwing rocks, bottles or other dangerous projectiles at people and/or officers. (d) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has already committed a crime of violence and is refusing to comply with lawful orders.”
The Berkeley Police Department also trains a recommended range of 3 to 30 meters.

Berkeley Police Firearm Instructors recommend a minimum standoff of 3 meters to reduce the potential for unintended injury at a closer distance. The 30-meter maximum recommended range is intended to reduce the possibility of an unintended impact area if the suspect moves or the projectile trajectory begins to deteriorate.

Each officer is trained to aim for large muscle groups, such as the thigh or buttocks area, and avoid areas that may cause serious injury. The department also equips each launcher with a red dot optic. The optic greatly increases an officer’s ability to target approved impact areas.
(6) Alternative:

This is the only piece of less lethal equipment (other than the FN 303) that allows officers to address a potentially deadly threat from a distance. The TASER allows an officer to maintain distance but limits the range to about 15 to 25 feet. Furthermore, the TASER requires two prongs (barbs) to penetrate the subject’s clothing to be effective and if that is not accomplished the TASER will have no effect. Additionally, the TASER is not an approved less lethal device for the department. (7) Third Party Dependence:

The Berkeley Police Department armorers are trained and capable of handling all issues related to the repair or maintenance of the Penn Arms single launcher.

Additionally, Berkeley Police Department Less Lethal Instructors are fully certified by state and private training institutes to educate and train BPD officers. No third party is required for maintenance, repair, or instruction.

Milkor LTL Multi-launcher
(1) Description:

A. Background:

The 40mm impact projectile was developed as an alternative to the 12-gauge bean bag round and other more indiscriminate less lethal options. Early 12-gauge

14 | P a g e
bean bag round designs had somewhat unpredictable flight patterns and could cause significant unwanted injury. The 40mm foam baton round was developed as a direct fire projectile designed to minimize the risk of unintended injuries.

Currently, the Berkeley Police Department utilizes the CTS 4557 foam baton projectile and the Milkor LTL multi-shot launcher.

B. Quantity:

The Berkeley Police Department currently owns and maintains 2 Milkor LTL less lethal launchers. One Milkor launcher is assigned to the Berkeley Special Response Team.

C. Capability:

The Milkor LTL is capable of firing six 40mm projectiles before reloading is necessary. The Milkor LTL 40mm projectiles are direct fire with a pliable “sponge” tip designed to mold to the body. The projectiles are about the size of a large egg.

Upon impact, the projectile transfers kinetic energy to the body to gain pain compliance. Large muscle groups such as the upper legs or lower abdomen are approved target areas unless a higher level of force is justified. This level of force is considered to be similar to that of a baton strike.

D. Lifespan:

The manufacturer expected lifespan is about 10 to 15 years depending on use and regular maintenance.

E. Use:

The Milkor LTL multi-shot launcher is designed to reduce the potential for a violent confrontation. Less lethal projectiles are less likely to result in serious bodily injury or death and can be used to de-escalate a potentially deadly situation.

F. How it works:

The Milkor LTL multi-shot launcher utilizes a spring actuated cylinder allowing it to fire 6 individual 40mm projectiles. When fired, the hammer strikes the munition primer which ignites gun powder in the primer insert. Expelled gases propel the projectile through the rifled barrel. The projectile has a rear plastic portion called the ogive which catches the barrel rifling and provides spin. The spin provides a greater degree of accuracy and eliminates any potential the projectile will tumble when exiting the barrel. The spring assisted cylinder automatically turns and loads the next projectile.

15 | P a g e
The projectiles utilized by the Berkeley Police Department are the CTS 4557 40mm sponge baton round. The CTS 4557 has a maximum effective range of 45 meters. The tip of the projectile is a pliable rubber material which molds to the body upon impact. The projectile travels at an estimated 240 feet per second which is slower than FN 303 projectile. However, the larger mass, about 60 grams, creates more kinetic energy upon impact which is similar to that of a baseball thrown by a pitcher. The additional kinetic energy becomes important when the suspect has on thick or layered clothing or demonstrates a high pain tolerance.

The benefit to the Milkor LTL is its ability to provide a quick follow up less lethal application, if necessary. The Milkor holds 6 projectiles while the Penn Arms launcher only holds one. Reloading the Penn Arms single launcher can be time consuming and requires the officer to briefly change focus from the suspect to the reload procedure. The Milkor LTL on the other hand, allows the officer to maintain focus on the suspect and assess whether a follow up application is necessary. This ability is significant when the suspect is advancing, attempting to flee, or demonstrates a high pain compliance threshold. (2) Purpose:

The purpose of kinetic energy impact projectiles, commonly referred to as “less lethal” is to preserve life, minimize the use of force and allow time for de-escalation attempts. Less lethal projectiles allow the user to maintain a safe distance from a subject who is armed and/or demonstrates the intent to be violent. The ability to maintain a safe distance – while still providing a level of control over the subject – allows officers to employ de-escalation techniques, request additional resources and develop a plan to safely resolve the situation with the least amount of risk.

Violent confrontations are inherently dangerous to all those involved. Officers are required to make split second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. An Officer’s threat perception of a person who is in close proximity as opposed to a person who is at a distance of 20 yards is naturally different. A person in close proximity intent on violence has the ability to immediately utilize personal body weapons, a bludgeoning device or cutting instrument. The immediacy requires the Officer to react instantly and there is a greater potential that a higher level of force will be needed.

On the other hand, a person at a distance of 20 yards may not be perceived as having the immediate ability to violently attack the Officer. The person must first close the distance before such weapons can be utilized. This may allow the Officer

16 | P a g e
time to decide the most appropriate course of action, such as the use of a “less lethal” projectile.

The “less lethal” projectiles utilized by the Berkeley Police Department are generally considered discriminate versus indiscriminate uses of force. The projectiles are designed to provide a high level of accuracy which minimizes the risk of unwanted impacts. The ability to apply force from a distance reduces the potential for violent confrontation and aides in reducing the level of force needed to safely resolve a conflict.

Additionally, it has been our experience that a 40mm projectile impact will generally resolve the violent confrontation with 1 or 2 applications. The larger projectile produces more kinetic energy than the FN 303, which may require several applications to gain compliance.

Since 2015, there have been 31 incidents where Officers utilized less lethal applications. These applications have potentially prevented higher-level uses of force.
(3) Fiscal Cost:

A. Initial Cost:

Less lethal prices, like other equipment, varies depending on market demand and availability. The most recent Penn Arms purchased by the department cost $3950.00 each.

B. Cost of Use:

Cost for the Milkor LTL launcher use should be based on the projectiles used in training and on duty. This will fluctuate based on department trainings, projectile availability and events that unfold in the city and surrounding region.

C. Cost of Potential Adverse Effects:

Adverse effects from improper use of less lethal are not calculable. Improper use could lead to serious bodily injury or death.

D. Annual and Ongoing Costs:

See section B above
E. Training Costs:

Every officer authorized to deploy a less lethal launcher must pass a certification course administered by a Berkeley Police Firearm Instructor. The certification

17 | P a g e
class consists of classroom, range qualification and scenario application if the venue allows. This class is largely handled in house thus the cost only includes the officer’s hourly wage, range fees, and projectile costs which all vary.

F. Maintenance and Storage Costs:

Maintenance costs vary depending on use.

G. Upgrade Costs:

There are no foreseeable upgrade costs.
(4) Impact:

The main function of a less lethal device is to preserve the sanctity of human life. The Berkeley Police Department is committed to reducing the potential for violent confrontations. Less lethal projectiles, when used properly, are less likely to result in serious bodily injury or death and can be used to de-escalate a potentially deadly situation. A less lethal application is an acknowledgment a given situation has the potential to elevate to lethal force and the Officers determined a less lethal application is not only objectively reasonable and objectively necessary, but also the minimal amount of force needed to safely resolve the incident.

The Milkor LTL launcher, with its high level of accuracy and 6 projectile capacity, can be utilized in a large violent group confrontation to specifically target those who are committing acts of violence on other members of the group, involved persons, or law enforcement personnel. It allows a more immediate action to stop a violent assault, overcome their resistance, and aid in the attempt to safely take them into custody. It also allows officers to prevent a more indiscriminate use of force, such as entering the group or crowd, to take a subject into custody. (5) Mitigation:

Per Policy 300, “In all cases where physical force is used, officers shall use a minimum amount of force that is objectively reasonable, objectively necessary, and proportional to effectively and safely resolve a conflict.” All uses of force require documentation that is completed by the supervisor in a use of force report and reviewed by the Chain of Command. Furthermore, all deployments of equipment outlined in the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance are documented according to the reporting requirements as mandated in the ordinance.

Per Policy 303, “Officers are not required or compelled to use approved projectiles in lieu of other reasonable tactics if the involved officer determines that deployment of these projectiles cannot be done safely. The safety of hostages, innocent persons

18 | P a g e
and officers takes priority over the safety of subjects engaged in criminal or suicidal behavior. Circumstances appropriate for deployment include, but are not limited to, situations in which: (a) The suspect is armed with a weapon and the tactical circumstances allow for the safe application of approved projectiles. (b) The suspect has made credible threats to harm him/herself or others. (c) The suspect is engaged in riotous behavior or is throwing rocks, bottles or other dangerous projectiles at people and/or officers. (d) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has already committed a crime of violence and is refusing to comply with lawful orders.” The Berkeley Police Department also trains a recommended range of 3 to 30 meters.

Berkeley Police Firearm Instructors recommend a minimum standoff of 3 meters to reduce the potential for unintended injury at a closer distance. The 30-meter maximum recommended range is intended to reduce the possibility of an unintended impact area if the suspect moves or the projectile trajectory begins to deteriorate.

Each officer is trained to aim for large muscle groups, such as the thigh or buttocks area, and avoid areas that may cause serious injury. The department also equips each launcher with a red dot optic. The optic greatly increases an officer’s ability to target approved impact areas.
(6) Alternative:

This is the only piece of less lethal equipment (other than the FN 303) that allows officers to address a potentially deadly threat from a distance. The TASER allows an officer to maintain distance but limits the range to about 15 to 25 feet. Furthermore, the TASER requires two prongs (barbs) to penetrate the subject’s clothing to be effective and if that is not accomplished the TASER will have no effect. Additionally, the TASER is not an approved less lethal device for the department. (7) Third Party Dependence:

The Berkeley Police Department armorers are trained and capable of handling most issues related to the repair or maintenance of the Milkor LTL launcher. In the event of a catastrophic malfunction, the Milkor LTL will need to be sent to the manufacturer for repair. To date, there have been no significant repairs needed to the Milkor LTL. Additionally, Berkeley Police Department Less Lethal Instructors are fully certified by state and private training institutes to educate and train BPD officers. No third party is required for regular maintenance, repair, or instruction.

19 | P a g e
FN 303 and FN Pava Impact Projectile
(1) Description:

A. Background:

The FN 303 was developed in 2003 by Fabrique Nationale de Herstal as a less lethal option. The FN 303 is based on a concept developed by Monterey Bay Corporation. The development team consisted of designers and researchers from two paintball related companies. The FN 303 uses compressed air to propel a .68 caliber projectile similar to that of most manufactured paintball guns.

B. Quantity:

The Berkeley Police Department currently owns and maintains 8 FN 303 less lethal launchers.

C. Capability:

The FN 303 is capable of firing 15 projectiles out to a maximum manufacturer recommended range of 50 meters. The FN 303 projectiles are direct fire and designed to fragment upon impact to prevent penetration injury. Upon impact, the projectile transfers kinetic energy to the body to gain pain compliance. Large muscle groups such as the upper legs or lower abdomen are approved target areas. This level of force is considered to be similar to that of a baton strike.

D. Lifespan:

The manufacturer expected lifespan is about 10 years depending on use and regular maintenance.

E. Use:

The FN 303 is designed to reduce the potential for a violent confrontation. Less lethal projectiles are less likely to result in serious bodily injury or death and can be used to de-escalate a potentially deadly situation.

F. How it works:

An air reservoir attaches to the FN 303 through an air hose coupler and provides pressure through compressed air. When fired, the compressed air drives a piston that pushes the .68 caliber projectile through the barrel at approximately 280 feet per second. For comparison, the FN projectile is the size of a paintball and the velocity is the same as a commercially manufactured paintball gun.

The projectiles are 8.5 grams in weight and utilize a polystyrene fin stabilized body with a non-toxic forward payload to aid in stability and accuracy. The

20 | P a g e
projectile will deliver approximately 24-foot pounds of kinetic energy at the muzzle which is about double the kinetic energy of most paintball guns. Most paintballs have a mass of 3 grams while the FN 303 projectile has a mass of 8.5 grams which increases the kinetic energy produced.

Available projectiles are impact, impact + non-permanent marking, impact + permanent marking, and impact + PAVA (0.5% PAVA/Oleoresin Capsicum).

The impact + PAVA projectile is intended to be direct fired at an individual. In addition to delivering pain through kinetic energy upon impact, the PAVA projectile will deliver a secondary chemical irritant, which is the Oleoresin Capsicum (O.C.) payload. Oleoresin Capsicum generally causes irritation/burning at the application site, irritation to the eyes, and coughing. According to the National Institute of Health, the effects of O.C. power exposure tend to resolve on their own within 30 minutes.

Pain is highly subjective and other circumstances, such as heavy clothing, may render the impact ineffective. The application of a secondary chemical irritant may assist in gaining compliance and successfully resolving a potentially violent incident with the minimal amount of force necessary.
(2) Purpose:

The purpose of kinetic energy impact projectiles, commonly referred to as “less lethal” is to preserve life, minimize the use of force and allow time for de-escalation attempts. Less lethal projectiles allow the user to maintain a safe distance from a subject who is armed and/or demonstrates the intent to be violent. The ability to maintain a safe distance – while still providing a level of control over the subject – allows officers to employ de-escalation techniques, request additional resources and develop a plan to safely resolve the situation with the least amount of risk.

Violent confrontations are inherently dangerous to all those involved. Officers are required to make split second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. An Officer’s threat perception of a person who is in close proximity as opposed to a person who is at a distance of 20 yards is naturally different. A person in close proximity intent on violence has the ability to immediately utilize personal body weapons, a bludgeoning device or cutting instrument. The immediacy requires the Officer to react instantly and there is a greater potential that a higher level of force will be needed.

21 | P a g e
On the other hand, a person at a distance of 20 yards may not be perceived as having the immediate ability to violently attack the Officer. The person must first close the distance before such weapons can be utilized. This may allow the Officer time to decide the most appropriate course of action, such as the use of a “less lethal” projectile.

The “less lethal” projectiles utilized by the Berkeley Police Department are generally considered discriminate versus indiscriminate uses of force. Discriminate projectiles are designed to provide a high level of accuracy which minimizes the risk of unwanted impacts. The ability to apply force from a distance reduces the potential for violent confrontation and aides in reducing the level of force needed to safely resolve a conflict.

Since 2015, there have been 31 incidents where Officers utilized less lethal applications. These applications have potentially prevented higher-level uses of force.
(3) Fiscal Cost:

A. Initial Cost:

Less lethal prices, like other equipment, varies depending on market demand and availability. The most recent FN 303s purchased by the department cost $800.00 each.

B. Cost of Use:

Cost for FN 303 use should be based on the projectiles used in training and on duty. This will fluctuate based on department trainings, projectile availability and events that unfold in the city and surrounding region.

C. Cost of Potential Adverse Effects:

Adverse effects from improper use of less lethal are not calculable. Improper use could lead to serious bodily injury or death. Only trained officers are authorized to use the FN 303.

D. Annual and Ongoing Costs:

See section B above
E. Training Costs:

Every officer authorized to deploy a less lethal launcher must pass a certification course administered by a Berkeley Police Firearm Instructor. The certification class consists of classroom, range qualification and scenario application if the

22 | P a g e
venue allows. This class is largely handled in house thus the cost only includes the officer’s hourly wage, range fees, and projectile costs which all vary.

F. Maintenance and Storage Costs:

Maintenance costs vary depending on use. Generally, O-rings need to be replaced every 3000 rounds and cost $30 per kit.

G. Upgrade Costs:

The overall design of the FN 303 has changed little since its initial release in the early 2000s thus anticipated upgrade costs will be minimal. (4) Impact:

The main function of a less lethal device is to preserve the sanctity of human life. The Berkeley Police Department is committed to reducing the potential for violent confrontations. Less lethal projectiles, when used properly, are less likely to result in serious bodily injury or death and can be used to de-escalate a potentially deadly situation. A less lethal application is an acknowledgment a given situation has the potential to elevate to lethal force and the Officers determined a less lethal application is not only objectively reasonable and objectively necessary, but also the minimal amount of force needed to safely resolve the incident.

The FN 303, with its high level of accuracy can be utilized in a large violent group confrontation to specifically target those who are committing acts of violence on other members of the group, involved persons, or law enforcement personnel. It allows a more immediate action to stop a violent assault, overcome their resistance, and aid in the attempt to safely take them into custody. It also allows officers to prevent a more indiscriminate use of force, such as entering the group or crowd, to take a subject into custody.
(5) Mitigation:

Per Policy 300, “In all cases where physical force is used, officers shall use a minimum amount of force that is objectively reasonable, objectively necessary, and proportional to effectively and safely resolve a conflict.” All uses of force require documentation that is completed by the supervisor in a use of force report and reviewed by the Chain of Command. Furthermore, all deployments of equipment outlined in the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance are documented according to the reporting requirements as mandated in the ordinance.

Per Policy 303, “Officers are not required or compelled to use approved projectiles in lieu of other reasonable tactics if the involved officer determines that deployment of

23 | P a g e
these projectiles cannot be done safely. The safety of hostages, innocent persons and officers takes priority over the safety of subjects engaged in criminal or suicidal behavior. Circumstances appropriate for deployment include, but are not limited to, situations in which: (a) The suspect is armed with a weapon and the tactical circumstances allow for the safe application of approved projectiles. (b) The suspect has made credible threats to harm him/herself or others. (c) The suspect is engaged in riotous behavior or is throwing rocks, bottles or other dangerous projectiles at people and/or officers. (d) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has already committed a crime of violence and is refusing to comply with lawful orders.” The Berkeley Police Department also trains a recommended range of 3 to 30 meters.

Berkeley Police Firearm Instructors recommend a minimum standoff of 3 meters to reduce the potential for unintended injury at a closer distance. The 30-meter maximum recommended range is intended to reduce the possibility of an unintended impact area if the suspect moves or the projectile trajectory begins to deteriorate.

Each officer is trained to aim for large muscle groups, such as the thigh or buttocks area, and avoid areas that may cause serious injury. The department also equips each launcher with a red dot optic. The optic greatly increases an officer’s ability to target approved impact areas.
(6) Alternative:

This is the only piece of equipment that allows officers to address a potentially deadly threat from a distance. The TASER allows an officer to maintain distance but limits the range to about 15 to 25 feet. Furthermore, the TASER requires two prongs (barbs) to penetrate the subject’s clothing to be effective and if that is not accomplished the TASER will have no effect. Additionally, the TASER is not an approved less lethal device for the Berkeley Police Department.

Unlike the Penn Arms 40mm single shot and the Milkor LTL multi-shot launcher, the FN 303 is capable of propelling 15 projectiles before a reload is required. The 15 round magazine allows for a quick follow-up application should the situation warrant with an effective range of over 160 feet; compared to the Penn Arms 40mm single shot and the Milkor LTL multi-shot launcher’s 100 feet. The FN303’s smaller and faster projectiles also generally allow for a higher level of accuracy compared to the 40mm foam baton rounds. The FN 303 rounds is also capable of carrying payloads such as paint or PAVA (Oleoresin capsicum).

24 | P a g e
(7) Third Party Dependence:

The Berkeley Police Department armorers are trained and capable of handling regular maintenance and most repairs. In the event of a catastrophic failure, the device will be sent to the manufacturer for repair. To date there have been 2 devices that required manufacturer repair, both of which were under warranty.

Additionally, department firearm instructors are fully certified by state and private training institutes to educate and train BPD officers. No third party is required for maintenance, most repairs, or instruction.

OC (oleoresin capsicum) Spray
(1) Description:

A. Background:

For the purposes of this portion of the Impact Statement, OC (Oleoresin capsicum) will be referred to in the spray form as opposed to the aerosol canister form. First Defense manufactures different sizes of OC sprays. OC is the chemical agent that is most widely used amongst Law Enforcement (LE) and the general public. OC has a pungent and irritating pepper odor. It is classified as an inflammatory agent. Besides being effective on humans, OC based chemical agents usually work on animals as well. In a liquid form, OC can appear as a clear, amber, or heavy dark red solution depending on the manufacturer. It is mixed with several types of solutions which act as carriers.

B. Quantity:

Qty 23 – First Defense MK-9 OC spray (13- ounces)
Qty 178 – First Defense MK-3 OC spray (3 ounces)
Most of the MK-3 OC sprays are issued to and maintained by individual officers; however, a small amount of these sprays is stored in a secured equipment room as spares in case of damage or new personnel issue.

C. Capability:

The First Defense MK-3 OC sprays are standard issued to all police officers and are worn on the police officers’ belt. It has an effective range of 10-12 feet. The larger First Defense MK-9 OC sprays are 13 ounces and are used in violent crowd situations. It has an effect range of 18-20 feet.

25 | P a g e
The use of the First Defense OC spray can render a dangerous and violent situation safe without using a higher level of force.

D. Lifespan:

Aerosol products eventually lose pressure over time. The lifespan of both the MK- 9 and MK-3 OC spray are dependent on how well the pressure in the can is maintained, but is recommended to be replaced after 5 years.

E. Use:

OC spray may be considered for use to bring under control an individual or groups of individuals who are engaging in or about to engage in violent behavior.

OC spray should not, however, be used against individuals or group who merely fail to disperse or do not reasonably appear to present a risk to the safety of officers or the public.

F. How it Works:

A person subjected to OC can expect heavy tearing due to a burning sensation, involuntary closing or blinking of the eyes, burning/stinging skin sensation, redness of the skin, irritation and burning of the nose, runny nose, salivation and burning sensation of the mouth, cough, gagging sensation, shortness of breath, temporary paralysis of the larynx (person unable to speak) and nausea (caused by shock, not the OC itself). A person may also feel disorientated, anxiety, and/or panic. A complete recovery usually takes place within 45-60 minutes depending on the level of exposure.
(2) Purpose:

There are a variety of situations where officers may use OC spray such as: self- defense, overcoming the resistance of a noncompliant individual, effecting an arrest, preventing escape, violent crowd or riot control, barricade or hostage situations and dealing with dangerous animals.
(3) Fiscal Cost:

A. Initial Cost:

The MK-3 OC spray cost approx. $19 per unit and the MK-9 OC spray costs approx. $60 per unit. The manufacturer is Defense Technology and the Berkeley Police Department purchase each unit from Galls Police Supply or LC Action Police Supply. Purchases for these tools are made when inventory gets low which is typically determined by how many new officers are sworn in, as well as if they are utilized in dangerous situations.

26 | P a g e
B. Cost of Use:

The cost of each usage is unpredictable due to the unknown nature of crime, timelines of dangerous situations, and number of applications.

C. Cost of Potential Adverse Effects:

Adverse effects of improper use of OC spray are not calculable. It could lead to serious injury. Additionally, the improper use could result in civil liabilities.

D. Annual and Ongoing Costs:

See below cost of training.

E. Training Cost:

Training is conducted in the police academy and in-house by a Police Officer Standard Training (POST) certified Berkeley Police chemical agent training officer.

The cost of training is staff time.

F. Maintenance and Storage Costs:

The majority of the MK-3 OC sprays are either stored within the Police Department or with each sworn police officer while they conduct official duties.

All MK-9 OC sprays are stored in the basement. There are no additional storage costs or associated costs to transporting, maintain, or upgrade.

G. Upgrade Costs:

No upgrades exist for this equipment as of this report. (4) Impact:

The physical effects of being subjected to OC may significantly reduce an individual’s aggressive behavior. Reports have shown that the use of OC can reduce the amount of officer and arrestee injuries due to its effectiveness. Chemists assigned to the FBI Forensic Science Research and Training Center report no long-term health risks associated with the use of OC. The use of the MK-3 or MK-9 OC spray can render a dangerous and violent situation safe without using a higher level of force. (5) Mitigations:

Law Enforcement Officers attend a Police Officer Standard Training (POST) approved academy before they enter into a Field Training Program and continue their training.

During this academy they are taught about OC, how to deploy it, its effects, and the decontamination process. They are also subjected to OC to physically feel the effects themselves. After the academy, each officer is issued a MK-3 OC spray which they

27 | P a g e
are to keep on their person while on duty. If deployed and when practical, medical personnel should be summoned for the affected person(s) per policy 303.

All uses of force require documentation that is completed by the supervisor in a use of force report and reviewed by the Chain of Command. Furthermore, all deployments of equipment outlined in the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance are documented according to the reporting requirements as mandated in the ordinance.
(6) Alternatives:

Alternatives to utilizing OC sprays are tools such as expandable batons, less lethal launchers, and/or physical body weapons. The rationale to use OC spray depends on the circumstances of each individual incident and the individual officer involved in the incident. As mentioned above, reports have shown that OC spray may significantly reduce an individual’s aggressive behavior which can minimize the amount of force necessary to apprehend that subject. Per our Use of Force policy (Lexipol 300), we shall use the minimal amount of force possible during each incident, thus making OC spray a valuable option.
(7) Third Party Dependence:

There is no third-party dependence for the First Defense OC spray. Once they are purchased, they are secured in their designated locations within the Police Department or with sworn police officers while they conduct official duties.

Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile and Oleoresin Capsicum
(1) Description:

A. Background:

Chlorobenzylidene malononitrile (CS):

Chlorobenzylidene malononitrile (CS) is one of the most commonly used “tear gases” in the world. It can be liquid, gaseous, or solid substance intended to produce temporary discomfort through being vaporized or otherwise dispersed in the air. Law enforcement (LE) agencies have found this agent invaluable when faced with combative suspects, for crowd/riot control, and for alleviating barricaded subject situations. LE use it to help control individuals or groups without the need for a higher level of force. There are four different deployment methods of chemical agents (Aerosol - most commonly used by police departments, Fogging, Pyrotechnics, and blast expulsion). All methods of deployment can be affected by certain environmental and physical conditions (wind, rain, temperature, distance, and proximity to others). At standard daily

28 | P a g e
temperatures and pressures, CS forms a white crystal with a low vapor pressure and poor solubility in water.

Oleoresin capsicum (OC):

For this portion of the Impact Statement, Oleoresin capsicum (OC) will be referred to in the aerosol canister form. OC is the chemical agent that is most widely used amongst Law Enforcement (LE) and the general public. OC has a pungent and irritating pepper odor. It is classified as an inflammatory agent. OC is mixed with several types of solutions which act as carriers.

B. Quantity:

Inventory for CS canisters:

Qty 6 – 5230 CS Canisters
Qty 24 – 6230 CS Canisters
Qty 20 – 5230B CS Baffled Canister (flameless)
Qty 17 – 5231 CS Tri-Phaser Canisters
Qty 21 – 4630 CS Muzzle Blast (used with 40 mm less lethal launcher) Qty 4 – 4530 CS Impact Rounds (used with 40 mm less lethal launcher) Qty 19 – 4330 CS Barricade Projectile Rounds (used with 40 mm less lethal launcher)
Inventory for OC canisters:

Qty 54 - 9440 OC Tear Ball
Qty 19 - 5440 OC Flameless
Qty 20 - 6340 OC Vaper
C. Capability:

CS aerosols with microscopic particles which are potent sensory irritants becoming attached primarily to moist mucous membranes and moist skin.

Common effects are: coughing, increased mucous secretion, difficulty breathing, skin reactions, and excessive salivation. The onset of symptoms typically occurs within 20 to 60 seconds, and if the exposed individual is placed in fresh air these effects generally cease in 10 to 30 minutes.

A person subjected to OC can expect heavy tearing due to a burning sensation, involuntary closing or blinking of the eyes, stinging skin sensation, redness of the skin, irritation of the nose, runny nose, salivation, cough, gagging sensation, and shortness of breath. A person may also experience anxiety and panic. A complete recovery usually takes place within 45-60 minutes depending on the level of exposure.

29 | P a g e
Both CS and OC canisters can render a dangerous and violent situation safe without using a higher level of force.

D. Lifespan:

CS and OC canisters expire in approximately 5 years.

E. Use:

Tear gas may be used for crowd control, crowd dispersal or against barricaded suspects based on the circumstances. Only the Chief of Police may authorize the delivery and use of tear gas, and only after evaluating all conditions known at the time and determining that such force reasonably appears justified and necessary. (2) Purpose:

There are a variety of situations where peace officers may use chemical agents such as: self-defense, overcoming the resistance of a noncompliant individual, effecting an arrest, preventing escape, violent crowd or riot control, barricade or hostage situations and dealing with dangerous animals.
(3) Fiscal Cost:

A. Initial Cost:

The cost for CS canisters ranges from $20.00 to $39.00 per unit. The cost for OC canisters ranges from $36.00 to $44.00 per unit. The Berkeley Police Department prefers the use of the Combined Tactical Systems (CTS) chemical agents and we purchase them from LC Action Police Supply.

B. Cost of Use:

The cost of each proposed use is unpredictable due to the demand, unknown nature and timelines of dangerous crowd/riots situations, dangerous barricade situations, and hostage situations.

C. Cost of Potential Adverse Effects:

Adverse effects of improper use of OC and CS are not calculable. It could lead to serious injury. Additionally, the improper use could result in civil liabilities.

D. Annual and Ongoing Costs:

See below cost of training.

E. Training Cost:

When purchased, each unit is given an expiration date which typically falls within a 2-3-year range. Every 2-3 years, new chemical agents are purchased to honor

30 | P a g e
the expiration dates. The expired agents are then used during annual trainings thus minimizing the overall cost. Training is conducted by a Police Officer Standard Training (POST) certified Berkeley Police chemical agent training officer.

The cost of training is staff time.

F. Maintenance and Storage Costs:

The majority of agents are stored inside of a marked chemical agent room within the Police Department, in the Special Response Team vehicle, or in the rescue Vehicle. There are no additional storage costs. There are no associated costs to transporting, maintenance, or upgrades.

G. Upgrade Costs:

No upgrades exist for this equipment as of this report. (4) Impact:

BPD is committed to preserving and protecting human life and welfare. These tools allow us to fulfill our commitment to our community.

Law Enforcement, under Penal Code 12403.1, is able to lawfully purchase, possess, or use chemical agents in the discharge of their duties. CS and/or OC canisters have been prominently used to resolve dangerous barricaded suspect situations and violent crowd control/riot situations.

Berkeley Police officers are trained to utilize time and distance to de-escalate dangerous barricaded situations in order to resolve each incident with minimal the use of force (per Use of Force Policy 300). In some circumstances when all other options are exhausted, CS and/or OC can be inserted into the structure in which the barricaded suspect is, denying access to certain areas inside. Unless exigent circumstances arise, all attempts to evacuate the structure are made prior to any deployment. When CS and/or OC are deployed into a structure the suspect may be forced outside allowing the situation to resolve safely with no use further use of force.

CS and/or OC chemical agents can be utilized to create order in dangerous crowd control/riot situations that have demonstrated violence or destruction. During these incidents, typically a clear and direct warning has been given to the crowd to disperse before the chemical agents are deployed. The ability to disperse crowds from a distance limits injury to Police Officers as well as damage to critical structures.

31 | P a g e
(5) Mitigations:

Regarding the already mentioned impacts, the decision to utilize chemical agents (unless there are exigent circumstances) flows through the chain of command and ultimately makes its way to the Chief of Police and the City Manager. If there are exigent circumstances, the Field Commander makes the decision and then advises the Chief of Police as soon as practical. All uses of force require documentation that is completed by the supervisor in a use of force report and reviewed by the Chain of Command. Furthermore, all deployments of equipment outlined in the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance are documented according to the reporting requirements as mandated in the ordinance.

With these procedures incorporated in BPD’s policies, this mitigates many potential negative impacts. Per Policy 428 – First Amendment Assemblies - The Field Commander shall determine the type and quantity of chemical agents to be used. After use of chemical agents, the Field Commander shall re-evaluate the scene to determine if additional chemical agents are needed. Less-than-lethal munitions (40 mm CS impact rounds), chemical agents (including OC spray), and/or smoke shall only be deployed in crowd control situations as outlined in the Use of Force Policy. For planned events, inventories shall be conducted before and at the conclusion of the incident. Outside agency inventories shall also be tracked.

In addition to the mitigations in place, the Berkeley Police Special Response Team also receives annual training on the use of chemical agents, the effects, and the decontamination process. Per policy 303, when practical, medical personnel should be summoned for the affected person(s).
(6) Alternatives:

There are no direct alternatives for CS and OC. They are the industry’s leading way to resolve barricaded suspects while reducing the likelihood of injury to the subject, community, and officers. Additionally, it is one of the only tools that allows officers to stop acts of violence or regain order during crowd control/riot situations. They are very distinct in nature and have direct purposes. The rationale to use CS or OC depends on the circumstances of each incident. The Berkeley Police Department shall use the minimal amount of force per our Use of Force Policy 300. The use of CS or OC allows the police personnel to maintain distance, giving officers more time to react and avoid a potential need for a higher level of force to safely resolve the situation.

32 | P a g e
(7) Third Party Dependence:

There is no third-party dependence for CS and OC chemical agents. Once they are purchased, they are secured in their designated areas and stay there until they are either used during incidents or training.

Remington 700 Rifle
(1) Description:

A. Background:

The Remington 700 is a series of bolt-action rifles designed in 1962 by the Remington Arms Company. The “700” designator is the generic name for multiple models of rifles with various parts, barrel lengths, stocks, etc. The Remington 700 rifle has long been used by law enforcement agencies and continues to be an industry standard for issued equipment. The Berkeley Police Department utilizes a custom Remington 700 action, chambered in the common .308-caliber round, with a 20” barrel and an Accuracy International chassis/stock. The rifle also includes a Nightforce 3-15x magnified optic and bipod.

BPD utilizes Hornady .308-caliber ammunition. This particular ammunition is specially designed for law enforcement applications due to its increased and consistent accuracy and performance.

B. Quantity:

The Berkeley Police Department Special Response Team (SRT) currently possesses six Remington 700 rifles, all configured in the same manner.

Currently, BPD has approximately 1,800 Hornady .308-caliber rounds. That quantity of ammunition fluctuates depending on supply from distributors and training schedules of those trained officers.

C. Capability:

The Remington 700 rifle, with the appropriate ammunition, training, and practice, is capable of consistent and highly accurate shooting out to a distance of approximately 500-yards.

The Remington 700 is intended to be used in emergency situations where there is a high potential for violence, where the need exists to put distance between officers and a specific individual, such as an armed hostage situation.

33 | P a g e
D. Lifespan:

The Remington 700 bolt-action rifles have an expected life span of 10-years if properly maintained.

E. Use:

Used in the defense of life or great bodily injury to potential victims of violent crimes, general public, and officers.

F. How it Works:

The Remington 700 is a manually operated rifle. It requires the officer to physically maneuver a handle to expel a spent cartridge and to load another unspent round of ammunition in order to fire a second round. When the trigger is pressed, a firing pin strikes the primer of a bullet loaded into the chamber of the rifle. The ignited primer ignites gun powder contained in the bullet which pushes the bullet down the barrel and out the muzzle. The officer must then pull a handle attached to the bolt to the rear, ejecting the spent cartridge. The officer then pushes the bolt forward, which picks up another bullet from the magazine, and closes the chamber, making the rifle ready to fire again. (2) Purpose:

This rifle is to be used in the defense of life or great bodily injury to potential victims of violent crimes, general public, and officers. This rifle provides police with the benefit of adding distance to a volatile situation which can increase the safety for community members and officers. This rifle is an ancillary firearm for situations where increased distance and accuracy is needed to safely resolve the situation. (3) Fiscal Cost:

A. Initial Cost:

The initial cost to purchase this rifle with its associated components is approximately $10,000 dollars each. Their average life span is 10-years at which time it will likely need to be replaced.

B. Cost of Use:

Cost of use for all firearms should be based on the ammunition used in training and on duty. This will fluctuate based on training.

C. Cost of Adverse Effects:

Adverse effects and improper usage of a firearm are not calculable. It could lead to the loss of life or serious injury. Additionally, the improper use could result in civil liabilities.

34 | P a g e
D. Annual and Ongoing Costs:

If this rifle is not cared for or maintained well, then a potential financial adverse impact would be the premature purchasing of a replacement rifle or replacement parts. However, authorized and trained Berkeley Police armorers service and provide regular maintenance of the rifles. The cost of maintenance is staff time.

E. Training Costs:

The cost associated with training is the staff time, range fees, and cost of spent ammunition. SRT members train once a month and, on average, each member shoots approximately 50-rounds. Currently, there are only 4 members shooting at each training day. This equates to approximately 2,400 rounds of ammunition being fired per year. This does not include special training days or attendance to training schools/classes. A single box of 20-rounds costs approximately $20- dollars or $1 dollar per round.

F. Maintenance and Storage Costs:

Maintenance costs vary depending on use over time. Firing pins need to be replaced every 5 to 7 years. The maintenance cost associated with this rifle is minimal.

There are no costs associated with maintenance or storage of ammunition. All ammunition is stored in a climate-controlled room in the Berkeley Police Department.

G. Upgrade Costs:

Upgrade costs and maintenance cost are synonymous due to the consistent design. Improvements in technology and new designs may be an additional cost but we can’t predict what those will be at this time.

Should advancements be made in ammunition manufacturing; those upgrade costs are unknown at this time.
(4) Impact:

The primary purpose of this rifle is to further SRT’s goal of adding time and distance when dealing with a violent and dangerous individual(s). The rifle may allow SRT additional time by increasing the distance between law enforcement and the specific individual, thereby increasing the likelihood of a more peaceful resolution. Like all tools, it has a time and place for its intended operational efficacy.

35 | P a g e
(5) Mitigations:

Mitigating impacts from this tool’s primary purpose is done through regular training.

The training includes accuracy, decision making, scenarios, and various other training points. All uses of force require documentation that is completed by the supervisor in a use of force report and reviewed by the Chain of Command. Furthermore, all deployments of equipment outlined in the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance are documented according to the reporting requirements as mandated in the ordinance.
(6) Alternatives:

The Remington 700 rifle is an industry standard tool used to deliver precision accuracy on an intended target. This tool can deliver accuracy and predictability through intermediate barriers like glass windows. It can be used at distances greater than any other tool currently possessed or authorized. No alternate tool or method would accomplish the same goal.
(7) Third Party Dependence:

These rifles are fairly simple in their design and operation. They do require regular maintenance which is commonly performed by each individual member. BPD Armorers are also capable of performing additional maintenance. If an issue arises which is beyond the scope of our Armorers we would seek professional assistance from the manufacturer. However, the need for this is very rare.

ReconRobotics Recon Scout XT
(1) Description:

A. Background:

The Recon Scout XT is a throwable micro-robot manufactured by ReconRobotics for use in law enforcement applications. The Recon Scout XT enables officers to obtain instantaneous video footage and audio within indoor or outdoor environments.

Designed to withstand repeated drops onto concrete, the Recon Scout XT robot can be thrown into hazardous situations (hostage rescue, barricaded subjects, natural disasters, etc.) in order to allow officers to quickly and safely make informed decisions when seconds count.

B. Quantity:

The Berkeley Police Department has two Recon Scout XT throwable robots, both purchased in 2010.

36 | P a g e
C. Capability:

The Recon Scout XT robot is designed to be able to crawl over a variety of terrain, clearing obstacles up to 2″ (5 cm) tall. It could be thrown into hazardous situations, indoor and outdoor, and provide live audio and video feed back to the controller.

D. Lifespan:

Both Recon Scout XT robots are over 10 years old and ReconRobotics have developed and manufactured more advanced robots. ReconRobotics have stopped manufacturing certain parts for the Recon Scout XT, so the lifespan is dependent on what parts need to be replaced.

E. Use:

The Recon Scout XT robot may be deployed to help police officers safely view potentially dangerous environments before entering them.

F. How it Works:

The Recon Scout XT robot has a cylindrical body with a finned-wheel at either end of its body, and is stabilized by a rubber “tail”. It measures approximately 6 ½” wide, and each wheel is about 5” in diameter (fin to fin) and weights just over one pound (1.2 lbs.).

The Recon Scout XT robot sends digital video and audio back to an Operator Control Unit (OCU; controller with a screen and joystick), which allows the officer to control the robot, which provides a live feedback containing audio and visual feeds. The Recon Scout XT robot does not record audio or video footage; there is no data storage capability.
(2) Purpose:

The Recon Scout XT robot is intended to safely provide police officers valuable information during high-risk, rapid evolving situations via real-time audio and video footage. It can be driven a distance away from the OCU, creating space between the officer and potential danger, thus decreasing the likelihood of injury to those involved in the event, or even a violent encounter between police officers and a dangerous subject. This asset furthers our commitment to the sanctity of life by offering time and distance in critical incidents. (3) Fiscal Cost:

A. Initial cost:

The initial cost for the Recon Scout XT robot was about $12,500 per unit (2010 cost).

B. Cost of Use:

There is no “per use” cost of this equipment. The Recon Scout XT is powered by a rechargeable battery.

C. Cost of Potential Adverse Impacts: