Berkeley City Council
May 31, 2022

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2023

In the 2009 Dahms case, the Court upheld an assessment that was 100% special benefit on the rationale that the services funded by the assessments were directly provided within the assessment district. It is also important to note that the improvements and services funded by the assessments in Pomona are similar to the improvements and services funded by the Assessments desc ribed in this Engineer’s Report and the Court found these improvements and services to be 100% special benefit. Also similar to the assessments in Pomona, the Assessments described in this Engineer’s Report fund Improvements and Services directly provided within the District and every benefiting property in the District enjoys proximity and access to the Improvements. Therefore, Dahms establishes a basis for minimal or zero general benefits from the Assessments.

Nonetheless, possible general benefits have b een liberally calculated below and then shown to be more than offset by resources from non-assessment sources.

Calculat ion of General Benefit
The Illumination Engineering Society of North America provides a widely-used standard for street lighting which h as become the de -facto industry standard . T his standard specifies footcandle requirements as a measurement of illumination at the roadway level, which are different for local, collector, and major streets using three levels (low/medium/high) of pedestrian activity. The three street classifications and pedestrian activity levels are described below with a discussion of their general benefit contribution from the street light system.

Local Streets – a street that is used to gain access to the property bordering it. The street lights on local streets primarily serve the adjacent property owner. Therefore, per industry standard, the street lights on local streets have no general benefit component.

Collector Streets – low to moderate capacity roads which serve to move traffic from local streets to arterial roads. Similar to local streets, collector streets are primarily used by local residents and per industry standard are also deemed to have no general benefit component. This street classification will be used as the baseline for this analysis.

Arterials – high capacity streets that serve as the principal network for through traffic flow. These routes connect areas of principal traffic generation and i mportant regional roadways traversing the City. As such, this traffic includes a significant number of drivers from outside the District and the street light Improvements may confer some general benefit on those drivers.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2023

On average, arterial streets require a 45% increase in lighting levels from the baseline collector streets.2 This increase in lighting reinforces the special benefits to the abutting properties as defined above: increased visibility and safety; improved access, navigation and traffic safety; and improved community character and vitality. In addition to th ese benefits, the through traffic flow, which includes drivers from outside the District, receives the additional benefit of reduction in nighttime accidents due to enhanced lighting. The degree to which each of these benefits can be considered general benefit is shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2 – General Benefit for Arterial Streets

The general benefit from arterial streets must be combined with the general benefit from all other streets in the District. Each category of street has its unique general benefit weight, prorated by center line miles of streets. This calculation is shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3 – Calculation of General Benefit

2 Based on values from the Illumination Engineering Society of North America, “American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting.”
Benefit Factor
Relative
Weight
General
Benefit
Contribution
Relative
General
Benefit
Improved Nighttime Visibility and Safety 25 0% 0.0%
Improved Access, Navigation and Traffic
Safety 25 50% 12.5%
Improved Community Character and Vitality 25 0% 0.0%
Reduction in Nighttime Accidents 25 75% 18.8%
General Benefit on Arterial Streets from Improved Lighting 31.3% Street Classification
General
Benefit
Weight
General
Benefit
Local 158 73.1% 0% 0.0%
Collector 37 17.1% 0% 0.0%
Arterial 21 9.7% 31.3% 3.0%
TOTAL 216 100% 3.0%
Centerline Miles

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2023

As a result, the City of Berkeley will contribute at least 3.0% of the total budget from sources other than the Assessment. This contribution offsets any general benefits from the Assessment Services.

Calculat ion of the Current General Benefit Contribution from the City This general benefit contribution is the sum of the following components:

The City of Berkeley owns, maintains, rehabilitates and replaces curb and gutter along the border of the Assessment District improvements. This curb and gutter serves to support, contain, retain, manage irrigation flow and growth, and provide a boundary for the Improvements. The contribution from the City of Berkeley toward general benefit from the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of the curb and gutter is conservatively estimated to be 1%.

The City of Berkeley owns and maintains a storm drainage system along the border of the District’s Improvements. This system serves to prevent floodin g and associated damage to the Improvements and to manage urban runoff including local pollutants loading from the Improvements. The contribution from the City of Berkeley toward ge neral benefit from the maintenance and operation of the local storm drainage system is conservatively estimated to be 1%.

The City of Berkeley owns and maintains local public streets throughout the District.

These public streets provide access to the Improvements for its enjoyment as well as efficient maintenance. The contribution from the City of Berkeley toward general benefit from the maintenance of local public streets is conservatively estimated to be 1%.

The value of the construction of the existing street light Improvements can be quantified and monetized as an annuity. Since this construction was performed and paid for by funds other than these Assessments, this “annuity” can be used to o ffset general benefit costs and is conservatively estimated to contribute 25%.

General Benefit is More than Offset by City Contribution Therefore, the total general benefit is liberally quantified at 3.0%, which is more than offset by the total non-assessment contribution toward general benefit of 28%.

Method of Assessment
As previously discussed, the proposed Assessments will provide comprehensive Improvements that will clearly confer special benefits to properties in the proposed District. The allocation of special benefits to property is partially based on the type of property and the size of property.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2023

The development of an Assessment methodology requires apportioning to determine the relative special benefit for each property. To determine the special benefit received by individual parcels, the use of that parcel must be considered. Each category of property can benefit from street light s in a unique way, and those characteristics must be quantified. As noted above, the special benefit factors are as follows:
▪ Improved visibility and safety
▪ Improved access, navigation and traffic safety
▪ Improved community character and vitality
The basis for apportioning Assessments is traffic generated to and from a particular parcel. This is used because the amount of traffic generated by a parcel is directly proportional to, and effectively models, the relative quantity of the three special benefit factors. For instance, the more people that come and go from a site, the more th e site benefits from the improved visibility and safety. The same reasoning applies to the other special benefit factors.

Residential Traffic
The typical single -family residence (“SFR”) generates approximately ten vehicular trips per day. Condominium units ge nerate approximately eight trips per day and apartment units generate approximately six trips per day per unit. The trip generation rates that are used for each land use are based on the trip generation rates published by the San Diego Association of Governments and the Encinitas Ranch Austin Foust Traffic Study. The trip generation rates are included in Appendix A of this report.

Non -Residential Traffic
Trip generation for non -residential parcels vary depending on their designated land use as well as size of parcel. The trip generation data for non -residential land uses are based on trips per acre. For instance, a commercial parcel on two acres typically will have twice the traffic of a commercial parcel on one acre. It follows that the two-acre parcel will then receive twice the benefit from the street lighting as the one-acre parcel. Various land uses were grouped into categories with similar traffic characteristics , resulting in the fee categories shown later in this report.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2023

Darkness
Non-residential parce ls typically do not operate all night long. The average period of darkness is 12 hours, but non-residential uses will only operate for approximately three hours of that time. For that reason, a non -residential darkness factor of (3 ÷ 12 =) 25% is applied t o those parcels. For two non -residential categories, the dar kness factor is different, as shown below:
▪ Offices and banks typically close earlier than other non-residential uses so they are assigned a darkness factor of 12.5%.
▪ Hotels, motels and boarding houses typically have activity further into the night than other non-residential uses, so they are assigned a darkness factor of 50%.

Non-residential trip generation i s then adjusted for the darkness factor for each rate category.

Single -Family Equivalents
The SFR category is used as the baseline for calculating the special benefit for all other land uses and sizes. Each rate category is assigned a single-family equivalent (“SFE”) rate using the following formula:

ADT x Darkness Factor
ADT for SFR
SFE Rate=

Where:
▪ ADT = Average Daily Trips for each category
▪ ADT for SFR = ADT for single-family residential, which is used as a baseline figure for SFE rate
▪ SFE Rate = SFEs per unit shown (parcel, [living] unit, or acre) The results of these calculations for each rate category are shown in Table 4 below.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2023

Table 4 – Single-Family Equivalent Rates
.

Landuse Category ADT
Darkness
Factor
Adj
ADT SFE Rate Unit
Residential
Single Family 10 1 10 1.000 parcel
Multi-Family < 5 units 8 1 8 0.800 unit
Multi-Family 5 or more units 6 1 6 0.600 unit
Condominium 8 1 8 0.800 parcel
Mobile Home 5 1 5 0.500 unit
Multiple SFR on parcel 10 1 10 1.000 unit
Non-Residential
General Commercial 600 0.25 150 15.000 acre
Industrial / Warehouse 60 0.25 15 1.500 acre
Auto Repair 400 0.25 100 10.000 acre
Hotel / Motel / Boarding 200 0.5 100 10.000 acre
Hospital 250 0.25 62.5 6.250 acre
Retirement Home 50 0.25 12.5 1.250 acre
School / Day Care 90 0.25 22.5 2.250 acre
Medical / Dental / Vet 500 0.25 125 12.500 acre
Church 30 0.25 7.5 0.750 acre
Mortuary 10 0.25 2.5 0.250 acre
Recreational 100 0.25 25 2.500 acre
Parking / Transportation 200 0.25 50 5.000 acre
Mini Storage 30 0.25 7.5 0.750 acre
Office 300 0.125 37.5 3.750 acre
Bank 1000 0.125 125 12.500 acre
Park / Open Space / Agriculture 2 0.25 0.5 0.050 acre
Vacant 0 na

Annual Assessment Increase
The Assessment is subject to an annual adjustment tied to the San Francisco-Oakland- Hayward Consumer Price Index-U as of December of each succeeding year (“CPI”), with a maximum annual adjustment not to exceed 3%. I n order for the City’s dedicated Streetlight fund revenue sources to satisfy cost requirements into the future, the maximum rate per SFE is calculated based upon the sum of the 1982 assessment and the Street Light Assessment District 2018 Assessment.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2023

Table 5 – Maximum Single-Family Equivalent Rate Calculation

FY 2022 FY 2023
2018 District Maximum for FY 22 $ 645,239.76 $ 645,239.76 1982 District Maximum for FY 22 $1,416,260.14
Total for FY 22 $2,061,499.90

Maximum Increase of 3% of Total for FY 22 $ 61,845.00 FY 23 Maximum Assessment $ 707,084.76
Total SFEs 46,097.747
FY 23 Maximum Rate per SFE $ 15.34

Duration of Assessment
The Assessments may be continued every year after their formation, so long as the public Improvements need to be maintained and improved and the City requires funding from the Assessments for these Improvements in the District. As noted previously, the Assessment can continue to be levied annually after the City Council approves an annually updated Engineer’s Report, budget for the Assessment, Improvements to be provided and other specifics of the Assessment. In addition, the City Council must hold an annual public hearing to continue the Assessment.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2023

Appeals and Interpretation
Any property owner who feels that the Assessment levied on the subject property is in error as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of assessment, may file a written appeal with the City of Berkeley Public Works department.

Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment during the then current or, if before July 1, the upcoming fiscal year. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the City of Berkeley City Engineer or his or her designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the City Engineer or his or her designee finds that the assessment should be modified, the appropriate changes shall be made to the assessment roll. If any such changes are approved after the assessment roll has been filed with the County for collection, the City Engineer or his or her designee is authorized to refund to the property owner the amount of any approved reduction. Any dispute over the decision of the City Engineer or her or his designee shall be referred to the Public Works Director and the decision of the Public Works Director shall be final.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2023

Assessment Statement
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2022, the City Council of the City of Berkeley, County of Alameda, California, adopted its Resolution No. 70,279-N.S., initiating proceedings for the levy of Assessments for fiscal year 2023 within the Street Light Assessment District 2018, pursuant to the prov isions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (collectively “the Act”); WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley directed the undersigned Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report presenting an estimate of costs, a diagram for the Assessment District and an assessment of the estimated costs of the Improvements upon all assessable parcels within the Assessment District, to which the description of the proposed Improvements therein contained, reference is hereby made for further particulars; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under the Act and the order of the City Council of the City of Berkeley, hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of the Improvements, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the Assessment District.

The amount to be paid for the Improvements and the expense incidental thereto to be paid by the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 for the fiscal year 2023 are generally as listed in Table 1.

As required by the Act, an Assessment Diagram is hereto attached and made a part hereof showing the exterior boundaries of the City of Berkeley Street light Assessment District 2018. The distinct ive number of each parcel or lot of land in the City of Berkeley Street light Assessment District 2018 is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.

And I do hereby assess and apportion the net amount of the cost and expenses of the Improvements, including the costs and expenses incident thereto, upon the parcels and lots of land within the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 2018, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by each parcel or lot, from the Improvements, and more particularly set forth in the c ost estimate and method of assessment hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

The Assessments are made upon the parcels or lots of land within the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 in proportion to the special benefits to be received by the parcels or lots of land from the Improvements.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2023

Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor' s Maps of the County of Alameda for the fiscal year 2018. For a more particular description of said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of the County.

I hereby place opposite t he Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for the fiscal year 2019 for each parcel or lot of land within the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 2018.

Dated: April 21, 2022

Engineer of Work

By ______________________________
Jerry Bradshaw, License No. C48845

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2023

Assessment Diagram
The boundaries of the City of Berkeley Street light Maintenance Assessment Districts and Annexations are displayed on the Assessment Diagram below.

Figure 1 – Assessment Diagram

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2023

Appendix A – SANDAG Trip Generation Tables

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2023

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2023

Appendix B – Assessment Roll
An Assessment Roll (a listing of all parcels assessed within the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 and the amount of the assessment) has been filed with the City Engineer, and is, by reference, made part of this report and will be available for public inspection during normal office hours.

Each lot or parcel listed on the Assessment Roll is shown and illustrated on the latest County Assessor records and these records are, by reference made part of this report.

These records shall govern all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels.

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 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Contract: Nema Construction for FY 2022 Street Light Maintenance Project

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving plans and specifications for the Street Rehabilitation FY 2022 Project, Specification No. 22-11506-C; accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Nema Construction; and authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions or other change orders until completion of the project, in accordance with the approved plans and specifications in an amount not to exceed $428,950.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding
is available from the Street Light Assessment Fund. No other funding is required, and no other projects will be delayed due to this expenditure.

Low bid by Nema Construction ..……………………………………..…….. $373,000 15% Contingency $55,950
Total construction cost $428,950
FY 2022 Street Light Maintenance Project Funds
Fund 142 (142-54-623-672-0000-000-426-664110-).................................$428,950

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The FY 2022 Street Light Maintenance Project (Specification No. 22-11506-C) was released for bids on March 28, 2022, and bids were opened on April 19, 2022 (see Attachment 3, Abstract of Bids). Six non-local bids were received, from a low of $373,000 to a high of $460,400. The engineer’s estimate for the project was $475,000.

Nema Construction of Albany, California was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, with a bid of $373,000, and their references were found to be satisfactory. This project includes a 15% contingency, resulting in a total contract not to exceed amount of $428,950. Staff recommends a contract for this project be awarded to Nema Construction.

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

21

Contract: CONTRACTOR, Inc. for CONSENT CALENDAR
FY 2022 Street Light Maintenance Project May 31, 2022

BACKGROUND
In 2017, the Department of Public Works hired a consulting firm to evaluate the condition of the 3,105 metal street light poles within Berkeley. The firm developed a custom survey for field staff to complete for each metal pole. The data from the surveys was used to determine which poles were experiencing chronic rust or corrosion and how these issues should be addressed.

The data was further reviewed and an estimated remaining useful pole life was determined for each street light pole. The remaining pole life was estimated based on pole type and level of damage (if any) observed in the field. The data was also mapped to allow the City to visualize where various issues are occurring.

This data was used to select the street light poles that were most in need of replacement.

A subset of those street light poles were selected to be replaced as part of this project The plans and specifications are on file in the Public Works Department. In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project has been determined to be categorically exempt because it consists of maintenance of existing street light poles and does not expand their use beyond existing conditions.

According to City policy, the Living Wage Ordinance does not apply to this project since Public Works construction contracts are subject to state prevailing wage laws. The contractor has submitted a Certification of Compliance with the Equal Benefits Ordinance.

The Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) does not apply because the engineer’s estimate of $475,000 was below the $500,000 contract amount threshold for CWA eligibility.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Improved street lighting is consistent with the City’s efforts to improve efficiency and safety of movement of people and vehicles throughout the City’s roadway network.

Street lighting can also advance opportunities for people to safely walk, bike, and take public transit, therefore working to reduce greenhouse gases and pollutants that impact air quality.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This street light maintenance project is part of the City’s ongoing efforts to maintain and rehabilitate public work infrastructure throughout the City. The work requires contracted services, as the City does not possess the in-house labor or equipment resources necessary to complete the project.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions were considered for this street light maintenance project. The City could choose not to proceed with this project. However, the street light infrastructure would then continue to deteriorate, reducing night visibility, increasing the chances of vehicular and pedestrian collisions, reducing public safety.

Contract: CONTRACTOR, Inc. for CONSENT CALENDAR
FY 2022 Street Light Maintenance Project May 31, 2022

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

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

CONTRACT: NEMA CONSTRUCTION FOR FY 2022 STREET LIGHT

MAINTAINENCE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the FY 2022 Street Light Maintenance Project is part of the City’s ongoing efforts to maintain and rehabilitate public works infrastructure throughout the City; and WHEREAS, the City has neither the labor nor the equipment necessary to undertake this FY 2022 Street Light Maintenance Project; and
WHEREAS, an invitation for bids was duly advertised on March 28, 2022, bids were opened on April 19, 2022; and
WHEREAS, Nema Construction was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, funding is available in the current year budget in the FY 2022 Street Light Maintenance Project Fund142 (142-54-623-672-0000-000-426-664110-).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Plans and Specification No. 22-11506-C for the FY 2022 Street Light Maintenance Project are approved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the construction contract is awarded to Nema Construction as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions or change orders, until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications with Nema Construction for the FY 2022 Street Light Maintenance Project, in an amount not to exceed $428,950, which includes a 15% contingency for unforeseen circumstances. A record signature copy of said agreement and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

4TH
SA
N PABL
O
GILMAN
DWIGHT
ASHBY

UNIVERSITY
MA
RIN
SPRUC
EROSE
COLLEG
E
SAC
RAMEN
TO
TELE
GRA
PH
SOLANO
MA
RTIN
LU
THER
KING J

ALCATRAZ
SHA
TTU
CK

BANCROFT
ADELI
NE

THE ALAME
DA
CLARE
MONT
Legend
Street Light Pole Replacement Location
0 0.5 10.25
Miles

PART - E

/0 /1 /2 /3 /i255 /5 /6 /i255 /7 /8 /9 /10 /8 /11 /8 /3 /12 /13 /14 /2 /9 /15 /16 /2 /i255 /5 /6 /i255 /7 /1 /17 /i255/18/5/9 /10 /14 /19 /8 /8 /2 /20 /21 /22 /23 /22 /24 /25 /i255 /27 /25 /28 /23 /29 /30/31/25/22/30 /32 /25 /22 /25 /29 /23 /33 /i255 /34 /25 /29 /35 /21 /24 /25 /36 /i255 /27 /21/35 /21 /36 /21 /37 /22 /38 /39 /8 /16 /40 /i255/41/42 /42 /43 /44 /44 /45 /46 /47 /43/0/7 /1 /17 /i255 /48 /15 /2 /8 /49 /50/51/52/49/50 /53 /i255 /42 /46 /42 /42 /i255 /38/2 /9 /8 /8 /2 /i255 /54 /1 /55 /19 /2 /i255/56/15/1 /57 /2 /8 /57 /15 /57 /16 /8 /i255 /58 /9 /5 /59 /8 /16 /2 /7 /1 /17 /17 /8 /9/14/7 /15 /14 /8 /i255 /7 /1/17/12 /11 /2 /40 /i255 /41 /44 /12 /11 /2 /40 /i255 /41 /42 /12 /11 /2 /40 /i255 /41 /60/7 /1 /17 /i255 /7 /5 /57 /17/12 /17 /17 /8 /57 /17/15/61/62/63/64/64/65/66/67/68/68 /61 /69/65 /44
/67 /66 /61 /i255 /71 /72 /73 /74 /75 /76 /72 /77 /72 /72/78 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255/79/79 /79 /79/79 /79 /42
/80 /62 /i255 /66 /63 /66 /62/81 /82 /83 /62 /i255/84/82/68/85/86/75 /87 /88 /74 /89 /87 /72 /77 /72 /72/78 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255/79/79 /79 /79/79 /79 /60
/69 /66/90/91/i255 /62/68/69/61 /81 /82 /85 /62 /81 /83/68/69 /75 /92 /75 /74 /72 /72 /72 /77 /72 /72/78 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255/79/79 /79/79 /79 /93
/82 /91 /94 /61 /i255 /66 /63/66 /62 /81 /82 /83/62/71 /73 /72 /74 /71 /72 /72 /77 /72 /72/78 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255/79/79 /79/79 /79 /45
/61 /81 /i255 /65 /82 /91 /69/62 /83 /61 /i255 /66 /63 /66 /62 /81 /82 /83/62/71 /88 /71 /74 /72 /71 /72 /77 /72 /72/78 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255/79/79 /79/79 /79 /47
/81 /66 /69 /69 /94 /61/68/69/i255 /66 /63 /66 /62 /81 /82 /83/62/71 /89 /73 /74 /92 /73 /76 /77 /72 /72/78 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255/79/79 /79/79 /79 /95
/96
/97
/44 /46
/67 /98 /99 /i255 /82 /100 /101 /102 /103/99 /100 /103 /104 /i255 /i255 /105 /105 /105 /105 /82/68/68/86/82 /66 /66 /81 /i255 /61/68/68/82/90/91/105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /67 /98 /99 /i255/68/106/100 /107 /100/103 /104 /i255 /i255 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /108/68/61/109 /i255 /82/68/67/66 /69 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /86 /103 /102 /110 /100 /101 /111 /i255/90/112/107 /112 /113 /100 /103 /104 /i255 /i255 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /93 /114 /44 /97 /114 /42 /46 /42 /42
/103 /100 /115 /116 /98 /103 /100 /99 /i255 /117 /118 /i255 /119 /98 /99 /i255
/120 /121 /122 /123 /i255/125/126/127 /128 /126 /129 /i255 /130 /131 /132 /133 /133 /131 /134 /i255 /135 /133 /132 /136 /133 /127 /133 /137 /134 /i255 /138 /139 /i255 /i255 /140 /141 /142 /123 /141 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /143 /133 /127 /144 /i255 /145 /121 /123 /146 /140 /122 /121 /146 /142 /147 /120 /123 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /143 /148 /148 /144 /i255 /145 /121 /123 /146 /140 /122 /121 /146 /149 /140 /123 /147 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /150 /129 /151 /144 /i255 /145 /121 /123 /146 /140 /122 /121 /146 /142 /147 /140 /123 /152 /153/154/129/126 /127 /144 /i255 /155 /126 /156 /129 /156 /157 /133/158/157/126 /146 /159 /133 /132 /136 /133 /127 /133 /137 /146 /157 /129 /146 /160 /161 /i255 Reeve Battle

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 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Public Works
Subject: Contract: Zanker Recycling for Construction and Demolition Materials Hauling, Sorting and Marketing Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Zanker Recycling LLC to provide construction and demolition materials hauling, sorting and marketing services for an initial five-year term commencing on July 1, 2022. The contract includes an option to extend for one five (5) year period for a maximum ten (10) year contract term and a total amount not to exceed amount of $21,551,718.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funds for this contract are available in the Zero Waste Fund (budget code 601-54-627- 734-3023-000-472-612990).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The reuse and/or recycling of construction and demolition materials delivered to the City’s Transfer Station is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.

The City currently sends all construction and demolition (C&D) materials delivered to its Transfer Station to an offsite contracted vendor. These services are currently provided by Zanker Road Resource Management, Ltd. Inc. (Contract No. UGJG6), an affiliated company with Zanker Recycling LLC (Zanker). At Zanker’s facility, the C&D materials are sorted into commodities for reuse, recycled in other products, and/or permitted alternatives to landfilling. Given that all available contract extensions have been optioned by the City, the current contract will end on June 30, 2022.

To ensure that the Transfer Station’s commercial and self-haul customers are provided this recycling service uninterrupted beyond June 30, 2022 and at a fair price, the City issued a Request For Proposals (RFP), Specification No. 22-11499-C, on February 23, 2022, for qualified firms or individuals to provide these offsite services. A City staffed

22

Contract for Construction & Demolition Materials CONSENT CALENDAR Hauling, Sorting and Recycling Services May 31, 2022

selection panel independently analyzed two (2) RFP proposals. The selection panel has determined Zanker Recycling LLC’s proposal received a superior ranking based on the evaluation and scoring criteria detailed in the RFP. Therefore, the panel and staff recommend that Council approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and amendments with Zanker Recycling LLC for these construction and demolition materials’ hauling, sorting and marketing services.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley’s Transfer Station, at 1201 2 nd Street, is open to the public Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 52 weeks per year, except for four (4) holidays. The Transfer Station annually receives approximately 140,000 tons of refuse, compostable organics, construction and demolition, and miscellaneous materials. Of these incoming tons, approximately 15,000+ tons are construction and demolition (C&D) materials delivered to the Transfer Station by third-party commercial hauling and self-haul customers.

The Transfer Station cannot provide an adequate staging area or space for the equipment required to sort and market these C&D materials. Therefore, these construction and demolition materials must be transported to a contracted offsite facility with the capability, capacity and equipment that can sort and/or segregate these materials for reuse or processed into recyclable or other permitted uses. These construction and demolition materials include, but not limited to, the following: drywall, painted and unpainted wood, engineered wood, roofing materials, metals, cardboard, dirt, brick, rock and various aggregates, concrete, rigid plastics, etc.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The selected contractor shall attempt to recover from these delivered C&D materials their best and highest use in the following order: reuse; recycling into similar products; recycling into other products, such as compost, mulch, energy production and other permitted and beneficial uses.

The diversion level will be a minimum of 75% of the tons received at the Zanker Recycling LCC facility or will meet any County of Alameda or State of California diversion requirements (whichever requirement is higher) or any change in law during the contract term. These contracted services will support the City’s efforts to strive towards its 2009 Climate and Zero Waste goals.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City does not own, operate a facility, or have sufficient staging area or equipment to sort and/or segregate these construction and demolition materials for reuse, recycling, and/or uses as permitted alternatives to landfilling. These hauling, sorting and marketing services require the City to contract with an offsite vendor and, per its submitted proposal, Zanker Recycling LLC can effectively provide these services.

Contract for Construction & Demolition Materials CONSENT CALENDAR Hauling, Sorting and Recycling Services May 31, 2022

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None. The City cannot provide an adequate staging area or possess the equipment needed at the Transfer Station to sort these construction and demolition materials into commodities to be marketed for reuse, recycled, and/or permitted alternatives to landfilling.

CONTACT PERSON
Greg Apa, Solid Waste & Recycling Manager, Zero Waste, (510) 981-6359 Heidi Obermeit, Recycling Program Manager, Zero Waste, (510) 981-6357 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT: ZANKER RECYCLING LLC FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION MATERIAL HAULING, SORTING and MARKETING SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley’s Transfer Station annually receives approximately 15,000 plus tons of construction and demolition materials from third-party hauling companies and self-haul customers; and
WHEREAS, construction and demolition materials received by the Transfer Station must be sent to offsite contracted facilities for further sorting, processing and/or segregation to ensure their reuse, recycling and other permitted and beneficial uses; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2022, the City issued a Request for Proposals from qualified firms or individuals to haul, receive, sort and market all delivered construction and demolition materials for reuse, recycling or other permitted and beneficial uses (Specification No. 22-11499-C); and
WHEREAS, the City received two proposals on March 22, 2022, and after conducting an independent review and analysis by a City staffed selection panel, Zanker Recycling LLC was determined to be the superior proposal based on the Request For Proposal’s selection criteria; and
WHEREAS, the reuse, recycling and other permitted and beneficial uses of these construction and demolition materials supports the City’s efforts to strive towards its 2009 Climate and Zero Waste goals; and
WHEREAS, funds for this contract are availabl e in the Zero Waste Fund (bud get code 601-54-627-734-3023-000-472-612990).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Zanker Recycling LLC for construction and demolition materials hauling, sorting and marketing services for an initial five (5) year contract term starting on July 1, 2022 with an option to extend for one five (5) year period for a maximum ten (10) year contract term and total amount not to exceed $21,551,718.

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 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Public Works
Subject: Contract No. 102498-1 Amendment: TK Elevator for Elevator Maintenance and Repair Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an Amendment to Contract No. 102498-1 with TK Elevator (formerly Thyssenkrupp Elevator) to increase the contract amount by $500,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,640,000 and to extend the contract term through June 30, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Total funding of $500,000 is required over the extended three-year contract term. $163,000 is needed for the remaining FY 2022 and budgeted as follows: $20,000 is required from the Building Purchase and Management Fund (budget code: 636-54-624- 692-0000-000-474-624110); $100,000 is required from the Building Maintenance Fund (budget code: 673-54-624-692-0000-000-474-624110); $20,000 is required from the Library Fund (budget code: 101-22-242-272-0000-000-463-624110); $20,000 is required from the General Fund (budget code: 011-21-203-000-0000-000-424-624110); $3,000 is required from the Parks Tax Fund (budget code: 138-52-542-568-0000-000- 461-612990). An additional $337,000 will be added to the budgets in each fiscal year for FY 2023-FY 2025, subject to the City’s annual appropriation process.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City operates 38 elevators located within 22 locations throughout the city. In addition, the elevators were built by several different manufacturers. TK Elevator technicians have the necessary experience and expertise to provide the comprehensive range of maintenance and emergency repair services for the diversity of elevators within City locations. This is a citywide contract shared by the Library, Animal Shelter, Health Housing and Community Services, and Parks Recreation and Waterfront.

The original contract not to exceed (NTE) amount of $1,140,000 has been expended.

Amending the contract to increase the NTE by $500,000 and extending the contract term for an additional three years through June 30, 2025, will allow for continued and uninterrupted use of TK Elevators’ critical elevator maintenance and repair services.

23

TK Elevator for Elevator Maintenance CONSENT CALENDAR
and Repair Services for the City May 31, 2022

Council approval of this contract amendment advances the City’s Strategic Plan goal of providing well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

BACKGROUND
The City is required to comply with California Code of Regulations Title 8, Chapter 4.

AMSE A17.1 and local code testing requirements related to safe elevator maintenance and operations. Since 2003 the City has contracted with an elevator maintenance and repair vendor. In April 2014, the City issued a Request for Proposal (Specification No. 14-10847-C) and conducted a mandatory walkthrough of each of the elevator sites within City buildings. TK Elevator was selected as the most responsive and best qualified vendor. By authority of the City Council (Resolution No. 66,648-N.S.), the Public Works’ Facilities Building Maintenance Division contracted with TK Elevators in June 2014 for an initial contract term of five years. The contract term was extended by City Manager authority in June 2019 and again in June 2021, ending June 30, 2022.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
This contract has no environmental effects or opportunities.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
TK Elevator is a valued contractor who has provided timely, quality service for the City since 2014. TK Elevator technicians have training and experience which qualifies them to service both older and new state of the art elevators. They are knowledgeable about and familiar with the mechanics and operating systems of each of the City’s different types of elevators. Their services have been essential in maintaining the City’s aging fleet of elevators at optimal performance levels.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None. TK Elevator has provided consistently responsive, reliable service. Extending the term through June 30, 2025 and increasing the not to exceed amount allows for uninterrupted services to maintain the City’s elevators.

CONTACT PERSON
Aaron Baker, Facilities Superintendent, Public Works (510) 981-6452 Attachment:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT NO. 102498-1 AMENDMENT: TK ELEVATOR FOR ELEVATOR

MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley operates 32 elevators located in 16 locations, and is required to comply with California Code of Regulation Title 8, Chapter 4 related to safe elevator operations; and
WHEREAS, the City and TK Elevator entered into Contract No. 102498-1 for elevator maintenance and repair services effective June 11, 2014 and extended through June 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the originally contracted not to exceed amount of $1,140,000 has been expended; and
WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $163,000 is needed for the remaining FY 2022 and budgeted as follows: $20,000 from the Building Purchase and Management Fund (budget code: 636-54-624-692-0000-000-474-624110); $100,000 from the Building Maintenance Fund (budget code: 673-54-624-692-0000-000-474-624110); $20,000 from the Library Fund (budget code: 101-22-242-272-0000-000-463-624110); $2,000 from the General Fund (budget code: 011-21-203-000-0000-000-424-624110); $3,000 from the Parks Tax Fund (budget code: 138-52-542-568-0000-000-461-612990). An additional $337,000 will be added to the budgets in each fiscal year for FY 2023-FY 2025, subject to the City’s annual appropriation process; and
WHEREAS, TK Elevator is a valued contractor who has provided consistently reliable regular maintenance services and expert, specialized repair services for the diverse range of City elevators, since 2014.

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. 102498-1 with TK Elevator (formerly Thyssenkrupp Elevator), to provide maintenance and repair services for the City’s elevators, increasing the contract amount by $500,000 for a total contract not to exceed amount of $1,640,000 and extending the contract term to June 30, 2025. A record signature copy of contract and any amendments will 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 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Public Works
Subject: Contract No. 108037-1 Amendment: MSR Mechanical, LLC for on-call heating, ventilation and air conditioning services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an Amendment to Contract No. 108037-1, with MSR Mechanical LLC: to increase the contract amount by $50,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $130,000; and to extend the contract term through June 30, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding is available in the FY2022 budget in the Building Purchase and Management Fund (636-54-624-692-0000-000-474-624110) and the Building Maintenance Fund (673-54-624-692-0000-000-474-624110).

Spending for this contract in future fiscal years will be subject to Council approval of the proposed citywide budget and annual appropriation ordinances.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
MSR Mechanical LLC (MSR) provides a comprehensive range of on-call and emergency heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) services to support the Public Works Facilities Building Maintenance Division. Services include inspection, trouble shooting and research into repairs or replacements. Timely inspection and maintenance of ventilation systems in City buildings is critical to ensuring optimum system performance. The previously amended contract not to exceed (NTE) amount of $80,000 has been expended. Amending the Contract to increase the NTE amount by $50,000 and extending the term for an additional two years, through June 30, 2024, will allow continued, uninterrupted use of MSR Mechanical's services for critical HVAC system maintenance and repairs.

This contract amendment supports the City’s Strategic Plan Goal of providing state-of- the- art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities as well as an essential component.

24

CONTRACT NO. 108037-1 AMENDMENT: MSR MECHANICAL, LLC CONSENT CALENDAR FOR ON-CALL HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING SERVICES May 31, 2022

BACKGROUND
The City's Public Works Facilities Building Maintenance Division contracted with Marken Mechanical Services in November 2015 for an initial contract term of two years and eight months. The Contract term was extended by City Manager authority in June 2018 for an additional twelve months, and again in June 2019 for twelve more months. On September 22, 2020 the City Council authorized an amendment (Resolution 69,574 N.S.) to increase the contract amount by $30,000 and extend the contract for twenty- two months ending June 30, 2022.

In 2018, Marken Mechanical Services was purchased by and became a wholly owned subsidiary of MSR Mechanical LLC. MSR Mechanical has provided reliable, timely, and consistently satisfactory HVAC service for the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
A well-maintained HVAC system helps to reduce indoor levels of airborne pollutants and runs at closer to peak efficiency which consumes less energy.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
MSR Mechanical is a valued contractor who has provided timely, quality service for the City since 2015. The contractor is knowledgeable about and familiar with the City's equipment. Their services have been essential to maintaining the City's HVAC systems at optimal performance levels.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None. Contractor has provided consistently responsive, reliable service over the life of the Contract. Extending the term through June 30, 2024 and increasing the NTE amount allows for uninterrupted HVAC service to maintain the ventilation systems in City buildings.

CONTACT PERSON
Aaron Baker, Facilities Superintendent, Public Works (510) 981-6452 Attachment:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT NO. 108037-1 AMENDMENT: MSR MECHANICAL LLC., FOR ON-CALL

HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley owns and operates buildings with heating, cooling and ventilation systems which regulate the temperature and quality of indoor air; and; WHEREAS, Public Works Facilities and Building Maintenance staff rely upon supplemental contractor provided HVAC services to help maintain properly performing HVAC systems for optimal indoor air quality and reduced energy usage; and; WHEREAS, the City and Marken Mechanical Services entered into Contact No. 108037-1 for on-call and emergency HVAC services, effective November 9, 2015 and extended through June 30, 2022; and;
WHEREAS, Marken Mechanical Services was purchased by and is now a wholly owned subsidiary of MSR Mechanical LLC; and;
WHEREAS, Funding is available in the FY 2022 budget in the Building Purchase and Management Fund 636 and the Building Maintenance Fund (673 and subsequent funding for FY2023 is subject to appropriation; and;
WHEREAS, MSR Mechanical LLC is a valued contractor who has provided consistently reliable, timely, and satisfactory service for the City since 2015.

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. 108037-1 with MSR Mechanical LLC, to provide on call and emergency HVAC services for the City's HVAC systems, increasing the Contract amount by $50,000 for a total contract not to exceed amount of $130,000 and extending the contract term 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 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Public Works
Subject: Contract No. 31900031 Amendment: Downtown Streets Team for Expanded Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to amend Contract No. 31900031 with Downtown Streets Team (DST) to:

1. Increase the contract by $400,000 for a new not to exceed amount of $1,675,304 and extend the contract term through December 31, 2023; and

2. Expand DST services to include the cleanup of litter and illegally dumped materials at encampment sites and adjacent neighborhoods throughout the City of Berkeley as needed; and

3. Sole-source negotiate new pricing, contract terms, and scope of services in support of the Clean Cities Program for the continuation of leaf and litter removal, graffiti abatement, and poster removal services for various commercial districts in Fiscal Year 2024.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding in the amount of $100,000 is available in the FY22 General Fund 011 (budget code: 011-54-625-714-0000-000-431-612990-PWSUCC2201) and $300,000 is available in Zero Waste Fund 601 (budget code: 601-54-625-714-0000-000-472- 612990).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This contract amendment will continue funding baseline services, in support of the Clean City Program, which promotes beautification of the City’s commercial districts by performing hand sweeping, graffiti abatement, and poster removal services.

Additionally, this contract amendment provides for continued DST services that were initiated to fund bi-weekly (once every two weeks) cleaning of populated encampment sites and adjacent neighborhoods. These services include the cleanup of litter and illegally dumped materials in areas throughout Berkeley, currently enhancing services in South and West Berkeley neighborhoods.

25

Contract No. 31900031 Amendment: Downtown Streets Team CONSENT CALENDAR May 31, 2022

Furthermore, if adopted, this resolution will allow for City staff to enter into sole source negotiations with DST for new pricing, contract terms, and scope of services in support of the Clean Cities Program for the continuation of leaf and litter removal, graffiti abatement, and poster removal services for various commercial districts in Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025
Amending the contract supports the Strategic Plan Priority of advancing our goal to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

BACKGROUND
DST works extensively with the low income, un-housed community to promote self- sufficiency through job training and leadership opportunities to rebuild effective work habits, as well as providing assistance to the un-housed in securing permanent housing.

DST works cooperatively with local community agencies to ensure local, low-income and homeless residents have access to, and receive training for, jobs created by this contract.

Since August 2018, DST has supported the City’s Clean City Program by hand sweeping to remove excess leaves, litter, and trash from sidewalks and gutters throughout the City, and helping keep the City’s commercial districts clean.

On April 27, 2021, City Council approved the adoption of Resolution No. 69,820 N.S., authorizing the City Manager to amend the DST contract to address enhanced needs for services. The enhanced services provide for the cleanup of litter and illegally dumped materials around encampments and adjacent neighborhoods throughout Berkeley consistent with the Equitable Clean Streets Budget Referral adopted by City Council on October 27th 2020. This was followed by the adoption of another resolution (Resolution No. 70,109 N.S.) to expand the enhanced services to three new zones serving residential areas near Adeline Avenue, South Shattuck Avenue, and West Berkeley.

Since the adoption of both resolutions, DST has applied the enhanced services to both South and West Berkeley neighborhoods. These areas currently include Adeline Street, from Alcatraz Avenue to Ashby Avenue, plus side streets; and University Avenue, from San Pablo Avenue to Sixth Street, plus side streets. Additionally, the enhanced services may extend to the Gilman District area as well, specifically on Gilman Avenue, between San Pablo and Sixth Street, including side streets. However, DST is currently experiencing significant staffing shortages so the Gilman District services will not be able to commence until Fall of 2022.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Clean City Program is an integral part of the City’s Zero Waste Goal. Additionally, the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) requires the City to reduce the

Contract No. 31900031 Amendment: Downtown Streets Team CONSENT CALENDAR May 31, 2022

amount of trash flowing into local waterways and the Bay via the City’s storm drainage system. Hand sweeping removes excess leaves, litter, and debris from sidewalks and gutters which prevents these items from getting into the City’s storm drainage system.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Additional funding will allow for the Downtown Streets Team to continue current services plus expand the City’s program to address enhanced needs throughout the City where services are needed.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Andrew Brozyna, Deputy Director of Public Works, 510-981-6396 Joy Brown, Operations Manager, Public Works, (510) 981-6629 John Hurtado, Public Works Streets & Utilities Superintendent, Public Works, 510-981- 6484
Attachment:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT NO. 31900031 AMENDMENT: DOWNTOWN STREETS TEAM FOR

EXPANDED SERVICES
WHEREAS, in August, 2018 City Council authorized Resolution No. 68,497 N.S. authorizing Contract No. 31900031 with Downtown Streets Team for leaf and litter removal and related services with a not to exceed amount of $645,304 for a two year contract term; and
WHEREAS, in September, 2020 City Council Resolution No. 69,545 N.S. authorized Contract No. 31900031 Amendment with Downtown Streets Team to add additional scope of work, increase the not to exceed amount by $225,000 to $870,304 and to extend the Contract term through June 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, in April, 2021 City Council Resolution No. 69,820 N.S. authorized Contract Amendment No. 31900031 with Downtown Streets Team to add additional scope of work to hire two Streets Team Enterprises C.A.R.E. Fellows to address enhanced needs for services in neighborhoods and around encampment hot spots and increase the contract by $50,000 for a new not to exceed amount of $920,304; and WHEREAS, in November, 2021 City Council Resolution No. 70,109 N.S. authorized Contract Amendment No. 3190031 with Downtown Streets Team to add additional scope to expand services to three new zones serving residential areas near Adeline, South Shattuck and West Berkeley, and increase the contract by $335,000 for a new not to exceed amount of $1,275,304; and
WHEREAS, Downtown Streets Team is an organization committed to helping low-income and un-housed members in the local community achieve health and self-sufficiency; and WHEREAS, funding is available in the General Fund (budget code: 011-54-625-714- 0000-000-431-612990-PWSUCC2201) in the amount of $100,000 and Zero Waste Fund 601 (budget code: 601-54-625-714-0000-000-472-612990) in the amount of $300,000.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or her designee is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 31900031 with Downtown Streets Team to 1) increase the contract by $400,000 for a new not to exceed amount of $1,675,304 and extend the contract term through December 31, 2023; 2) expand services to include the cleanup of litter and illegally dumped materials at encampment sites and adjacent neighborhoods throughout the City of Berkeley as needed; and 3) negotiate new pricing, contract terms, and scope of services in support of the Clean Cities Program for the continuation of leaf and litter removal, graffiti abatement, and poster removal services for various commercial districts in Fiscal Year 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 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Contract No. 32000246 Amendment: CF Contracting, Inc. for Sacramento Complete Streets Improvements Project

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000246 with CF Contracting, Inc. for work on the Sacramento Complete Streets Improvement Project (“Project”), Specification No.20-11379-C, increasing the contract amount by $250,000 for an amended total not to exceed $2,725,200.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for this CF Contracting, Inc. contract amendment will be included in the FY2023 Transportation Budget in the Measure BB Local Streets and Roads (LSR) Fund 134 pending the approval of the first Amendment to the Annual Appropriations.

Original Contract:

Measure B LSR Fund (130-54-622-668-0000-000-431-665110) $550,629 Measure BB B&P Fund (135-54-622-668-0000-000-431-665110) $675,893 Caltrans Grand Fund (344-54-622-668-0000-000-431-665110) $1,248,678 Original Authorized Contract Amount (NTE) $2,475,200
This Amendment:

Measure BB LSR Fund (134-54-622-668-0000-000-431-665110) $250,000 Amended Contract Amount (New NTE) $2,725,200

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
CF Contracting, Inc. has substantially completed the construction of the Project. There are several outstanding extra work claims that the City and CF Contracting, Inc., will need to come to agreement on prior to project closeout. City staff estimates that an additional $250,000 in funds may be needed.

BACKGROUND
On April 14, 2020, Council authorized the City Manager to execute a $2,475,200 contract with CF Contracting, Inc., the lowest of five bidders in a competitive public bid process, to construct the Project. The contract included a 10 percent contingency, which was

26

Contract No. 32000246 Amendment: CF Contracting, Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR for Sacramento Complete Streets Improvements Project May 31, 2022

intended to cover unexpected costs encountered during the construction phase.

However, as construction progressed, the contingency was found to be insufficient.

The contingency was depleted by several unanticipated changes to work due to unforeseen conditions. Underground utility conflicts were encountered that necessitated significant changes to the new traffic signal system at the Virginia Street and Sacramento Street intersection. The changes included re-siting large cast-in- drilled-hole foundations, modifying foundation sections, altering pole and signal head configurations, and remapping conductor schedules. Additionally, the existing asphalt thickness was significantly thicker than the design plans indicated, which resulted in extra costs related to both removal and replacement of the pavement section. Finally, a traffic accident at the University/Sacramento intersection destroyed the traffic signal controller.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The project improvements are intended to make Sacramento Street between Addison Street and Virginia Street more accessible for walking, bicycling, and riding transit, thereby reducing emissions from trips made via single occupancy vehicles. The project improvements are also expected to reduce collisions between motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The amended contract must be executed to ensure timely payment to the Contractor.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative action was considered.

CONTACT PERSON
Joe Enke, Manager of Engineering Engineer, Public Works Department, (510) 981-6411 Terrence Salonga, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department, (510) 981-6447 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT NO. 32000246 AMENDMENT: CF CONTRACTING, INC FOR

SACRAMENTO COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a contract with CF Contracting, Inc. for construction of the Sacramento Complete Streets Improvements Project in the amount of $2,475,200 on April 14, 2020 (Resolution No. 69,355-N.S.); and WHEREAS, unanticipated conditions were recently encountered during construction, resulting in additional work and cost to complete the Project; and WHEREAS, additional contract funding is insufficient to compensate the contractor for the additional costs; and
WHEREAS, the City has neither the staff nor the equipment needed to undertake the additional work; and
WHEREAS, funding for this contract amendment in the amount of $250,000 will be available in the FY 2023 budget from the Measure BB Local Streets & Roads Fund 134 via the approval of the First Amendment to the FY 2023 Annual Appropriations Ordinance.

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. 32000246 with CF Contracting, Inc. for work on the Sacramento Complete Streets Improvements Project, Specification No. 20-11379-C, increasing the contract amount by $250,000 for an amended total not to exceed $2,725,200.

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 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Public Works
Subject: Purchase Order: Papé Machinery, Inc. for the completed rebuild and repair of Zero Waste Division’s John Deere Wheel Loader, Unit No. 6505

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a purchase order with Papé Machinery, Inc. for the complete rebuild, major component replacement and repair of Zero Waste Division’s John Deere Wheel Loader, Unit No. 6505, in an amount not to exceed $345,188.20.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding is available in Fiscal Year 22 Equipment Maintenance Fund (672-54-626-722- 0000-000-472-613120).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
PW Fleet and Zero Waste Division solicited a quote on the Division’s John Deere Wheel Loader, Unit No. 6505, from Papé Machinery, Inc. (sole provider of John Deere equipment), for a complete rebuild, also referred to as a re-life, to address much needed manufacturer recommended repairs due to typical wear and tear that can be expected of a wheel loader of this type and age, given its working conditions. Because Unit No. 6505 had low operating hours, Public Works decided to invest in a rebuild instead of replacing the unit which would have cost $419,855 or more plus the cost of leasing a unit while awaiting the new unit. Also, the turnaround time for a rebuild was significantly shorter than purchasing a new unit. Pulling the wheel loader back into service as quickly as possible was necessary to support the Zero Waste Division’s operations from 3:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 6 days per week, 52 weeks per year. Not doing so could have significantly impacted the division’s ability to stay operational.

Authorizing this purchase order supports the Strategic Plan Priority goal to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

BACKGROUND
On July 14, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 67,160-N.S. for the purchase of one 2016 John Deere 644K Hybrid AWD Loader in the amount not to exceed $394,000. On July 21, 2015, the Department of Finance, General Services

27

Purchase Order: Papé Machinery, Inc. for completed rebuild CONSENT CALENDAR and repair to Zero Waste John Deere May 31, 2022
Wheel Loader, Unit No. 6505

approved PO 106603 that was issued to HGACBuy Contractor, Papé Machinery, Inc., to purchase this wheel loader in the amount of $388,732. This was a piggyback purchase off of HGACBuy Contract # EM06-13.

Papé Machinery, Inc. is an authorized John Deere Construction & Forestry Company (JDCFC) dealer in the state of California, including the City of Berkeley. Papé Machinery, Inc. is authorized and trained to sell, lease, and rent JDCFC products as specified in their John Deere Construction & Forestry Company Dealer Agreement and authorized to sell the subsequent genuine OEM parts. In addition, Papé Machinery, Inc. is qualified and trained to provide service and warranty repairs on JDCFC products.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The rebuilt Wheel Loader has a new Hybrid Drive Motor and drive components in combination with an engine powered by renewable diesel fuel. The combined systems reduce fuel consumption by an estimated 25% and reduce greenhouse gas emission by as much as 50-80%. Usage of renewable diesel complies with the City’s Fossil Free recommendations. Additionally, the vehicle is equipped with a Tier 4 Final engine application that meets the strictest EPA emissions requirement for off-highway diesel engines.

Public Works contacted heavy equipment manufacturing representatives from Case, Peterson Caterpillar, Doosan (Bobcat), Komatsu, Volvo, and Hitachi regarding the availability of fully electric versions of this equipment. These representatives confirmed there are no fully electric versions available for 20-ton Wheel Loader at this time.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The wheel loader needed substantial repairs, and a rebuild was necessary to save money and have the machine back in service in a significantly shorter time frame.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Greg Ellington, Superintendent, 981-6469
Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

PURCHASE ORDER: PAPÉ MACHINERY, INC. FOR REPAIRS TO WHEEL LOADER EQUIPMENT NO. 6505
WHEREAS, major component replacement and repairs to Zero Waste John Deere Wheel Loader Equipment No. 6505 were needed to support Zero Waste Transfer Station Operations; and
WHEREAS, equipment must be maintained that allows operators to efficiently and effectively carry out their work duties; and
WHEREAS, Papé Machinery, Inc is the authorized John Deere Construction & Forestry Company (JDCFC) dealer in the state of California, including the City of Berkeley; and WHEREAS, Papé Machinery, Inc. is trained to repair JDCFC products as specified in their John Deere Construction & Forestry Company Dealer Agreement and authorized to sell the subsequent genuine OEM parts.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a purchase order with Papé Machinery, Inc. for the major component replacement and repairs to Zero Waste John Deere Wheel Loader, Unit No. 6505, in an amount not to exceed $345,188.20.

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 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Civic Arts Commission
Submitted by: Modesto Covarrubias, Chairperson, Civic Arts Commission Subject: Authorization for Additional Civic Arts Commission Meeting in 2022

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution for one additional meeting of the Civic Arts Commission in 2022.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Civic Arts Commission requests approval to hold a Special Meeting in October 2022 as a retreat in order to have dedicated time to review progress on the City of Berkeley Arts & Culture Plan 2018-2027 Update and the Civic Arts Commission 2022- 2023 Work Plan. Submission of this report for authorization of the additional meeting was approved by the Civic Arts Commission at its April 27, 2022 meeting as follows:

M/S/C (Anno/Bullwinkel) Vote: Ayes — Anno, Blecher, Bullwinkel, Covarrubias, Dhesi, La, Ozol, Passmore, Woo; Nays — None; Abstain — None; Absent — None.

BACKGROUND
Resolution No. 68,705–N.S. governs the number of meetings for boards and commissions and authorizes the Civic Arts Commission to meet ten times per year. In 2022, the Civic Arts Commission plans to hold its ten regular meetings in addition to this Special Meeting.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The additional meeting requested for October 2022 will provide an opportunity for the Commission to have uninterrupted time to focus on the review of progress on the previously approved Arts and Culture Plan and Annual Work Plan and to discuss activities for the remainder of 2022 and activities for 2023 in furtherance of the goals and objectives outlined in these plans.

28

[Title of Report] CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Lovvorn, Secretary to the Civic Arts Commission, (510) 981-7533 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL MEETING FOR THE CIVIC ARTS COMMISSION WHEREAS, Resolution No. 68,705–N.S. stipulates how many annual meetings are allowed for Berkeley’s commissions and authorizes the Civic Arts Commission to meet ten times per year; and
WHEREAS, the Civic Arts Commission plans to hold an additional meeting in October 2022 to review progress on the City of Berkeley Arts & Culture Plan 2018-2027 Update and the Civic Arts Commission 2022-2023 Work Plan.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Civic Arts Commission is authorized to hold one additional meeting in 2022.

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 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Civic Arts Commission
Submitted by: Lisa Bullwinkel, Vice Chair
Subject: Budget Referral: Festival Grants Budget Allocation

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City’s Budget Process for Fiscal Year 2023 an increased budget allocation of $41,685 for Festival Grants to bring the allocation for these grants to $200,000 annually beginning in Fiscal Year 2023.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Additional $41,685 annual allocation from the General Fund.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Festival Grants Budget Allocation is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to foster a dynamic, sustainable, and locally-based economy.

On April 27, 2022, Berkeley’s Civic Arts Commission voted unanimously to request that City Council Refer to the City’s Budget Process for Fiscal Year 2023 an increased budget allocation of $41,685 for Festival Grants to bring the allocation for these grants to $200,000 annually beginning in Fiscal Year 2023. Submission of this Budget Referral Request was approved by the Civic Arts Commission at its April 27, 2022 meeting as follows: M/S/C (Anno/Blecher) Vote: Ayes — Anno, Blecher, Bullwinkel, Covarrubias, Dhesi, La, Ozol, Passmore, Woo; Nays — None; Abstain — None; Absent — None.

BACKGROUND
Prior to the pandemic, the Festival Grant Program allocation was $158,315. When the pandemic hit, it was dropped to zero. However, the arts community responded with the ability to produce many of the festivals in some sort of virtual formats and the Council increased the allocation to $80,000, or about one half the prior allocation. As the ability to produce actual live events and/or hybrid events increased, the allocation in Fiscal Year 2022 was proposed to be restored to $158,315, however the Mayor added almost $50,000 from his budget for a total Festival Grants allocation of $200,000 in Fiscal Year 2022. The currently proposed allocation for Fiscal Year 2023 is back to $158,315 which the arts community would like to increase and maintain annually at $200,000. The Civic Arts Commission is requesting an annual increase to the Festival Grants allocation of $41,685 to bring the baseline allocation for Festival Grants to $200,000 starting in Fiscal

29

Civic Arts Commission Budget Referral Request – Increase to Festival Grants CONSENT CALENDAR May 31, 2022
Year 2023. Each year approximately 20 to 25 dynamic Berkeley festivals are funded through this program. For FY23, we received 35 Festival Grant applications, which are currently being reviewed for scoring.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Established festivals need the added support as their model will most likely include a hybrid model for all future events. There are also may new festivals being created post- pandemic and so the need is greater than before.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Lovvorn, Secretary, Civic Arts Commission, Office of Economic Development, 981-7533

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
1 TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Councilmember Rigel Robinson, Councilmember Sophie Hahn, and Councilmember Kate Harrison SUBJECT: Budget Referral: Small Business Rental and Legal Support

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Process and the City Manager, $1,000,000 from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding to launch a needs-based grant program for Berkeley-based small businesses (under 50 employees) to provide supplemental assistance to cover outstanding commercial rent debt and to fund legal assistance to small businesses.

Specifically the funding should be used to create a program to:
- Provide needs-based grants for small businesses that can demonstrate their inability to pay their commercial rental debt accumulated during the COVID-19 pandemic due to business shutdowns and declining revenues. Determine criteria to provide minimum and maximum grants to eligible businesses, including the potential for greater grant amount based on significant hardship or across the board grants of specific amounts;
- Add capacity to existing services that provide pro-bono legal assistance to business owners;
- Add capacity to existing mediation programs to support both small business tenants and property owners;
- Engage in a public education campaign regarding regulations and resources available.

The City Manager shall create the criteria and formula to distribute the funds as described above.

BACKGROUND
Several small businesses have contacted the Mayor’s Office raising concerns about their ability to pay significant commercial rental debt. Due to mandated COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders and the economic impacts of the pandemic, many small businesses have struggled to keep their doors open and have been unable to pay back rent accumulated. This has also impacted commercial property owners who have taken losses due to economic hardship faced by their tenants.

2 The COVID-19 Emergency Response Ordinance, BMC Chapter 13.110, prohibits the eviction of commercial tenants due to back rent and treats the rent owed as a commercial debt. The eviction moratorium has helped prevent commercial evictions, but now that we are transitioning to the next phase of the pandemic, it is critical we think about what resources are in place to help small businesses pay back rent, including legal and financial assistance.

While there are several resources available to provide legal advice and technical assistance to businesses on commercial lease issues, including the applicability of the eviction moratorium, there is a need to bolster existing programs that provide pro-bono legal assistance and also provide funding to help further the ability of small businesses to pay their commercial rental debt.

Both small business tenants and the property owners from which they rent have suffered tremendous financial hardship caused by the pandemic. This item further seeks to strengthen existing meditation programs designed to bring property owners and their small business tenants together to seek innovative repayment plans that maintain the ability of these small businesses to keep their doors open.

After years of economic growth in our commercial corridors, the COVID-19 pandemic forced many businesses to close in March 2020, significantly impacting many sectors of our economy, notably our food & beverage, hospitality, and arts & entertainment businesses. While most restrictions are now lifted, we are all acutely aware of the toll this took, which required our government to take action to support impacted businesses.

Today, unemployment levels are on path to reach pre-pandemic levels soon and most businesses have resumed pre-pandemic operations, yet we know there is still work to be done as we continue our economic recovery. We will continue to deploy all the tools in our toolkit to support our local businesses as we transition from a pandemic to an endemic, and beyond.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$1,000,000 from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding

CONTACT
Mayor Jesse Arreguín
[email protected] | 510-981-7100

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin
Subject: Budget Referral: Ceasefire Program Staffing

RECOMMENDATION
Refer $1,000,000 ($1M) to the budget process to provide full staffing for a Berkeley Ceasefire program.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$1 million in General Fund costs per annum in FY 23-24 biennial budget.

According to the Everytown Economic Cost of Gun Violence Calculator Tool, a single gun homicide directly costs state taxpayers $1 million, and costs Californians $9 million when including externalities imposed on family members, survivors, and the community at large.1

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Berkeley Ceasefire is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

Gun violence is increasing at an alarming rate in the city of Berkeley. In 2021, there was a 30% increase in reported gun violence in Berkeley, with 52 confirmed shooting incidents compared to 40 in 2020. In 2021, the Berkeley Police Department recovered a total of 118 firearms, an increase of 38.8%. In 2021, 33 of the firearms seized were ghost guns compared to 6 in 2020 and 8 in 2019.2
On November 9, 2021, the Berkeley City Council unanimously approved a budget referral for $200,000 in consulting costs to begin developing a multi-jurisdictional Gun Violence Intervention (GVI) program, a.k.a. Ceasefire, in Berkeley. On May 5, 2022, the City Council approved an omnibus budget referral to pursue a phased approach to the Reimagining Public Safety process, which included an additional $200,000 for Ceasefire.

BACKGROUND
1 https://everytownresearch.org/report/economic-cost-calculator/ 2 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-02- 22%20Item%2033%202021%20Year%20End%20Crime.pdf

31

Budget Referral: Ceasefire Staffing CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022

David Muhammad, Executive Director of the National Institute for Criminal Justice (NICJR), has provided the following cost estimates for a fully staffed Ceasefire program in Berkeley:
 Full time Director: $120-$140k
 Program Manager/Supervisor: $80-90k
 5 Life Coaches: $70k each - $350k
 3 Outreach Workers - $62k each -- $186k
 Fringe (25%): $190,250
 Gun Violence Problem Analysis: $35k
Total: $986,250
The National Network for Safe Communities defines GVI programs as “a partnership of law enforcement, community members, and social service providers with a common goal but distinct roles,” each role “conveying a powerful community message about disapproval for violence and in support of community aspirations; concrete opportunities for both immediate and longer term assistance and support; and clear prior notice of the legal risks associated with continued violence.”3
Ceasefire programs are credited with major reductions in homicide rates in cities that have implemented them, including Stockton4 and Richmond.5

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120
3 https://nnscommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/GVI-Issue-Brief-1.pdf 4 Braga, A. A. (2008). Pulling levers focused deterrence strategies and the prevention of gun homicide. Journal of criminal justice, 36(4), 332-343.
5 https://www.advancepeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/AP-Richmond-Impact-2019.pdf

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Harrison and Councilmember Hahn
Subject: Budget Referral: Fund Mental Health Wellness Support and Services Coordinator at the Berkeley High School Health Center

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the FY 23 and FY 24 Annual Budget Process $350,000 to provide a coordinator position to deliver mental health wellness support and services to the City- run Berkeley High School (BHS) Mental Health Center, and to expand services and training as appropriate, consistent with the May 5, 2022 Council action to reimagine public safety. This includes:

1. Counseling services for students experiencing depression, anxiety, self-harm, suicidal ideations, etc.;

2. Teacher training for mental health awareness;

3. Facilitator/support resources to assist with coordination and scheduling of services.

CURRENT SITUATION AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
In response to a recent tragic incident involving a BHS student and ongoing insufficient mental health services and training within the Berkeley Unified School District, concerned students have led a petition with nearly 500 signatures calling for urgent mental health resources. Many students indicate that there are obstacles to communicating with teachers and counselors about mental health issues. Students report a sense of isolation, perpetuating personal and academic stress. The decline of students’ mental health is a national phenomenon (see below).

HHCS leadership confirms providing an additional position at the City-supported Health Center would enhance student mental health. The City already provides BHS with limited counseling services through the Health Center, but the resources are not consistently available or accessible and teaching staff are not provided with regular training to identify signs of mental health needs and to help connect students to resources as appropriate. It is in the public interest to fund a City Mental Health Coordinator in the BHS Health Center to facilitate services and training, develop a mental health prevention and awareness program to promote mental health and resilience, and to address emerging challenges.

32

Budget Referral: Fund Mental Health Wellness Support and Services Coordinator at the Berkeley High School Health Center

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
2 BACKGROUND
The mental health crisis among youth has increased dramatically in the past few years.

A recent journal study found that between 1999 and 2016 national suicide rates have increased 30%.1 Young people have been disproportionately represented in this tragic trend.

During the height of the pandemic, emergency room visits related to suspected suicide attempts rose 50% among girls 12-17.2 A 2022 survey found that almost 50% of LGBTQ youth contemplated suicide in the last year.3 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “suicide is the third leading cause of death for young people” and “[f]or youth ages 10-14, suicide is the second leading cause of death.”4 Suicide is the second-leading cause of death for college students.5 Although the overall suicide rate among people aged 10–24 was statistically stable from 2000 to 2007, the CDC found that suicides increased 57.4% in 2018.6 The New York Times also recently reported that mental health disorders are beginning to eclipse binge drinking, drunken driving, teenage pregnancy and smoking. In 2019, “13 percent of adolescents reported having a major depressive episode.” The recent loss of a student at BHS caused a significant number of students trauma and grief. Many of these students are seeking support and needed time to process their emotions. Unfortunately, many students report that Berkeley High School does not have sufficient resources available to respond properly to this and other similar incidents.

Students report that many teachers were unprepared following the tragedy, and did not adjust academic work appropriately. As a result, students were forced to suppress their emotional needs to focus on their school work.

Even prior to the recent incident, students reported a scarcity of mental health support.

Students report that there are few counselors and very limited drop-in appointments available and that counselors are focused on academic concerns. Wait list for mental 1 Deborah M. Stone, ScD et al, “Trends in State Suicide Rates — United States, 1999–2016 and Circumstances Contributing to Suicide — 27 States, 2015,” 2018, https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/897984_1.
2 Aria Bendix, “Adolescents accounted for larger share of suicides in many states in 2020,” April 25, 2022, NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/teen-suicides-increased-many-states- pandemic-rcna25825
3 Meghan Roos, “Nearly Half of LGBTQ Youth Considered Suicide in Last Year: Survey,” May 4, 2022, Newsweek, https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-half-lgbtq-youth-considered-suicide-last-year-survey- 1703607.
4 “Disparities in Suicide,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 3, 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/disparities-in-suicide.html 5 “University and college campus suicide prevention,” American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, https://afsp.org/university-and-college-campus-suicide-prevention. 6 Sally C. Curtin, M.A., “State Suicide Rates Among Adolescents and Young Adults Aged 10–24: United States, 2000–2018” September 11, 2020, National Vital Statistics Reports, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr69/nvsr-69-11-508.pdf

Budget Referral: Fund Mental Health Wellness Support and Services Coordinator at the Berkeley High School Health Center

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
3 health services are weeks long. Students are unable to receive proper support and are left to manage on their own.

An informal needs assessment survey conducted by BHS students reveals:
 68% of students report that they have to put in a lot of effort to receive help.  57% of students stated they would feel more supported if there were more on- site therapists.
 Only 17% of students reported teachers/counselors/staff checking in on them regarding their mental health.

Following the recent Berkeley tragedy, students assembled the “Wellness and Support Project.” Their plan is primarily to implement mental health training for both teachers and students at BHS. This will increase general knowledge, decrease stigma, and create a supportive community on campus. They also seek an expansion in the availability of psychologists and therapists for students at BHS, as well as a Mental Health Coordinator to coordinate such trainings and services. The group’s recommendations follow extensive research, and numerous meetings with administrators, teachers, parents, students, and community members.

The BHS Health Center is operated by the City of Berkeley HHCS and offers first aid, medical, health education, youth development and counseling/therapy services. The Mental Health Coordinator position will support the provision of critical mental health aid for students and staff at Berkeley High School, and provide better access to urgent and equitable health services.

There are currently no immediate plans considered by the City or School District that would sufficiently address the urgent needs of students and teachers. While on April 22, 2022, the Berkeley City Council approved the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission revenue grant for $2,500,000 ($500,000 for each of five years) for Coordination and Provision of Mental Health Services in Berkeley Unified School District, this money was allocated to the BUSD school district in its entirety (not BHS), and is still being processed. City staff expect much of it will be dedicated to supporting the middle schools. Even with this new funding, there is no guarantee of a position within the BHS Health Center to coordinate such services.

Having someone specifically at BHS (the District’s largest school with students at a particularly volatile age) who will build a system of behavioral health supports for students, and that also involves teachers, staff, and families, will create more robust and sustainable supports specifically for BHS. In addition, since coordinating teacher and staff training can be challenging, having someone dedicated to this function will make a significant difference in supporting teacher and staff awareness of emerging mental health issues.

This budget item, informed by discussion with HHCS leadership, will fund a coordinator position to leverage existing and new funding to expand BHS services, and organize

Budget Referral: Fund Mental Health Wellness Support and Services Coordinator at the Berkeley High School Health Center

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
4 various stakeholders and partners to deliver upon the current critical wellbeing and mental health needs of students and educators.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Impact on General Fund of $350,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No discernable impact.

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

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Harrison
Subject: Budget Referral: Fund Additional HHCS Community Development Project Coordinator Position to Assist with Workforce Standards and Enforcement

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the FY 23 and FY 24 Annual Budget Process approximately $104,863 in General Funds with additional benefits to hire another Community Development Project Coordinator in the Health, Housing and Community Services (HHCS) Department to assist with enforcement of existing and prospective labor laws and regulations.

CURRENT SITUATION AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The HHCS department is responsible for staffing and enforcing each of the City’s labor ordinances and regulations, including the Minimum Wage, Paid Sick Leave, Berkeley Family Friendly and Environment Friendly, and Living Wage Ordinances. Currently, the Department has a single employee tasked with enforcing Berkeley’s workforce standards. In consultation with HHCS leadership and a former employee who staffed the division, current labor enforcement staffing levels may not adequate for existing programs, let alone the adoption of possible new legislation such as the Fair Work Week Ordinance. It is in the public interest to expand staffing in this division to enhance implementation and enforcement of Berkeley’s workforce standards.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Berkeley currently enforces four workforce standards ordinances with the following provisions:

Minimum Wage
Employers must pay all staff who work in Berkeley at least two hours per week the minimum wage standard set by the City. The minimum wage standard in Berkeley is listed below:

The minimum wage standard applies to all employees who work at least two hours in the geographical limits of Berkeley, regardless of where the employer is located or where the employee lives. The standard applies to both for-profit and

33

Budget Referral: Fund Additional HHCS Community Development Project Coordinator Position

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
2 non-profit employers. Employees’ tips do not count towards covering the minimum wage payment.

Paid Sick Leave
Employers must give their staff one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked.

Small business employers (with fewer than 25 employees) may cap an employee’s accrued paid sick leave at 48 hours and may cap the use of paid sick leave to 48 hours per year.

Employers with 25 or more employees may cap an employee’s accrual of paid sick leave at 72 hours, but may not cap how much paid sick leave an employee uses in a calendar year.

Berkeley Family Friendly and Environment Friendly Ordinance Under this ordinance, an employee has the right to request a flexible or predictable work schedule. The employer does not have to grant the request, but does have to respond in writing within 21 days. If denying the request, the written response must include a business reason for denial.

The ordinance applies to employers with ten or more employees. Employees must have worked at least three months and must work at least eight hours per week on a regular basis to be covered by the ordinance.

An employer may revoke or modify a flexible or predictable working schedule for business reasons, with reasonable notice to the employee. Within 21 days, the employer must provide a schedule and must provide in writing to the employee a business reason for the change.

Living Wage Ordinance
Vendors paid more than $25,000 per year by the City of Berkeley must comply with the Living Wage Ordinance. To comply, vendors must pay a living wage (set by the City), provide health benefits or cash in lieu, and provide paid time off.

HHCS is responsible for implementing and enforcing such ordinances, including collecting complaints and helping to adjudicate alleged violations. Complaints are currently collected via email, in person or by mail. Complaints may be submitted by employees or any other person. In addition, HHCS is responsible for enforcing against employers who retaliate against any employee who asserts their right under the ordinances. Such responsibilities are vast and require additional staffing.

Budget Referral: Fund Additional HHCS Community Development Project Coordinator Position

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
3 In addition, Council is actively considering the Fair Work Week Ordinance, which could require HHCS to adopt significant additional implementation and enforcement responsibilities.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Impact on General Fund of $104,863.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No discernable impact.

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

Susan Wengraf
Councilmember District 6

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Wengraf (Author) Councilmember Taplin (Co-sponsor), Councilmember Hahn (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Support for SB-1076 Lead-based paint (Archuleta)

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter of support to Senator Archuleta for his proposed legislation: SB-1076 Lead-based paint, with a copy to Nancy Skinner.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley has old housing stock in neighborhoods throughout the city. Housing built before 1978 may contain lead paint. Exposure to lead can seriously harm a child’s health, including damage to the brain and nervous system, slowed growth and development, learning and behavior problems, and hearing and speech issues. Children from low-income households and those who live in housing built prior to 1978 are at the greatest risk of lead exposure.

Lead-based paint was used in over 38 million homes in the U.S. until it was banned from residential use in 1978. As a result, 7.8 million homes in California that were built before 1978 are considered at high risk of lead contamination. Renovation, repair and painting projects disturb surfaces covered in lead-based paint and create lead- contaminated dust that endangers residents young and old, and workers repairing the building. Lead is harmful to children and adults, though children under the age of six years old are most vulnerable to lead poisoning. Lead can affect children’s developing brains and nervous systems, causing reduced IQ, learning disabilities, and behavioral problems with life-long impacts. Lead poisoning in adults can cause high blood pressure and reproductive harm. Lead poisoning can also cause premature birth and miscarriage.

Low-income communities of color are exposed to lead at higher rates due to lack of access to affordable housing in good repair. In Los Angeles County, for example, 85% of elevated blood lead levels in children under six years of age are Latinos. Workers doing painting, remodeling and repair are also at high risk of exposure, as are their 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166
E-Mail: [email protected]

34

Support for SB-1076 Lead-based paint (Archuleta)

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022

families, because dust contaminated with lead may be tracked in to homes from work clothes and shoes.

While California’s lead protection laws and the federal Renovation and Repair Program (RRP) complement each other in many ways, subtle differences and inconsistencies between the two make the regulatory framework confusing. Renovators and contractors have to figure out how to deal with the inconsistencies on their own, and as a consequence, they can easily, and unintentionally, violate both California or federal lead laws. Federal enforcement of the RRP is also lacking. Only a few federal employees are assigned to a multi-state region to enforce the RRP’s requirements, and most federal enforcement efforts target large, or high-profile contractors -- not the typical contractors performing renovations and repairs in local neighborhoods. The solution to this confusing situation is to align state and federal lead laws so that the state of California can assume management and enforcement of the RRP. Such alignment would also allow the state to recoup certification fees that are currently paid to the US Treasury, and use those revenues to fund programs and enforcement activities.

SB 1076 (Archuleta), is a bill that addresses the confusing inconsistencies in current regulations and aims to coordinate state and federal training and certification requirements for lead safe work practices. If SB 1076 passes, California would also assume management of the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) program.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Lead-based paint chips and dust blow into soil, contaminating any food grown in the soil as well as the dirt itself. Contaminated soils are also toxic for animal life, streams and the run off into the bay. This legislation would reduce the distressing consequences lead paint continues to have on our environment.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Wengraf Council District 6 510-981-7160
Attachments:
1: Letter
2: SB-1076 Lead-based paint

May 31, 2022
The Honorable Bob Archuleta
California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 6720
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB-1076 Lead-based paint
Support from the Berkeley City Council
Dear Senator Archuleta,
Thank you for your proposed legislation, SB-1076, to help reduce lead poisoning. The City of Berkeley has concentrations of old housing stock with lead-based paint in neighborhoods throughout the city. As you know, exposure to lead can seriously harm a child’s health, including damage to the brain and nervous system, slowed growth and development, learning and behavior problems, and hearing and speech issues. Children from low-income households and those who live in housing built before 1978 are at the greatest risk of lead exposure. As Councilmembers charged with protecting the health and safety of our residents, we are committed to working towards zero lead-paint contact for everyone.

The City of Berkeley is in full support of SB-1076. It is a bill that addresses confusing inconsistencies in current regulations that are currently reducing regulation compliance.

SB-1076 would coordinate state and federal training and certification requirements for lead safe work practices. Your bill would also allow California to assume management of the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) program. SB-1076 is a bill that reduces lead poisoning.

In support,
The Berkeley City Council
cc:

State Senator Nancy Skinner

Support for SB-1076 Lead-based paint (Archuleta)

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022

Support for SB-1076 Lead-based paint (Archuleta)

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022

Support for SB-1076 Lead-based paint (Archuleta)

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022

Support for SB-1076 Lead-based paint (Archuleta)

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022

Support for SB-1076 Lead-based paint (Archuleta)

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022

Support for SB-1076 Lead-based paint (Archuleta)

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Rigel Robinson (Author), Vice Mayor Kate Harrison (Co- Sponsor), and Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Budget Referral: Purchase of Electric Bicycles for City Use

RECOMMENDATION
Refer $25,000 to the FY 2023-2024 budget process to purchase electric bicycles, electric cargo bicycles, and any related safety, storage, or security equipment for use by employees on City business.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley has a vested interest in encouraging our residents, visitors, and employees to shift towards using sustainable modes of transportation. The City’s Climate Action Plan states, “Transportation modes such as public transit, walking and bicycling must become the primary means of fulfilling our mobility needs, and remaining motor vehicle use must be far less carbon-intensive. More active modes of transportation will become the mainstream when they are as convenient and cost effective as driving.”1
As one of the largest employers in Berkeley, the City of Berkeley should lead by example and provide our workforce with ample alternatives to driving. There are some trips conducted on City business that necessitate the use of cars or other heavy vehicles. However, there are also many trips that do not. City staff can currently use City vehicles to perform job duties that do not involve transporting supplies or large equipment — for example, conducting site visits and inspections; attending community meetings and City events; and doing in-person outreach to residents and businesses.

Electric bicycles are a great option for many of these use cases. In July 2021, Walk Bike Berkeley conducted an assessment that showcased how e-bikes could be used for City of Berkeley building inspections.2 Their test run of a typical inspection route found that riding an e-bike instead of driving a car only added 4 extra minutes to a 51-minute route, with minimal exertion and no mid-route recharging necessary. 1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Berkeley-Climate-Action-Plan.pdf 2 Preliminary assessment of using e-bikes for City of Berkeley building inspections, Tom Lent. Walk Bike Berkeley, July 24, 2021, https://bit.ly/BerkeleyMuniFleetE-bikeAssessment

35

Budget Referral: Purchase of Electric Bicycles for City Use CONSENT CALENDAR May 31, 2022

E-bikes require far less physical exertion than a human-powered bicycle, making them suitable for uphill rides and accessible to a wide range of bicycling abilities. Cargo e- bikes provide additional space for equipment, allowing employees to replace car trips even when transporting items that would not fit on a typical bicycle. Bicycling is also better than driving for situational awareness, community engagement, and delivering a high level of service during peak traffic times. E-bikes are 20 times more efficient than electric cars, using the equivalent of anywhere from 1000 to 4000 MPGe.3 Lastly, e- bikes are much cheaper than motor vehicles, costing as little as $1,500 per bike.

Therefore, with e-bikes, the City can achieve cost savings by reducing capital investment in vehicles while meeting our climate goals faster.

Berkeley has the fourth highest bicycle commute mode share of any city in the United States as of 2014.4 A significant percentage of our workforce already bikes, either to get to work or for other purposes. There is likely a readiness and eagerness among many City employees to switch to e-bikes for on-the-job trips. No employee would be required to ride a bicycle to carry out their job functions — this funding would simply provide the e-bike option alongside existing options.

Council previously referred to the City Manager to “prioritize municipal fleet modal shift to electric bicycles and other forms of zero-emissions mobility, where feasible, as part of ongoing efforts to achieve a zero-emissions fleet by 2030.”5 Funding a small number of e-bikes in this budget cycle could act as a pilot for interested employees, allowing the City to test how well e-bikes work for different uses across departments while simultaneously working towards a comprehensive assessment of our municipal fleet.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$25,000 from the General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Aligns with the City’s Climate Action Plan goals to reduce the number of vehicle trips and encourage bicycling.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rigel Robinson, (510) 981-7170
Angie Chen, Legislative Assistant
3 Results to date from the E-bike Monitoring Project, Walk Bike Berkeley EBike 1000 MPG Project, https://sites.google.com/view/ebikestudy/results
4 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Berkeley-Bicycle-Plan-2017- Executive%20Summary.pdf
5 https://records.cityofberkeley.info/PublicAccess/api/Document/AXPO34zYAp1UNrq3gLsfj8tV9L8YSr7bjBv MSz4KidtpxUddx%C3%89pZLY38Dp50JWSyHRY%C3%89guTOJaaM8Fv%C3%89pkooA6I%3D/

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

PUBLIC HEARING
May 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing & Community Services Department
Subject: Updating Published Charges: Mental Health Clinical Services

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a Public Hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution establishing Published Charges for Mental Health Clinical Services for Fiscal Year 2022. Published Charges are effective July 1, 2021.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the requested action will enable the Mental Health Division to comply with Short-Doyle/Medi-Cal (SD/MC) regulations and avoid federal Lower of Cost or Charges (LCC) audit disallowances. The Charges are not paid by mental health consumers, but rather are used for Medi-Cal billing.

There is no net city cost associated with the recommended plan. Published Charges are utilized in the cost reporting process to establish Medi-Cal reimbursement for mental health services. The cost reporting process is the methodology the state and federal government require to show BMH’s actual funding sources and uses and the services delivered. The cost report is based on expenses, services, and funding for the previous fiscal year. In this case, the effective date of July 1, 2021 establishes the rates for BMH’s cost report for FY 2022. Published Charges are set retrospectively to allow for the completion of the previous years’ cost report, which are the basis for the setting of the charges.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City Council adopted FY 2021 Published Charges on May 11, 2021 through Resolution No. 69,858-N.S. Current and proposed rates are detailed in Attachment 2.

BACKGROUND
Medi-Cal regulations require the Mental Health Division to establish Published Charges at least annually. Federal requirements stipulate that Published Charges are determined at the mental health jurisdiction level. The City uses these charges as the basis of a cost report in order to claim Medi-Cal revenue. This revenue is used to fund mental health expenses for a wide variety of City mental health programs.

36

Published Charges: Mental Health Clinical Services PUBLIC HEARING May 31, 2022

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Medi-Cal regulations require the Mental Health Division to establish Published Charges at least annually. Federal requirements stipulate that Published Charges are determined at the mental health jurisdiction level. The recommended Published Charges comply with the SD/MC audit requirements.

The Published Charge rate does not affect the amount mental health consumers with Medi-Cal are charged for services – rather it only affects the amount BMH can charge Medi-Cal for these eligible services. For any consumer without Medi-Cal, BMH utilizes the Universal Mechanism for Determining Ability to Pay (UMDAP) and sets the fee at an affordable rate.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions were considered.

CONTACT PERSON
Yvette Katuala, Assistant Manager of Mental Health, HHCS, 510-981-7654 Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Table of City of Berkeley Medi-Cal Rates FY 2022 Published Charges 2: Table of City of Berkeley Medi-Cal Rates for FY 2021 and FY 2022 Published Charges
3: Public Hearing Notice

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

ESTABLISHING FISCAL YEAR 2022 PUBLISHED CHARGES FOR MENTAL HEALTH CLINICAL SERVICES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2021
WHEREAS, Published Charges are necessary to ensure that the Mental Health Clinics continues to offer specialty mental health related services to the Berkeley and Albany communities consistent with its mission; and
WHEREAS, the Published Charges will allow the City of Berkeley’s Mental Health Clinics to continue to meet all Federal, State and County regulatory requirements, while providing continued community access to specialty mental health related services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the proposed Published Charges, detailed in Exhibit A for Fiscal Year 2022 are hereby fixed and established, effective July 1, 2021, for mental health clinic services offered by the Mental Health Division’s Clinics of the City’s Department of Health, Housing & Community Services.

Exhibits
A: Table of City of Berkeley Medi-Cal Rates Fiscal Year 2022 Published Charges

Exhibit A
City of Berkeley Medi-Cal Rates Fiscal Year 2022 Published Charges FY 2022 Published Charges
Mode SFC Services Cost/Unit
15 1 Case Management & Brokerage $13.97
15 10 Mental Health Services $14.34
15 30 Evaluation $13.58
15 40 Mental Health Services $13.58
15 50 Mental Health Services $13.58
15 60 Medication $27.75
15 70 Crisis $12.83

Attachment 2

PUBLISHED CHARGES FOR BERKELEY MENTAL HEALTH FOR
FY 2021 AND FY 2022
City of Berkeley Medi-Cal Rates FY 2022 Published Charges FY 2021
Published
Charge
FY 2022
Published
Charge
Mode SFC Services Cost/Unit Cost/Unit
15 1 Case Management & Brokerage $10.49 $13.97
15 10 Mental Health Services $10.77 $14.34
15 30 Evaluation $10.20 $13.58
15 40 Mental Health Services $10.20 $13.58
15 50 Mental Health Services $10.20 $13.58
15 60 Medication $20.84 $27.75
15 70 Crisis $9.63 $12.83

Attachment 3

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL

PROPOSED PUBLISHED CHARGES FOR BERKELEY MENTAL
HEALTH
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that a public hearing will be conducted by said City Council of the City of Berkeley at which time and place all persons may attend and be heard upon the following:

The Department of Health, Housing, and Community Services is proposing to establish Published Charges FY2022 for mental health and case management services.

FY 2021
Published
Charge
FY 2022
Published
Charge
Mode SFC Services Cost/Unit Cost/Unit
15 1 Case Management & Brokerage $10.49 $13.97
15 10 Mental Health Services $10.77 $14.34
15 30 Evaluation $10.20 $13.58
15 40 Mental Health Services $10.20 $13.58
15 50 Mental Health Services $10.20 $13.58
15 60 Medication $20.84 $27.75
15 70 Crisis $9.63 $12.83
The hearing will be held on May 31, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.in the School District Board Room, 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/
as of May 19, 2022. Once posted, the agenda
for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

For further information, please contact Yvette Katuala, Assistant Mental Health Manager at 510-981-7654.

Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, in order to ensure delivery to all Council members and inclusion in the agenda packet.

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

If you challenge the above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Berkeley at, or prior to, the public hearing. Background information concerning this proposal will be available at the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least 12 days prior to the public hearing.

Published: May 20 and May 27, 2022 – The Berkeley Voice Per Government Code 6062A
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on May 19, 2022.

Mark Numainville, 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

ACTION CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager
Subject: Discussion and Direction Regarding Vision 2050 Program Plan and Potential Ballot Measures for the November 8, 2022 General Municipal Election

RECOMMENDATION
Discuss the results of the recent community survey; provide direction to the City Manager on whether to continue working towards placing measure(s) on the November ballot, and, if so, the type of and dollar amounts for revenue measures; and provide input on the Vision 2050 Program Plan.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
If a potential revenue measure or measures are placed on the ballot and subsequently approved by voters, the City would receive additional funds from increased tax revenues.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Most of Berkeley’s streets, sidewalks, sewers, parks, playgrounds and public buildings were built over 75 years ago and need repair. However, local revenues have not kept pace with the investments needed to maintain and/or update aging infrastructure, or promote sustainability and housing affordability. This underinvestment has led to more than $1 billion in deferred maintenance and even more to ensure resilient and sustainable infrastructure. Studies show that $1 spent in early maintenance of infrastructure, such as streets, can save $7 in later, more expensive repairs. This explains why delays in addressing deferred maintenance in the City’s streets quadruples the cost of addressing these needs by 2050.

The size and scale of these infrastructure needs show the challenge ahead despite proactive steps taken to address these needs in the last decade. Local voters approved the start of upgrades to local infrastructure through the passage of Measure M in 2012 ($30M), the Parks Tax increase in 2014, and Measure T1 in 2016 ($100M); and to affordable housing through the passage of Measure U1 in 2016 and Measure O in 2018 ($135M). Together, these measures have provided additional resources to construct 308 affordable housing units (with 456 more units in the queue), and repair and improve Berkeley's aging infrastructure, including sidewalks, storm drains, parks, streets, senior and recreation centers, watershed and other City facilities.

37

Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) ACTION CALENDAR May 31, 2022

While marking important progress, these measures have not been large enough to address this significant infrastructure and affordable housing need. A measure or measures on the November 2022 ballot would secure a dedicated funding source to support local infrastructure and affordable housing, and accelerate the City’s path toward sustainability and resilience as envisioned in the Vision 2050 Framework.

In April 2022, a random, representative sample of 500 Berkeley voters were surveyed regarding their infrastructure priorities and possible revenue measures via telephone and text-to-online technology using professional interviewers. The survey had a margin of error of +/-4.4%, and top line results are in Attachment 1. The survey confirmed that voters’ top priorities were affordable housing, streets and sidewalks, and undergrounding utilities to help reduce the risk of wildfire. In the survey, 57% of Berkeley’s likely voters said they would vote yes on Option #1, a $600 million general obligation bond, and 61-63% responded yes on Option #2, the pairing of one $300 million general obligation bond (61%) with a 30 cent parcel tax (63%). These results fall short of the two-thirds necessary for voter approval on any of these measures. The “No” vote (between 26-29%) continues to register at higher levels than this City’s previous pre-placement surveys, and the undecided vote is smaller than previous surveys.

Staff seeks City Council’s direction on which, if any, measure or measures that staff should prepare for City Council’s placement on the November 2022 ballot, and input on the draft Vision 2050 Program Plan.

BACKGROUND
On April 27, 2021, City Council approved a referral to the City Manager to “explore various options for a future city bond measure in November 2022 to support the growing need for infrastructure investment, including street repaving, Complete Streets infrastructure that promotes bike and pedestrian safety, restoration of public buildings and facilities, and affordable housing citywide.” On June 30, 2021, City Council adopted a budget that included Vision 2050 implementation and exploration of revenue measures for the November 2022 ballot.

In significant coordination with Vision 2050 volunteers, staff have completed meetings with 25+ City Commissions and community organizations; conducted a scientific survey on infrastructure priorities in October 2021; updated City Council on progress on November 16, 2021;1 updated and gained City Council’s direction at the January 20, 2022 work session;2 sent an informational brochure to all Berkeley residents inviting them to one of four large area public meetings; held those public meetings on March 30, April 6, April 13, and April 20; conducted this project’s 2nd scientific survey of Berkeley 1https://records.cityofberkeley.info/PublicAccess/api/Document/AdG61weWildAPhLXK5fpdWtst1f97yF2H RTRBZo4KWAcwbaDsmEVrPuMZbJ0saMj1yOQehYuhcR1QqgYN5qYWÉU%3D/ 2 https://berkeleyca.gov/city-council-special-ws-meeting-eagenda-january-20-2022

Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) ACTION CALENDAR May 31, 2022

voters in late April; reported to City Council on the City’s bond capacity on April 26, 2022;3 drafted a Program Plan and incorporated public comments received between May 2 and May 12, 2022; submitted to City Council a Strategic Asset Management Plan and Asset Management Policy on May 10, 2022;4 and issued off agenda memos5 on October 4, 2021, December 13, 2021, March 28, 2022, and May 3, 2022.

Vision 2050 Program Plan. Per City Council’s direction at the January 20, 2022 work session, Attachment 2 is a draft long-term program to address Berkeley’s infrastructure needs6 through 2050, includes a high-level funding approach, four outcomes and tangible results from increased investments, a method for prioritizing work, an organizational approach to program delivery, key performance indicators, and a process for developing and approving projects funded by future revenue measures. While not binding, the Plan is a blueprint with enough flexibility to adapt as infrastructure needs evolve and will require updates every five years.

The Plan’s four outcomes are:
3 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-04- 26%20Special%20Item%2002%20Accept%20the%20Risk%20Analysis%20for%20Long- Term%20Debt.pdf
4 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-05- 10%20Item%2031%20Vision%202050%20Strategic%20Asset.pdf
5 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/agenda-memos 6 The City Council’s adopted Vision 2050 Framework focused on infrastructure, not affordable housing.

Given City Council’s April 27, 2021 direction to include both infrastructure and affordable housing in the context of revenue measures, the revenue measure options below address both infrastructure and affordable housing, but the draft Vision 2050 Program Plan retains its focus on infrastructure.

Program Plan’s Figure 7: Outcomes

Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) ACTION CALENDAR May 31, 2022

As shown in the figure below, the Program Plan includes a high-level funding plan to address the City’s infrastructure needs through a variety of fund sources, including revenue measures, grants and developer contributions, rates, and City (and General) funds.

The Program Plan at Table 3 prioritizes infrastructure categories based on the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure’s scorecard and public input assembled to date.

Infrastructure categories in Priorities 1 and 2 are most aligned to resilience and sustainability measures in the scorecard criteria, closest to being able to move into construction, and most supported by public input gained to date.

Many of the infrastructure categories in Priorities 2 and 3 are important, but require more public process, planning, and/or engineering, some of which may be supported by funding from a revenue measure or measures. Some of these infrastructure categories, such as sewer, already have sufficient, dedicated funding sources that make them unnecessary to prioritize for new revenue funding.

Priority Asset Category by Score
Streets
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan projects1
Sidewalks
Undergrounding
Stormwater
Parks
Trees
2 Waterfront
Traffic, Streetlights, and Parking
Transit projects
Civic center
City buildings
3 Transfer station
Sewer
Program Plan’s Figure 11 – Vision 2050 Funding Sources

Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) ACTION CALENDAR May 31, 2022

This prioritization is intended as a general guideline for resource allocation, and is not binding on when work on the particular infrastructure category is completed. Ultimately, City Council will select the projects to fund and their timing after consultation with Commissions, staff, and the community.

Revenue Measure Options
For the November 2022 ballot, two types of infrastructure revenue measures are being considered: a General Obligation Bond (or Infrastructure Bond) and Parcel Tax. GO Bonds are paid by an ad valorem property tax based on taxable properties’ assessed value and can only be used to fund capital improvements (no maintenance, operations or services). A parcel tax is a property tax of all properties, i.e., residential, commercial, and industrial, that can generate annual special revenues for capital, operations, maintenance, and services.7 A summary of these funding mechanism’s basics and their pros and cons is below.

Table 4 from the Program Plan - Funding Mechanisms
TYPE GO Bond Parcel Tax
TAX BASIS Assessed Value (AV) Building square footage
USE OF FUNDS Capital only Capital + Maintenance
TAX
PROGRESSIVITY Progressive Progressive
EXEMPTIONS None Low income/senior
PROS Relative tax burden decreases
as total AV increases
Fixed payments with cost of
living adjustments, funds capital
and maintenance
CONS Cannot pay for maintenance or operations
Does not adjust for future costs
Increases tax burden if building
square footage increases
With that context, staff seek direction among these possible revenue measure options:

Option #1, $600M GO Bond: Such as measure could have the following investment priorities (and corresponding Program Plan outcomes):
 $250 Million - Street repair and traffic safety (Program Plan’s Outcome 1)  $150 Million - Affordable housing for low-income and homeless residents  $125 Million - Climate change, sea level rise, wildfire prevention and protection (Program Plan’s Outcome 2)
7 Some have suggested a split roll parcel tax, where residential and commercial properties are charged different rates. Staff have not been able to find many examples of these types of parcel taxes for infrastructure in other cities.

Program Plan’s Table 3 – Summary of Priority Scoring

Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) ACTION CALENDAR May 31, 2022

 $75 Million - Other public infrastructure improvements8 (Program Plan’s Outcomes 3 and 4)
This option funds the community’s top priorities from the public outreach and scientific surveys (affordable housing, street repair, and resilience to climate change), and is supported by the city’s prioritization using the Vision 2050/Envision scorecard.

Option #2, Two Measures: Two measures on the November 2020 ballot would include:
 A parcel tax of $0.30 per building square foot, raising approximately $28 million annually, to improve streets and traffic safety (Program Plan’s Outcome 1), and  A $300 million GO bond
o $150 million to address affordable housing for low-income persons and the unhoused
o $150 million to improve resilience to climate change, wildfire prevention and protection, and to improve other public infrastructure (Program Plan’s Outcomes 2, 3, and 4)
Option #2 also funds voters’ top priorities. To succeed, each measure would be required to separately meet the two-thirds threshold for approval, which may be more difficult than one measure meeting the two-thirds threshold. Both measures could gain voter approval, one measure could be approved by voters but not the other, or both could fail.

In the scientific survey, Option #2’s two-measure approach garnered more support (61- 63%) than Option #1’s $600M GO bond (57%).

Option #2 is better positioned to deliver on Vision 2050’s commitment to resilient and sustainable infrastructure. It provides more flexible sources of funding that could address maintenance needs in addition to capital improvements. The parcel tax component includes an annual cost of living escalator, whereas a GO bond does not.

That means the GO bond’s impact diminishes over time, as does its tax burden. The parcel tax not only includes a cost of living escalator, it delivers benefits through 2050 unless ended sooner by voters, whereas the GO bond is planned to deliver benefits for 15 years.

Tax Impacts from Options #1 and #2. The table below shows these options’ tax impacts. 8 Other Public Infrastructure Improvements could include one-time projects, e.g., Old City Hall, Veterans Memorial Building, Waterfront and Marina, etc.

Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) ACTION CALENDAR May 31, 2022

Program Plan’s Table 7 – Tax Impacts

Option #1
$600M
GO Bond
Option #2
$300M GO Bond +
Parcel Tax
Tax Rate
($100,000 A.V.)
Avg $51
Max $91
Avg Bond = $27
Parcel = 30 cents per sq. ft.

Tax
(Avg Home:
$647,972; 1,900 sq ft)
Avg $332
Max $589
Avg Bond = $166
Parcel = $570
Total = $736

Results from Options #1 and #2. These results assume the City continues its track record of successfully leveraging state, federal, and regional grants, and City Council allocates a total of approximately $15 million—$7 million in existing baseline funding plus $8 million in new non-revenue measure funding—to the annual paving program in order to ensure proper ongoing maintenance of the City’s streets.

These investments would:
 Improve streets to good paving condition with an average Paving Condition Index of 70 or more
 Implement 75%+ of adopted traffic safety plans (bike/ped) and achieve Berkeley’s vision of a low-stress bike network
 Complete selected sea level rise projects, and begin to implement undergrounding of evacuation routes and the stormwater/green infrastructure plan  Assist in advancing the city’s park and public realm projects, e.g., Waterfront and Civic Center Renovation
 Address 13-26% of Berkeley’s affordable housing need through the addition of 500-1,000 new affordable housing units
Other Measures on the November 2022 ballot. To date, City staff and consultants are not aware of other measures that have been approved for the November ballot. In June, staff will bring a recommendation to the City Council to include an Article 34 measure, which is required by the California Constitution in order to develop affordable housing projects with state or local public financing. Such an approval has occurred in at least four previous elections and has had strong support.

Seeking Direction. Staff seeks Council direction on the following, should City Council want staff to continue working on placing revenue measure(s) on the November 2022 ballot:

Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) ACTION CALENDAR May 31, 2022

 Should staff move forward with placing a measure or measures on the ballot? o If so, which revenue measure or measures should the City Attorney and City Manager’s office draft for placement on the ballot? o What should the amount of each measure be?
o Which priorities (and their funding levels) should be included with each measure, e.g., streets and traffic safety, affordable housing, etc.? Should these priorities be indicated in the Program Plan, built into the measures themselves, both of the above, or neither?
o If a GO bond is proposed for placement, should it include a 1% dedication to public art, an annual General Fund allocation to public art in lieu of the revenue measure dedication, or something else?
o If a parcel tax is proposed for placement, should it include an exemption for very low income property owners?
o If a parcel tax is proposed for placement, should it include an end date?  If streets and traffic safety are priorities in one or more measures, should the Program Plan include a specific commitment for City Council and staff to find non-revenue measure funding sources (~$8 million) to fund the annual street maintenance necessary to ensure pavement condition does not decline?  Given the significant request of voters’ financial support, should the Program Plan (or revenue measure itself) include a commitment to ensure the General Fund contribution to infrastructure in the FY 2023 budget is a minimum for future years, except during times of emergency?
Subject to direction on these questions, the City Manager and City Attorney will return on July 12, 2022 seeking City Council’s formal action to place a measure or measures.

Seeking Input on Vision 2050 Program Plan. Staff will revise the Vision 2050 Program Plan consistent with the direction provided on the above questions. In addition, staff seeks Council’s input on any further revisions or changes to make to the Plan. Staff will return no later than July 26, 2022 with a revised Plan based on City Council’s input.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
City Council could direct staff to develop Options #1 or #2 but with different and/or smaller funding mechanisms, e.g. Option #1 but with a similarly-sized parcel tax in lieu of infrastructure bond, at different funding levels (lower or higher amounts), or with different investment priorities, e.g., more or less for affordable housing, street repair, etc.

Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) ACTION CALENDAR May 31, 2022

Below is a table showing the revenue possibilities and tax impacts of smaller measures.

Solo $150M
GO Bond
Solo $0.15
Parcel Tax
Tax Rate
($100,000 A.V.)
Avg $13
Max $22.73
15 cents
per sq. ft.

Tax
(Avg Home: $647,972; 1,900 sq ft)
Avg $166
Max $294
$285
(generates $14M/yr)
Survey 55% support
29% oppose
63% support
22% oppose
City Council could choose to delay this discussion until a future election; ask for other measure options to be developed further; or direct staff to consider an option not yet considered.

August 12, 2022 is the last day to submit measures to the County Registrar.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Implementing Vision 2050 would result in more resilient public infrastructure that creates fewer greenhouse gases, and reduces conflict between our built and natural environment. More affordable housing in Berkeley would reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by employees finding lower cost housing farther away from employment centers and requiring longer commutes.

CONTACT PERSON
Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager, (510) 981-7014
Liam Garland, Director, Public Works, (510) 981- 6303
Attachments:
1: Topline Results of April 2022 Scientific Survey
2: [Draft] Vision 2050 Infrastructure Program Plan

ᴾ
ᴾ
City of Berkeley Community Survey
Live Phone and Text to Online
April 28-May 3, 2022

FINAL WEIGHTED TOPLINES
N=500 Likely Nov 2022 General Election Voters
Splits: A/B, C/D

TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 222 259
Region
Council District 5, 6, 8 ............................................... 43 43 42 Council District 3, 4, 7 ............................................... 28 28 28 Council District 1, 2 ................................................... 29 29 30 Party
Democrat .................................................................. 80 74 86 Republican .................................................................. 2 2 2 NPP .......................................................................... 15 21 10 Other ........................................................................... 3 3 2 Q1. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely?
Yes, cell and can talk safely ...................................... 54 55 55 Yes, cell and cannot talk safely [CALL BACK] ........... 0 0 0 No, not on cell, but own one ...................................... 10 8 12 No, not on cell, and do not own one ............................ 1 1 0 (Don’t know/refused) [TERMINATE] ........................... 0 0 0 Text-to-online ............................................................ 36 36 33 Q2. Although it is some time from now, what are the chances of you voting in the November 2022 general election for Governor, Congress, and other offices? Are you almost certain to vote, will you probably vote, are the chances about 50-50, are you probably not going to vote, or are you definitely not going to vote? Almost certain to vote ................................................ 90 85 94 Probably will vote ...................................................... 10 15 6 50-50 [TERMINATE] ................................................... 0 0 0 Probably not [TERMINATE] ........................................ 0 0 0 Definitely not [TERMINATE] ........................................ 0 0 0 Don't know [TERMINATE] ........................................... 0 0 0

TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 222 259

ᴾ
Q3. Do you feel that things in the City of Berkeley ar e generally headed in the right direction or do you feel things are headed in the wrong direction?

Right Direction .......................................................... 47 46 49 Wrong Direction ........................................................ 24 24 25 (Don’t know) .............................................................. 29 30 27

Q4. Now I’m going to read some different issues that have been identified as important needs in the city of Berkeley. If you had to choose, which one or two of the following would be the highest priority for you personally in the city of Berkeley? [RANDOMIZE]
[ACCEPT UP TO TWO RESPONSES]

Increasing affordable housing for low-income and
homeless residents ................................................... 58 55 61 Repairing deteriorating streets and sidewalks ........... 27 29 23 Undergrounding utilities to help reduce the risk of
wildfire ...................................................................... 20 22 20 Protecting critical facilities from the threats of climate change ...................................................................... 12 8 15 Improving pedestrian, bike, and traffic safety ............ 11 12 11 Upgrading storm drains, green infrastructure, and
our watersheds to keep pollution from the Bay .......... 10 9 11 Improving the Berkeley waterfront, including docks,
pilings, streets, parking lots, pathways, and marina
dredging ...................................................................... 9 11 7 Making public buildings, streets, and sidewalks more
accessible to people with disabilities ........................... 8 6 8 Improving parks and recreation facilities ..................... 6 7 6 Creating and expanding bike lanes and
infrastructure ............................................................... 6 6 6 Creating more transformative public spaces in
Berkeley ...................................................................... 5 8 3 Improving seismic safety of historic buildings in Civic Center, including Old City Hall and the Veterans
Building ....................................................................... 3 1 5 (None) ......................................................................... 2 1 1 (Don't know) ................................................................ 1 1 0 (Refused) .................................................................... 0 1 0

TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 222 259

ᴾ
Now, I’m going to read several versions of ballot measures that may appear on the ballot in Berkeley this November. I am going to ask about different ways of funding the measures and different dollar amounts for each. Here is the first measure.

SPLIT C HEARS Q5 THEN Q6/Q7; SPLIT D HEARS Q6/Q7 THEN Q5

[IF SSC – READ AFTER Q5 AND BEFORE Q6/7:] Now I am going to ask you about two different measures that could be on the ballot instead of the first one. They are each smaller in size than the first, but, together, provide slightly more funding. Here is the first one.

[IF SSD – READ AFTER Q6/7 AND BEFORE Q5:] Now I am going to ask you about a different measure that could be on the ballot instead of the others I mentioned. It is larger in size than each of others separately, but provides slightly less than the previous two together.

Q5. This is a ballot measure that would provide funding through a general obligation bond.

In order to:
x Build and preserve affordable housing fo r low-income and homeless residents; x Significantly repair streets, and improv e traffic, bike, and pedestrian safety; x Promote climate change resiliency, in cluding protecting against wildfires; and x Improve public buildings and infrastructure;

Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure issuing bonds of 600 million dollars, at rates of 54 dollars per 100 thousand dollars of assessed property value, on average, generating approximately 30 million dollars annually while bonds are outstanding, and requiring regular audits and independent oversight?

If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure, or are you undecided?

[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?

Yes - strongly ............................................................ 31 32 31 Yes - not so strongly ................................................. 13 13 14 Lean yes ................................................................... 13 13 13

Undecided/DK ........................................................... 15 11 18

Lean no ....................................................................... 4 6 3 No - not so strongly ..................................................... 6 4 7 No - strongly ............................................................. 18 20 14

(Refused) .................................................................... 0 0 0

Yes ........................................................................... 57 58 58 No ............................................................................ 28 31 24

SPLIT A HEARS Q6 THEN Q7; SPLIT B HEARS Q7 THEN Q6

TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 222 259

ᴾ
Q6. This is a ballot measure that would provide funding through a general obligation bond.

In order to:
x Build and preserve affordable housing fo r low-income and homeless residents; x Promote climate change resiliency, including protect against wildfires; and x Improve public buildings and general infrastructure;

Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure issuing bonds of 300 million dollars, at rates of 26 dollars per 100 thousand dollars of assessed property value, on average, generating approximately 17 million dollars annually while bonds are outstanding, and requiring regular audits and independent oversight?

If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure, or are you undecided?

[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?

Yes - strongly ............................................................ 36 34 38 Yes - not so strongly ................................................. 15 17 15 Lean yes ................................................................... 10 8 12

Undecided/DK ........................................................... 14 14 13

Lean no ....................................................................... 2 2 2 No - not so strongly ..................................................... 6 5 7 No - strongly ............................................................. 17 20 13

(Refused) .................................................................... 0 0 0

Yes ........................................................................... 61 58 64 No ............................................................................ 25 27 22

TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 222 259

ᴾ
[KEEP IN BETWEEN Q6 AND Q7] Now I am going to read you another measure that would be on the ballot.

Q7. This ballot measure would provide funding through a parcel tax.

In order to:
x Significantly repair deteriorating streets;
x Improve traffic, bike, and pedestrian safety; and
x Fix sidewalks and increase access for those with disabilities;

Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure levying 30 cents per building square foot, generating approximately 28 million annually, with low-income exemptions, regular audits, independent oversight, and all funds staying local?

If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure, or are you undecided?

[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?

Yes - strongly ............................................................ 37 37 37 Yes - not so strongly ................................................. 17 17 17 Lean yes ..................................................................... 9 7 12

Undecided/DK ........................................................... 11 9 12

Lean no ....................................................................... 3 5 2 No - not so strongly ..................................................... 5 8 4 No - strongly ............................................................. 17 17 16

(Refused) .................................................................... 0 0 0

Yes ........................................................................... 63 61 66 No ............................................................................ 26 30 22

Now, I am going to ask you about two different measures that co uld be on the ballot in place of those already described. Here is the first one.

SPLIT A HEARS Q8 THEN Q9; SPLIT B HEARS Q9 THEN Q8

TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 222 259

ᴾ
Q8. This is the smallest version of the bond measure, providing a lower amount of funding than the previous versions.

In order to:
x Build and preserve affordable housing fo r low-income and homeless residents; x Promote climate change resiliency, in cluding protect against wildfires; and x Improve public buildings and general infrastructure;

Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure issuing bonds of 150 million dollars, at rates of 13 dollars per 100 thousand dollars of assessed property valu e, on average, generating approximately 8.7 (8 point 7) million dollars annually while bonds are outstanding, and requiring regular audits and independent oversight?

If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure, or are you undecided?

[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?

Yes - strongly ............................................................ 30 30 33 Yes - not so strongly ................................................. 15 15 15 Lean yes ................................................................... 10 8 11

Undecided/DK ........................................................... 16 15 17

Lean no ....................................................................... 4 5 4 No - not so strongly ..................................................... 7 6 7 No - strongly ............................................................. 18 21 14

(Refused) .................................................................... 0 0 0

Yes ........................................................................... 55 53 59 No ............................................................................ 29 32 25

[KEEP IN BETWEEN Q8 AND Q9] Now I am going to read you another measure that would be on the ballot.

TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 222 259

ᴾ
Q9. This is a smaller version of the parcel tax measure, providing a lower amount of funding than the previous version.

In order to:
x Significantly repair deteriorating streets;
x Improve traffic, bike, and pedestrian safety; and
x Fix sidewalks and increase access for those with disabilities;

Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure levying 15 cents per building square foot, generating approximately 14 million annually, with low-income exemptions, regular audits, independent oversight and all funds staying local?

If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure, or are you undecided?

[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?

Yes - strongly ............................................................ 34 37 33 Yes - not so strongly ................................................. 19 17 22 Lean yes ................................................................... 10 8 11

Undecided/DK ........................................................... 15 13 16

Lean no ....................................................................... 4 4 4 No - not so strongly ..................................................... 3 3 3 No - strongly ............................................................. 15 18 12

(Refused) .................................................................... 0 0 0

Yes ........................................................................... 63 61 66 No ............................................................................ 22 26 18

TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 222 259

ᴾ
Q10. Now I’m going to read some different statements that could be made about the proposed ballot measures described earlier. Please tell me whether each statement makes you MORE likely or LESS likely to vote YES on any of the ballot measures providing revenue for the city of Berkeley. [RANDOMIZE STATEMENTS]

Sorted by “More likely”
10d.An increase in city funding for infrastructure and
affordable housing helps Berkeley to leverage
additional funding from federal and state
government that would otherwise go to other
cities. ................................................................... 71 68 76 10c.Berkeley has more than one billion-dollar
backlog in infrastructure needs, including critical
repairs to streets, parks, and other public
facilities that will only get more expensive to fix
over time. A long-term investment in repair and
resilience is ......................................................... 70 72 70 10b.Undergrounding utilitie s and building climate-
resilient infrastructure is a practical necessity
that will help reduce the risk of wildfires, save
lives, and make Berkeley a safer and more
sustainable place to live. ..................................... 69 68 71 10a.Providing affordable housing for low-income
and homeless residents is important to address
the housing crisis in Berkeley and reduce the
impacts of encampments and unsheltered
homelessness on our streets. .............................. 69 66 72 10e.In addition to providing funding to help fix
current and past problems, we need a long-term
investment to proactively build a Berkeley that
thrives years into the future. ................................ 60 61 61 10f.Berkeley’s city government needs to do a better
job of being responsible with the budget it
already has before we are asked to raise taxes
even more. .......................................................... 39 42 35 10g.With inflation and cost of living on the rise, this is the wrong time to increase taxes and make it
more expensive to live in Berkeley. ..................... 32 32 31

TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 222 259

ᴾ
a. Providing affordable housing for low-income and homeless residents is important to address the housing crisis in Berkeley and reduce th e impacts of encampments and unsheltered homelessness on our streets.

More likely ................................................................. 69 66 72 Less likely ................................................................. 15 17 11 Not sure .................................................................... 16 17 17

b. Undergrounding utilities and building climate-resi lient infrastructure is a practical necessity that will help reduce the risk of wildfires, save lives, and make Berkeley a safer and more sustainable place to live.

More likely ................................................................. 69 68 71 Less likely ................................................................. 15 16 13 Not sure .................................................................... 16 16 16

c. Berkeley has more than one billion-dollar backlog in infrastructure needs, including critical repairs to streets, parks, and other public facilities that will only get more expensive to fix over time. A long-term investment in repair and resilience is needed to avoid higher costs later on.

More likely ................................................................. 70 72 70 Less likely ................................................................. 12 10 12 Not sure .................................................................... 19 17 19

d. An increase in city funding for infrastructure and affordable housing helps Berkeley to leverage additional funding from federal and state government that would otherwise go to other cities.

More likely ................................................................. 71 68 76 Less likely ................................................................. 12 15 8 Not sure .................................................................... 17 18 16

e. In addition to providing funding to help fi x current and past problems, we need a long-term investment to proactively build a Berkeley that thrives years into the future.

More likely ................................................................. 60 61 61 Less likely ................................................................. 16 16 16 Not sure .................................................................... 24 24 23

f. Berkeley’s city government needs to do a better job of being responsible with the budget it already has before we are asked to raise taxes even more.

More likely ................................................................. 39 42 35 Less likely ................................................................. 33 31 34 Not sure .................................................................... 28 27 30

TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 222 259

ᴾ
g. With inflation and cost of living on the rise, th is is the wrong time to increase taxes and make it more expensive to live in Berkeley.

More likely ................................................................. 32 32 31 Less likely ................................................................. 41 41 42 Not sure .................................................................... 27 27 27

Sometimes in a survey like this, people change their minds. I’m going to read two of the ballot measures that you heard before, asking again how you would vote. Here is the first one.

SPLIT A HEARS Q11 THEN Q12; SPLIT B HEARS Q12 THEN Q11

Q11. This is a ballot measure that would provide funding through a bond.

In order to:
x Build and preserve affordable housing fo r low-income and homeless residents; x Promote climate change resiliency, in cluding protect against wildfires; and x Improve public buildings and general infrastructure;

Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure issuing bonds of 300 million dollars, at rates of 26 dollars per 100 thousand dollars of assessed property value, on average, generating approximately 17 million dollars annually while bonds are outstanding, and requiring regular audits and independent oversight?

If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure, or are you undecided?

[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?

Yes - strongly ............................................................ 36 33 39 Yes - not so strongly ................................................. 14 15 13 Lean yes ................................................................... 10 7 12

Undecided/DK ........................................................... 11 10 13

Lean no ....................................................................... 4 4 4 No - not so strongly ..................................................... 6 7 5 No - strongly ............................................................. 19 23 14

(Refused) .................................................................... 0 0 0

Yes ........................................................................... 59 56 64 No ............................................................................ 29 34 24

[KEEP IN BETWEEN Q11 AND Q12] Now I am going to read you the other measure that would be on the ballot.

TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 222 259

ᴾ
Q12. This is a ballot measure that would provide funding through a parcel tax.

In order to:
x Significantly repair deteriorating streets;
x Improve traffic, bike, and pedestrian safety; and
x Fix sidewalks and increase access for those with disabilities;

Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure levying 30 cents per building square foot, generating approximately 28 million annually until ended by voters, with low-income exemptions, regular audits, independent oversight, and all funds staying local?

If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure, or are you undecided?

[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?

Yes - strongly ............................................................ 38 37 41 Yes - not so strongly ................................................. 15 16 13 Lean yes ..................................................................... 8 6 10

Undecided/DK ........................................................... 12 9 15

Lean no ....................................................................... 5 5 5 No - not so strongly ..................................................... 4 6 4 No - strongly ............................................................. 16 20 12

(Refused) .................................................................... 0 0 0

Yes ........................................................................... 61 60 64 No ............................................................................ 26 31 21

Finally, I would like to ask you a few questions for statistical purposes only.

TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 222 259

ᴾ
Q13. How long have you lived in Berkeley? [DO NOT READ, RECORD WITHIN RANGE]

Less than two years .................................................. 10 10 10 Two to less than five years ........................................ 12 15 9 Five to less than ten years ........................................ 15 15 14 Ten to less than twenty years .................................... 20 19 20 Twenty years or more ............................................... 32 34 32 All your life .................................................................. 9 5 12 (Don't know/refused) ................................................... 2 1 3

Q14. What best describes your gender? [SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]

Man ........................................................................... 44 100 0 Woman ..................................................................... 52 0 100 Nonbinary ................................................................... 2 0 0 Prefer to self-describe/other ........................................ 0 0 0 (Prefer not to answer) ................................................. 2 0 0

Q15. [ASK ALL] And please tell me which one, or more than one, of these racial or ethnic groups you identify with?

[RANDOMIZE/READ CHOICES/ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
[IF “OTHER” OR “BIRACIAL” OR “MULTI-RACIAL” PROMPT:] Which two or three of these do you identify with the most?

White or Caucasian ................................................... 60 62 60 Black or African American ......................................... 10 8 13 Latino/Latina or Hispanic ............................................. 9 8 11 Asian American or Pacific Islander ............................ 12 11 11 Native or Indigenous American ................................... 1 0 1 Middle Eastern ............................................................ 2 3 2 (Other) ........................................................................ 3 3 3 (Don’t know/Refused) .................................................. 6 7 4

Q16. In terms of local politics, do you consider yourself progressive, liberal, moderate, or conservative?

Progressive ............................................................... 40 40 41 Liberal ....................................................................... 28 26 30 Moderate ................................................................... 19 23 17 Conservative ............................................................... 4 5 3 (Don't know) ................................................................ 3 1 4 (Refused) .................................................................... 5 5 5

Progressive /liberal ................................................... 68 66 72 Moderate /conservative ............................................. 24 28 20

TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 222 259

ᴾ
Q17. What is the last year of schooling that you have completed?

1 - 11th Grade ............................................................. 1 1 0 High School Graduate ................................................. 6 5 6 Vocational or technical school ..................................... 1 2 0 Some college but no degree ..................................... 14 15 13 Associate degree ........................................................ 6 4 6 4-year college graduate or bachelor's degree ........... 34 36 32 Graduate School or advanced degree ....................... 37 35 40 (Refused) .................................................................... 2 3 2

H.S./Less .................................................................... 6 5 6 Post H.S. .................................................................. 20 21 19 College graduate or post-grad ................................... 72 71 72

Q18. Do you own your own home or do you rent?

Own .......................................................................... 47 46 47 Rent .......................................................................... 44 47 42 (Other) ........................................................................ 6 4 8 (Don't know/refused) ................................................... 3 3 3

Age

18 - 24 ...................................................................... 10 10 9 25 - 29 ........................................................................ 8 10 6 30 - 34 ...................................................................... 10 9 11 35 - 39 ........................................................................ 7 8 5 40 - 44 ........................................................................ 7 6 7 45 - 49 ........................................................................ 7 8 7 50 - 54 ........................................................................ 8 10 8 55 - 59 ........................................................................ 5 5 6 60 - 64 ........................................................................ 8 9 7 65 - 69 ........................................................................ 9 7 11 70 - 74 ........................................................................ 5 4 7 Over 74 ..................................................................... 15 14 16

Under 30 ................................................................... 18 20 15 30 - 39 ...................................................................... 17 17 17 40 - 49 ...................................................................... 14 14 14 50 - 64 ...................................................................... 22 24 21 65 & over .................................................................. 29 24 34

TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 222 259

ᴾ
Vote Select

PDI 22P9A: Voted 6/14, 11/14, 6/18, 11/18, 3/20, or
9/21. ......................................................................... 97 96 98 PDI 22P9A: Reg after 9/21. ........................................ 3 4 2

[RECORD AGE AND PARTY REGISTRATION FROM FILE]

This completes our survey. Thank you very much for your time, and have a pleasant day/evening!

1 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
MAY 2022
VISION 2050

PROGRAM PLAN
DRAFT

2 May 2022

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
01 02
03 04
05 06
07 THE INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM PLAN: OVERVIEW 4
1 .1 The Vision 2050 Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2 What is an Infrastructure Program Plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.3 Core Values and Principles Guide our Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 IN
FRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND COMMUNITY PRIORITIES 10
2 .1 Infrastructure Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2 C
ommunity Input and Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 IN
TRODUCING THE 30-YEAR PROGRAM PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.1 O
utcomes of the Program Plan
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3. 2 Work Prioritization and Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 TH
E PLAN’S FUNDING, RESULTS, AND TAX IMPACT 30

4.1 F
unding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4. 2 Funding Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4. 3 Review of Tax Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4. 4 Other Benefits of Infrastructure Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 PR
OGRAM DELIVERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5.1 C
urrent Organization and Measure T1 Implementation 39

5. 2 Research on Other Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.3 R
ecommendations for Vision 2050 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 SUP
PORTING STRATEGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

6.1 P
erformance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

6. 2 Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6 .3 Reporting and Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

6. 4 Lifecycle Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

6. 5 General Fund Support for Infrastructure Maintenance 48 A
PPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 A
ppendix A: Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 App
endix B: Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Ap
pendix C: Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
Table 1: Updated Infrastructure Funding Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 T
able 2: Prioritization Score Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Ta
ble 3: Summary of Priority Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Tab
le 4: Funding Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Tab
le 5: Existing Debt Service and Tax Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Ta
ble 6: Debt Service Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Ta
ble 7: Summary of Tax Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Tab
le 8: Cities Interviewed and Their Capital Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Ta
ble 9: Vision 2050 Key Program Performance Indicators 45 F
igure 1: Street Corner View from Vision 2050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Fi
gure 2: Vision 2050 Principles, Strategies and Recommended Actions 6,8 F
igure 3: Timeline for Vision 2050 initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Fi
gure 4: Example Infrastructure Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Fi
gure 5: Vision 2050 Core Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Fi
gure 6: Infrastructure Funding Needs by Vision 2050 Outcome Objective 13 F
igure 7: Outcomes of the Program Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Fi
gure 8: Vision 2050 Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Fi
gure 9: Marina Community Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Fig
ure 10: Project Approval Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Fi
gure 11: Vision 2050 Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Fi
gure 12: Historical & Projected Property Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Fi
gure 13: Public Art in Berkeley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Tables
Figures

4 May 2022
01 THE INFRASTRUCTURE
PROGRAM PLAN: OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the Vision 2050 Initiative and describes the Program Plan.

5 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT

1.1 The Vision 2050 Initiative
The Vision 2050 initiative was introduced by Mayor
Arreguin at his 2017 State of the City address. He
described a complex network of pipes, streets,
utility wires, bikeways, and transportation systems
that are old and have suffered from historic
disinvestment, neglect, and poor maintenance. As
our infrastructure ages, we need a plan to make
sure our systems are resilient to handle a growing
population and climate change, including sea-level
rise, more flooding, and wildfires. As technological
innovations emerge and the condition of our
infrastructure declines, we have an enormous and
exciting opportunity to reimagine our streets and
public spaces. This initiative is about building a
future for Berkeley that provides essential services
for future generations.

In November 2018, Berkeley voters approved
Measure R. The Measure asked: “Shall the measure,
advising the Mayor to engage citizens and experts
in the development of Vision 2050, a 30-year plan
to identify and guide implementation of climate-
smart, technologically-advanced, integrated and
efficient infrastructure to support a safe, vibrant
and resilient future for Berkeley, be adopted?” The
response was a resounding yes.

A 40-member residents’ task force was formed and
the team analyzed quality of life, environmental
and technology trends, and funding issues. To help
keep focus on the future, the team imagined being
on a street corner in Berkeley in the year 2050.

What will Berkeley be like then? Figure 1 shows a
street corner view from 2050.

The task force worked diligently for 18 months
and developed the principles, strategies and
recommended actions shown on Figure 2.

Community engagement was at the center of
Vision 2050. Outreach began early in 2018 with
four information nights across Berkeley. Outreach
continued in an effort to reach people where they
already congregate, including neighborhood and
faith-based groups and community organizations.

From September 2018 to July 2019, the
Mayor’s Office presented at thirteen community
organization meetings in conversations that ranged
from a handful to one hundred people. Community
feedback was used to develop the principles,
strategies, and recommended actions.

Figure 1: Street Corner View from Vision 2050 report

6 May 2022

PRINCIPLES, STRATEGIES

AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
STATEGY ONE Use Integrated and Balanced Planning
Use multi-criteria decision-making
Use adaptive planning
Institute structured master planning
Develop an Asset Management Program
Prepare and implement a Dig Once policy
Accelerate the transition to clean energy and electrification Implement Complete Streets to provide sustainable
and healthy transportation
Develop natural streetscapes that provide ecosystem services Use sensors, data, and advanced technologies
Take advantage of a strong financial position to address infrastructure needs and commit to reducing large unfunded infrastructure liability by doubling capital expenditures Prepare a wildfire mitigation and safety plan
STATEGY THREE Adopt Sustainable and Safe Technologies
Develop an organization that is integrated and has
capacity to deliver
Prepare a program approach with management tools
Provide independent oversight and reporting
Prepare the City’s Organization to Implement
a Major Capital Program
STATEGY FOUR Invest in Our Future

STATEGY FIVE
STATEGY TWO Manage Infrastructure from Cradle to Grave
1 2
3 4
5 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
VISION 2050
The Vision 2050 Framework
focused on better coordination,
integrated project delivery,
utilizing new financing
mechanisms, and broad principles
and strategies for our infrastructure
needs. The Framework was
approved by Berkeley’s City
Council in September 2020. The
City Manager then turned to
implement the recommendations
and assigned the Public Works
Department to lead the effort.

A timeline for the Vision 2050
initiative is shown below.
2017
Mayor Arreguin announces
Vision 2050 Initiative
November 2018
Measure R approved
by voters
2018-2019
Residents task force
conducted analysis
September 2020
City Council approves
Vision 2050 Framework
Current
Implementation led by
City Manager
Figure 2: Vision 2050 Principles, Strategies, and Recommended Actions Figure 3: Timeline for Vision
2050 Initiative

7 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT

1.2 What is an Infrastructure Program Plan?
This Infrastructure Program Plan (Plan) is the
City of Berkeley’s roadmap to rebuild our public
infrastructure over the next 30 years. This Plan
supports the Vision 2050 principles and provides
information on outcome objectives, program
elements, community input, the funding plan,
program implementation, and program oversight
and reporting. The Plan serves as a roadmap to
guide the many infrastructure decisions that will
be required throughout the next three decades.

The Plan is flexible and adaptable, so the City can
anticipate and address new challenges that we
will face in the future. Why prepare a Plan now?
Improving the City’s infrastructure requires new
funding and a revenue measure or measures, which
voters may consider on the November 2022 ballot.

This Plan is prepared to provide the public with
an understanding of the “big picture” for Vision
2050 in advance of voting for new funding. This
approach is an advancement from prior measures.

The Plan describes the work at the asset category
level—streets, stormwater, parks, waterfront, etc. It
is not a project-by-project prioritization. That will
happen if voters approve funding, after which a
project and program team will be formed and an
oversight committee designated.

1.3 Core Values and Principles Guide our Planning
Berkeley’s streets, storm drains, sewers, and water
lines date back to the early decades of the 20th
century. Critical systems are simply wearing out.

Recent budgets have been insufficient to address
these infrastructure needs, let alone modernize
our systems or improve their resilience. As defined
in the City’s resilience strategy, resilience is the
capacity of individuals, communities, institutions,
businesses, and systems within a city to survive,
adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of chronic
stresses and acute shocks they experience.

The growing backlog of aging infrastructure leaves
the community vulnerable to unplanned failure and
service interruptions. For residents, workers, and
businesses, this can translate to unsafe conditions,
increased cost, and impediments to quality of life.

Examples of infrastructure needs are shown in
Figure 4.

As we begin to grapple with Berkeley’s unfunded
infrastructure needs, new challenges are emerging.

The local impacts of the global climate crisis
pose a major threat to our aging infrastructure.

Extreme storm events, wildfires, heat waves,
drought, groundwater, and sea level rise will
challenge streets, pipes, and open spaces that were
designed for a more benign environment. These
vulnerabilities are layered upon other acute risks
such as a major earthquake, and chronic challenges
such as inequity. If our city is to survive and thrive, we must increase our resilience to these challenges.

8 May 2022
Street Pavement Damage
Sidewalk Repair
Deteriorated Marina Dock
As we rebuild our infrastructure and, at the same
time, reimagine a landscape for a changing future,
our infrastructure decisions must remain flexible,
yet grounded in a set of clear values. For this
reason, the Vision 2050 Framework identified four
core values as shown in Figure 5. These values will
guide implementation of Vision 2050.

Figure 4: Example Infrastructure Needs
Figure 2: Vision 2050 Principles

9 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
Figure 5: Vision 2050 Core Values

10 May 2022
02 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

AND COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
This section provides an update on the City’s infrastructure funding needs and the community’s infrastructure priorities.

11 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT

2.1 Infrastructure Needs
The City has an extensive portfolio of capital assets
and infrastructure, including 216 miles of streets,
more than 300 miles of sidewalks, 255 miles of
sewers, 78 miles of underground storm drains, 95
public buildings, 52 parks, 2 pools, and 3 camps.

In addition, the City operates and maintains the
Berkeley Waterfront and its related facilities,
including the pier, docks, pilings, channel, streets,
pathways, parking lots, buildings, trails, Adventure
Playground, and 1,000 berth marina.

A City budget is prepared every two years and it
includes a Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

The City’s ability to fund its CIP is limited by the
total available resources that are competing with
other community priorities. CIP funding resources
include the General Fund, a number of special
revenue funds, grants, and loans. The CIP attempts
to identify all known CIP projects, categorizing them
as baseline (annual, recurring program), one-time
(special allocations, grants, loans), and unfunded
(funding source has yet to be identified).

The FY2022 CIP identified an infrastructure capital
funding need of more than $1 billion in Berkeley.

However, these infrastructure needs are constantly
changing due to increased construction costs
and new planning studies that result in updated
cost estimates. Past estimates also focused
primarily on “fix it first” type repairs rather than the transformational infrastructure sought by the Vision
2050 Framework.

For this reason, Table 1 provides an updated list
of infrastructure needs. This list includes updates
from prior estimates and advances Vision 2050 in
several significant ways. It adds asset categories
that are more than simply fixing or repairing an
asset and are about the ultimate use and safety of
the asset. For example, instead of solely identifying
the deferred maintenance in our pavement, the list
includes the cost of fully implementing our adopted
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans, which would keep
our streets safe for all users, especially bicyclists
and pedestrians. Instead of focusing solely on
traditional infrastructure, it includes trees as an
important infrastructure category and begins to
address the climate crises by building in the cost of
undergrounding the City’s evacuation routes.

Some of these categories have existing, dedicated
funding for which an increase is necessary to cover
these needs. Others categories may require multiple
revenue sources, such as the General Fund, grants,
State and Federal funding, developer contributions,
user rates, and new revenue sources. An estimate
of potential revenue from these funding sources is
provided in Section 4.

Figure 6 summarizes these same needs, grouped by
asset category within each of the four Vision 2050
Program outcomes discussed in Section 3. If these
needs are addressed, then Vision 2050’s goal of
resilient and sustainable infrastructure will
be reached.

12 May 2022
TABLE 1

INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEEDS
(These are updated on an ongoing basis)
Asset Category Infrastructure Funding
Needs, in 2022 dollars
More immediate needs
Parks, camps, and pools $81,000,000
Watefront $131,000,000
Public buildings $288,000,000
Sidewalks $60,000,000
Streets $248,000,000
Sewers $194,000,000
Stormwater $259,500,000
Traffic Controls, Streetlights, and Parking $26,000,000 Longer-term needs
Bike and Pedestrian plan projects $122,500,000
Maudelle Shirek Building (Old City Hall),
Veterans Memorial Building, Civic Center Park
$110,000,000
Transfer station and recycling center $76,000,000
Transit projects $45,000,000
Trees $21,000,000
Utility Undergrounding $105,000,000
Total Average $1,767,000,000
Table 1’s cost estimates are largely work that would
be capital funded. In some cases, such as with
streets and roads, the estimate includes recurring
annual costs to keep the asset performing at the
expected level and without deterioration. The
requirement to fund the annual maintenance of
assets is addressed in the Asset Management
Program discussed in Section 6.

13 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT

2.2 Community Input and Priorities
To better understand the community’s infrastructure
priorities, the following was completed in winter
2021 through spring 2022:
› Two statistically-reliable surveys of a
representative sample of 500 Berkeley voters
› Meetings with over 25 commissions and local
community organizations
› An online public survey that received over
1,000 responses
› An informational mailer to all Berkeley residents
› Development of a Vision 2050 website
BerkeleyVision2050.org
› Four virtual large area public meetings
All of these efforts have been instrumental in sharing
information and gaining input in the development of
this Program Plan.

A survey in October 2021 of a random,
representative sample of 500 Berkeley voters
elicited respondents’ infrastructure priorities and
found that voters’ top priorities included:
› Increasing affordable housing for
low-income and homeless residents
(79% rated as“important”)
› Upgrading storm drains, green infrastructure,
and watersheds to keep pollution from the Bay
(79% important)
› Developing climate change resiliency, including
protecting against sea level rise, wildfires and
drought (78% important)
› Undergrounding utilities to reduce the risk of
wildfire (73% important)
› Repairing deteriorating streets (73% important)
Figure 6: Infrastructure Funding Needs by Vision 2050 Outcome Objective

14 May 2022
An online survey was also conducted and a total
of 1,024 responses were received. For the most
part, the results from the online survey aligned with
the scientific survey. More so than the scientific
survey, street repair stood out as a clear top priority followed by affordable housing. The top five
ranked priorities are listed below, with percentages
indicating the number of respondents who ranked
the particular item as top priority:
› 28.5% – Street repair
› 19.2% – Affordable housing
› 8.3% – Bike lanes/safety
› 7.5% – Climate change resiliency
› 6.8% – Pedestrian safety
Input on this Program Plan was gained from four
large area public meetings held on March 30,
April 6, April 13, and April 20 and the following
Commissions: Environment and Climate, Disaster
and Fire Safety, Disabilities, Parks and Waterfront,
Public Works, and Transportation. Berkeley residents
brought their questions, input, and comments, a
summary of which can be found at
BerkeleyVision2050.org.

This program plan reflects input gathered from these
meetings, including:
› Adding regular five-year updates to the
Program Plan to ensure flexibility and keeping
up to date with technology
› Address overall vision
› Incorporate trees as public infrastructure assets
› Include indicator on tree canopy and diversity
› Address sidewalks
› Address equity and reference existing
equity-based plans
› Include transit
› Explain why affordable housing is being
considered for the revenue measure(s)
› Include developers’ fees as source of revenue
› Address General Fund commitments to
maintaining public infrastructure
› Include public art
› Revise indicators on EVs, sidewalks,
and micromobility
› Revise Program Delivery section to address
paving and traffic safety
› Include more on climate change, e.g., resilience
and electrification in buildings
› Include reference to the San Pablo Park pool
› Include coordination of programs/projects for
multiple benefits

15 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT

16 May 2022
03 INTRODUCING THE
30-YEAR PROGRAM PLAN

17 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT

3.1 Outcomes of the Program Plan
This Plan includes visible outcomes. Four major
outcomes have been identified that incorporate and
advance Vision 2050 principles and core values, and
incorporate community input received to date.

The outcomes are shown in Figure 7 and the related
infrastructure components are described below.

Figure 7: Outcomes of the Program Plan
The City’s infrastructure systems are very complex,
are in daily use, and can’t be improved all at once.

This Plan proposes making the improvements over
a 30-year planning period in order to achieve a
sustainable and resilient infrastructure. This is a
reasonable time frame given the need to balance
the work priority, the funding required, tax impacts,
and the ability to deliver the projects. This also
allows time for incorporating new technologies as
they develop.

This 30-year Program Plan provides the
following information:
› The major outcomes from implementing
the Plan
› Implementing the Plan over 30 years
in phases
› Possible results from the first phase

18 May 2022
Outcome 1 – Have Safe and Good Quality Streets
Streets are Safer, More Sustainable, Improved to a Good Condition, and Maintained
Having streets that are safer, use sustainable
technologies, and are in “good” or better condition
is a top priority from the community input, has
been a subject of City audits, and is a priority of
the Council. The asset categories to achieve this
outcome are described below.

Asset Category 1 – Street Surface
The poor condition of Berkeley’s streets has been
documented by the City Auditor’s report Rocky
Road: Berkeley Streets at Risk and Significantly
Underfunded, by residents’ complaints, and by an
overall low Pavement Condition Index (PCI). On a
scale of 0 to 100, streets in a “good” condition have
a PCI between 70 – 79. Berkeley’s streets are “at risk” with an overall average PCI of 57. From a community
survey conducted in the fall of 2021, improving
the condition of Berkeley’s streets is one of the
community’s highest infrastructure priorities. The
target is to improve Berkeley’s streets to a PCI
of more than 70.

Berkeley’s streets in 2050 will look much different
than today. Personal automobiles will be rarer,
and public transit, ride sharing services, bicycling,
and walking more common. Streets will better
serve all users, and include visible engineering
improvements that make bicycling and walking
safer. These streets will make transit easier, safer,
faster, and more reliable to access and use. Work in
our streets will also require a coordinated approach
to the infrastructure above, both at and below the
street surface. This will require planning that is
integrated and uses concepts such as “Dig Once” .

We also will use other street surface technologies
that are long lasting, help absorb stormwater and
reduce pollution, reduce surface temperatures
and the “urban heat island” effect, and reduce our
dependence on asphalt paving, the production of
which generates greenhouse gas emissions.

The expected outcome is for Berkeley’s street
surface to be in an overall “good” condition, to move
toward using sustainable technologies, and to have
Vision Zero and Dig Once policies
fully implemented.

Asset Category 2 - Sidewalks
Most Berkeley residents use a sidewalk daily, and
many of us much more. Sidewalks in 2050 will be
an even more important part of the transportation
network. They will accommodate and promote the
City’s trees and healthy urban forest, serve users
of all levels of ability and accessibility, and use
materials that help filter stormwater and reduce
Reimagine Streets:
› Implement Multi modal Streets with
Protected Sidewalks and Bike Lanes
› Introduce Pervious and/or
Cool Pavement
› Reclaim Street Parking for Trees
and Vegetation
› Promote transit use
Figure 8: Vision 2050 Streets

19 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
surface temperatures. At present, the City faces a
backlog of thousands of sidewalk repairs that have
been requested by residents. While Measure T1
has significantly reduced that backlog, the backlog
is about to grow again as City staff complete the
first proactive assessment of the City’s sidewalks to
identify repair locations. This proactive assessment
is being conducted as part of the City’s update to
its Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Transition Plan.

The City addresses sidewalk repairs with short-term
grinding and filling of problem areas and long-term
replacement of damaged sidewalks. Where conflicts
with the urban forest exist, tools like meandering
sidewalks are used to reduce or resolve those
conflicts and make tree removal a last resort.

The expected outcome is for the backlog of
Berkeley’s sidewalk repairs to be completed and to
have adequate resources to address future
repair needs.

Asset Category 3 – Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plans
Eighty percent of the collisions that result in deaths
or severe injuries on our streets involve someone
riding a bike or walking. Making our streets safer
means prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian safety.

This is especially important to help more residents
and workers choose these fossil fuel-free active
transportation modes, and is why Berkeley’s vision
for the future of its transportation network is to be
multi-modal, fossil-fuel free, and equitably accessed.

The City has adopted the 2017 Bicycle Plan and the
2020 Pedestrian Plan, and has identified projects
to help to bring the City closer to these safe and
accessible multi-modal goals.

The City is transforming the City’s bicycle network
into a low-stress experience with a goal of reducing
motor vehicle conflicts and connecting cyclists with
the most utilized portions of the City. At the end
of the program, over 50 miles of city streets will
comprise bikeways, with 15.8 miles of these streets
being full bicycle boulevards that criss-cross the City.

Walking is also a core mode of transportation in
Berkeley. Improving walkability makes Berkeley
safer, more inclusive, and more connected.

As the most accessible and affordable form
of transportation, walking lies at the core of
an equitable mobility network and a healthy
community. In addition to enhancing Berkeley’s
quality of life, improving walking will help the City
to achieve its Vision Zero Policy goal of zero traffic
deaths and severe injuries.

The Berkeley Pedestrian Plan includes an
infrastructure inventory and an assessment of
pedestrian dema
nd and safety. The plan identifies ten
priority street segments requiring projects to improve
pedestrian safety and walkability. Projects provide
improved street design, upgraded pedestrian crossings,
installed speed management and traffic calming, and
improved sidewalk maintenance and accessibility.

The expected outcome is for Berkeley’s Bicycle and
Pedestrian plans to be fully implemented.

20 May 2022
Outcome 2 – Protect the Environment
Infrastructure is Resilient, Protects the Environment, and is Adapted to Climate Change Impacts
Global warming is a significant threat to
communities globally and to the City of Berkeley.

Berkeley’s 2009 Climate Action Plan, 2016 Resilience
Strategy, and 2019 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
establish city-wide actions to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and adapt to climate change impacts.

The message is clear that the City’s infrastructure
must be resilient to prepare the City for these risks.

Key goals of the City’s climate action plans are to
use energy more efficiently, transition to renewable
energy as a power source for both buildings and
transportation, improve access to sustainable
transportation modes, recycle our waste, and build
local food systems. The asset categories to achieve
this outcome are described below.

Asset Category 1 - Stormwater and
Watershed Management
The 2012 Watershed Management Plan (WMP)
identified projects to improve storm drains,
restore creeks, attenuate peak flows and to reduce
pollutants entering San Francisco Bay. That project
modelled the Potter and Codornices watersheds.

The City is in the process of updating the WMP .

The updated plan will consider flooding and
drought caused by extreme storm events, sea
level, and groundwater rise, implementation of the
Green Infrastructure Plan, and modelling of all the
watersheds. Infrastructure improvements will include
storm drains, flow attenuation basins, permeable
surfaces, bio-swales, and improvements at
Aquatic Park.

The expected outcome is to have a stormwater
system that addresses future climate impacts,
reduces impervious surfaces, minimizes flooding,
meets the City’s stormwater discharge permit into
San Francisco Bay, prevents pollution from reaching
the San Francisco Bay, and revitalizes the
urban watershed.

Asset Category 2 - Sewers
The City’s wastewater collection system includes
approximately 254 miles of City-owned sanitary
Asset Category 4 - Traffic Controls,
Streetlights, and Parking
In support of creating safe, accessible, and easy to
use streets, the City of Berkeley is planning upgrades
to existing traffic signals, including detection at 67
locations, ADA accessibility, pedestrian push buttons
at 103 locations, and battery back-ups at 124
locations. Public Works maintains 8,011 streetlights
and is planning replacements and upgrades of
2,100 parking meters and 240 pay stations.

The expected outcome is for these traffic controls,
streetlights, and parking needs to be addressed.

21 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
sewers, 7,200 manholes and other sewer structures,
seven pump stations, and approximately 31,600
service laterals. The City is responsible for
maintenance and repair of the lower portion of
the service laterals (located within the public right-
of-way) from the property line cleanout to the
connection to the City’s sewer main. Wastewater
generated in the City’s collection system is conveyed
to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
wastewater interceptor system and is treated at
EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant.

During the 1980s, EBMUD and the seven Satellite
agencies conducted studies to address the problem
of overflows and bypasses of untreated wastewater
that occurred during large wet weather events
due to excessive infiltration and inflow (I/I) into the collection systems. These studies resulted in a long-
term program of construction of collection system
relief sewers and sewer rehabilitation. The City has
rehabilitated or replaced over 200 miles of its gravity sewers and associated lower laterals over the past
30 years. Since 2006, the City has also implemented
a private sewer lateral (PSL) certification program
requiring the inspection and/or repair or
replacement of private (upper) sewer laterals at the
time of property transfer or major building remodel.

The seven Satellites and EBMUD are in a Consent
Decree with the U.S EPA, the State Water Resources
Control Board, and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board, which establishes requirements for
achieving the elimination of untreated wastewater
overflows and bypasses over the next 20 to 25 years.

The expected outcome is to comply with the City’s
requirements in the Consent Decree and seal the
sewer system from storm water intrusion, thereby
reducing the risk of untreated sewage reaching the
Bay during wet weather. This will become even more
important as storms intensify due to the
climate crisis.

Asset Category 3 - Undergrounding
Overhead Utility Wires
The City of Berkeley’s stated goal, as outlined in
the General Plan, Disaster Preparedness and Safety
Element, is to ensure the City’s disaster related
efforts are directed toward preparation, mitigation,
response and recovery from disaster shocks. The
Berkeley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan states that our
two greatest disaster challenges are a Hayward Fault
rupture and Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) fire.

The climate crisis will result in periods of drought
followed by very wet winters, producing heavy
vegetation, dry summers, and hot easterly winds
in the late summer. These conditions are known to
create significant fires such as the 1991 Oakland
Hills Tunnel Fire and fires in many parts of California in the past five years.

Methods to reduce the threat of overhead
wires creating WUI fires include aggressive
vegetation management and other fire hardening
techniques. Overhead power lines, more so than
undergrounded wires, can exacerbate unsafe
conditions either by contributing to the disaster itself or hampering public safety efforts and evacuations.

Earthquakes and landslides can knock over utility
poles creating a special hazard. In an earthquake,

22 May 2022
poles have a tendency to sway in opposite directions
causing wires to snap and throw sparks. Some of
California’s biggest fires have started because of live wires in contact with combustible fuel.

The Public Works Commission led a three-phase
study to underground overhead utility wires in
Berkeley. The Phase 3 report recommended
undergrounding along evacuation routes to support
public safety through ingress of first responders
and egress of community members in the event of a
major disaster.

The expected outcome is to implement the Phase 3
study recommendations to underground overhead
utility wires along Berkeley’s evacuation routes and
to support neighborhoods in fire zones that choose
to underground.

Asset Category 4 – Electrification
of Buildings Neighborhoods
and Transportation
A major goal of Vision 2050 is to decrease the City’s
overall climate impact. This effort requires both the
reduction of City-wide energy use and transition
away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The
Existing Buildings Electrification Strategy in 2021
transitions existing buildings in Berkeley from natural gas appliances to all-electric alternatives in a way
that benefits all residents, especially members of
historically marginalized communities. As identified
in the City’s Resilience Strategy and Climate Action
Plan, Berkeley seeks an energy system that, by 2045,
is carbon neutral and delivers carbon-free electricity
across a highly distributed system. Multifaceted
changes to existing infrastructure and its uses are
required to achieve carbon neutrality. Improvements
to the existing energy grid may include, among
other items:
› Increasing electricity distribution capacity to
accommodate neighborhood electrification and
mobility charging, in coordination with streets
and other infrastructure improvements
› Improving or expanding access to transformers,
vaults, and switchgears
› Seeking opportunities to decommission
gas pipes in areas where buildings or
neighborhoods are transitioning to all-electric
› Supporting solar energy and storage for critical
facilities that prioritizes renewable backup
power over diesel generators, including mobile
batteries and electric vehicle-to-
building connections
› Increasing electric vehicle infrastructure
for municipal fleet and distributed mobility
charging for residents
The expected outcome is to achieve the City’s goal
of becoming a fossil fuel-free city as soon
as possible.

Asset Category 5 – Urban Forest
The City’s municipal forest includes approximately
42,000 street, park, and median trees. These are
often referred to as “city trees” or “public trees.”

CLIMATE EQUITY FUND

PILOT PROGRAMS
In 2021, the Berkeley City Council allocated
$600,000 for Climate Equity Fund Pilot
Programs that provide decarbonization
and resilience programs for low income
community members to retrofit homes,
increase access to electric bikes or other
forms of electric micro mobility, and gain
access to resilience measures and other
electrification measures.

23 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
They are maintained by the Parks, Recreation, and
Waterfront’s Urban Forestry Unit, which performs
pruning, removing, and planting trees. These trees
are hard at work. They remove pollutants and carbon
dioxide from the air, help cool the City during the
summer, absorb stormwater during storms, and help
the City stay green and support a high quality of life.

However, there are approximately 10,000 vacant tree
locations and many of these locations are in areas
with higher proportions of low-income residents
of color. The expected outcome is to increase our
City’s tree canopy by planting thousands more trees
for the purpose of enhancing our urban forest,
sequestering carbon, addressing equity, mitigating
urban heat island impacts, and improving quality
of life.

Asset Category 6 - Specific Resilience
Infrastructure Assets
While limiting City-wide climate impact is necessary,
the effects of global warming are already testing
traditional infrastructure and will continue to push
our resources to their limits. Worsening drought
conditions, increased risk of extreme weather
events such as flooding and sea level rise create
major challenges for our water supplies, watershed
management, and resilience of our underground
infrastructure systems. These events also have
implications on the safety, health, and well-being
of the community. The City has identified several
new technologies and infrastructure to build while
working towards climate adaptation and resilience.

Some of the new infrastructure and adaptation
strategies include:
› Develop rainwater catchments, expanding
the use of gray water and expanding the
distribution and use of EDMUD recycled water
(purple pipe) for landscaping irrigation.
› Use natural green infrastructure solutions
including infiltration basins, wetlands,
bioswales, permeable paving, etc. to mitigate
flooding from the combined effects of
groundwater, sea level rise, and extreme
rain events.
› Increase the urban forestry canopy and use cool
paving technologies to protect against
extreme heat.
› Upgrade Community Resilience Centers
and Resilience Hubs to ensure respite and
evacuation capacity.
› Identify and manage urban – wildland forest
canopy to mitigate wildfire risks.
› Install technologies such as air filtration to
mitigate wildfire smoke impacts.
› Use “cool” paving and reduce dark asphalt
street surfaces to combat urban heat
island effects.
› Improve seismic safety systems in City facilities
to reduce impacts from future earthquakes.

24 May 2022
Outcome 3 – Promote Quality of Life
Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Improve Our Quality of Life A key outcome of the Vision 2050 initiative is to
improve our overall quality of life through the
promotion of open spaces, parks, and recreational
opportunities. The asset categories to achieve this
outcome are described below.

Asset Category 1 - Parks
The City has 52 parks that contain 15 athletic fields,
49 sports courts (basketball and tennis), and 63 play
areas. Many parks need significant improvements
to pathways, lighting, irrigation systems, play
structures, and athletic fields. The expected outcome
is to implement these improvements.

Asset Category 2 – Pools
The City has two swimming pools, one by King
Middle School and the other at West Campus. The
pools require improvements to the locker rooms and
office areas, and improvements to piping, decking,
tiling, and roofs. While the King pool has a 30-year
lease, the West Campus site has a five-year lease
with the possibility that a new pool will be built at
San Pablo Park that serves south and west
Berkeley residents.

Asset Category 3 – Park Buildings
and Restrooms
The City has four community centers, 2 clubhouses,
29 restrooms, and outbuildings. Many of the
required improvements have been made with
funding from Measure T1. Future improvements
include seismic/deferred maintenance at some
park buildings, renovation of existing restrooms,
and construction of new restrooms. The
expected outcome is to implement the required
improvements, including electrification, elimination
of natural gas connections, and the addition of solar
and battery storage, where feasible.

Asset Category 4 – Camps
The City of Berkeley’s non-resident camps include
Cazadero Camp located off the Russian River, Echo
Lake Camp located just above South Lake Tahoe,
and Berkeley Tuolumne Camp located just east of
Yosemite Park. These camps include hundreds of
facilities, amphitheaters, bridges, pathways, water
systems, and swimming pools.

There are two significant camp projects in progress.

The rebuilding of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp is
nearly completed and is scheduled to reopen in the
summer of 2022. At Cazadero Camp, the Jensen
Dorm, which was destroyed by a landslide in 2016,
has been reconstructed. These projects are primarily
funded by insurance.

The expected outcome is to complete the
construction at the camps and to have them back
in operation.

Asset Category 5 – Waterfront
The Waterfront is the largest public marina in the
Bay Area located on 125 acres of land and 50
acres of water, and includes approximately 1,040
berths, public access docks, pilings, channels,
streets, pathways, parking lots, buildings, restrooms,
buildings, and small boat launch ramps.

There are many funding needs at the Waterfront,

25 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
Outcome 4 – Have Safe Public Facilities
Public Facilities are Safe, Resilient, and Provide Community Placemaking The City is responsible for maintenance of 95
facilities, not including Library facilities and facilities leased to other entities. These facilities include 39
facilities in the Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront
inventory and 56 facilities in the Public Works
inventory. These facilities house City staff and are
places where residents receive public services.

These facilities need to be safe, healthy, and resilient, and provide community placemaking, where the
connection between people and these places is
strengthened. The asset categories to achieve this
outcome are described below.

Asset Category 1 – Public Buildings
In 2013, staff retained a consultant to perform
assessments and provide updated condition reports
and cost estimates for the City’s facility inventory.

The recommended improvements are extensive.

All projects included in these assessments are
considered either major maintenance or capital
projects. Despite support from a variety of City
funds, the cost for routine maintenance, major
maintenance, and capital improvements far exceeds
currently existing sources of funds.

The expected outcome is that condition
assessments of the City’s public buildings will be
conducted regularly, and necessary improvements
identified and completed. These improvements
include electrification, elimination of natural gas
where many of the facilities have reached the
end of their useful life and are starting to fail.

As documented in multiple reports, there is a
diminishing ability to pay for the pressing capital
needs in the Waterfront. The Marina Fund is the
City’s mechanism for managing all Waterfront
revenues and expenditures. Revenues steeply
declined in the last two years as a result of safety
and security concerns and failing infrastructure.

The combination of falling revenue and increasing
expenditure needs have strained the relatively small
Marina Fund to a breaking point.

The City has begun a long-term planning effort
– the Berkeley Marina Area Specific Plan (Figure
9)– to establish the community’s vision for the
Waterfront and to plan for making the Marina
Fund viable and stable. There is still a need to
address urgent infrastructure repairs to finger
docks, pilings, electrical systems, and restrooms.

If these investments are not made, facilities and
infrastructure will either require more costly
emergency funding or be closed as in the case of
the Berkeley Pier.

The expected outcome is to make the urgent repairs,
complete the Berkeley Marina Area Specific Plans,
and to return the Marina Fund to solvency.
› Ensure Structural Integrity
› Develop for Recreational Use
Figure 9: Marina Community Vision

26 May 2022
connections, and addition of solar and battery
storage, where feasible.

Asset Category 2 – Civic Center
The Civic Center comprises portions of the area
surrounding Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park
including the Maudelle Shirek Building “Old City
Hall” (1909) and the Veterans Memorial Building
(1928). Presently, the historic buildings have
decades of accumulated deferred maintenance
and are seismically unsound. As part of the city’s
Measure T1 program, the Veterans Memorial
Building and Old City Hall were slated for structural
analysis and visioning of possible conceptual design
alternatives, in concert with Civic Center Park. A
consultant was retained to conduct a community
outreach strategy, perform an assessment of the
existing infrastructures, identify programs and
functions for the two buildings, develop concepts
for improvements for the Park. The consultant
completed this work and presented a suite of
financing and revenue generation strategies for the
facility. City Council approved the following vision:

The expected outcome is to design and construct
a Civic Center consistent with this vision and to
provide placemaking.

Asset Category 3 – Transfer Station and
Recycling Center
The city’s current solid waste transfer station was
opened in 1983. In the late 1980s, Berkeley’s
recycling operations relocated to the site to be
operated by the Community Conservation Center.

In the 1990s, the residential recyclable collection
operator, the Ecology Center, was allocated an area
at the site for its operations yard and office building.

These facilities are not integrated and operations are
not coordinated in a way that provides customers
ease of use, access, or efficient drop-off of materials.

These facilities do not meet current seismic
requirements, have not been upgraded or improved
since constructed, exceed their serviceable life, and
cannot help meet the city’s Zero Waste Goal.

The city retained a consultant to conduct a feasibility study to build a new solid waste transfer and
recycling facility. Through active collaboration and
community participation between November 2018
to May 2019, the city has developed a consensus
around two conceptual facility designs.

The expected outcome is that the CEQA analysis
and design of the approved project will be
completed and a replacement facility constructed
that helps the city achieve its Zero Waste goal.

CIVIC CENTER VISION
The Civic Center will be the heart of Berkeley’s
community. Civic Center will be the prime
space for civic life, culture, and the arts. It will
reflect the city’s diverse identities, celebrating
its history, and contributing to shaping its
future. A place of shared resources and a
platform for free expression accessible to all,
Civic Center aims to manifest the city’s values,
advance social justice, and demonstrate the
power of true public space.

Award Winning Remodel of
the Mental Health Building

27 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT

3.2 Work Prioritization and Phasing
The Vision 2050 program is planned to be
implemented over 30 years in approximately three,
10-year phases. Due to the work’s complexity and
volume, an understandable prioritization process
is needed to sequence the work. The Program Plan
uses a scoring system based on these components
and weighting:
› Envision criteria, 60% weighting
› Community input criteria, 40% weighting
The Vision 2050 report recommended the use of
multi-criteria decision-making and suggested using
the Envision criteria as prioritization tool. Envision
is a program that is organized by the Institute for
Sustainable Infrastructure and provides an objective
framework of criteria designed to help identify
ways in which sustainable approaches can be used
to plan, design, construct, and operate individual
infrastructure projects.

The Envision framework includes 64 sustainability
and resilience indicators organized around five
categories: quality of life, leadership, resource
allocation, natural world, and climate and resilience.

Envision is now widely applied to civil infrastructure
projects akin to LEED certification. This criteria is
given a weighting of 60%.

The other criteria comprises community input
from the surveys, online feedback and community
meetings. What the community wants for Berkeley
is important and this criteria is given a weighting of
40%. The resulting criteria and score sheet is shown
on Table 2.

Envision Criteria (Weight 60%)
Community Input Criteria (Weight 40%)
TABLE 2:

PRIORITIZATION SCORE CARD

28 May 2022
Each asset category was rated using the score sheet,
and initial scoring was completed by managers
in the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and
Waterfront departments. A summary of the scoring
results is shown on Table 3. This rating is intended
as a general guideline for resource allocation. It
does not dictate when the works gets done as there
may be other project requirements. For planning
purposes, the work can be placed in three priority
groups as shown in Table 3. This can serve as a start
for the planning of a 30-year program. More details
of the 3-phase program will be developed by the
program team, should voters approve new funding
for the program. Ultimately, the City Council will
select the projects to fund and their timing.

The Program Plan’s goal is to ensure all of these
asset categories become Priority 1 well before
2050. Asset categories in Priorities 1 and 2 are most
aligned to resilience and sustainability measures in
the criteria and are closest to being able to move
into construction. Many of the asset categories
in Priorities 2 and 3 require more public process,
planning, and/or engineering, some of which may
be supported by a revenue measure or measures.

Some of these asset categories, such as sewer, have
sufficient, dedicated funding sources that make
them unnecessary to prioritize for new
revenue funding.

When sufficient funding mechanisms and the project
team are in place, the work of selecting projects will
begin. The process will be carried out separately for
each 10-year program phase. The project selection
process is shown on Figure 10. This process is
being used successfully on the second phase of the
Measure T1 program. Projects that are identified as
high priority for implementation within each 10-year
phase will move forward to final acceptance after
staff analysis, community and Commission input, and
City Council review and approval. The prioritization
of the projects will use the scorecard shown on Table
2, or as updated at the time.

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF PRIORITY SCORING
Priority Asset Category by Score
1 Streets
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan projects
Sidewalks
2 Undergrounding
Stormwater
Parks
Trees
Waterfront
3 Traffic Controls, Streetlights,
and Parking
Transit projects
Civic center
City buildings
Transfer station
Sewer

29 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
Figure 10: Project Approval Process

30 May 2022
04 THE PLAN’S FUNDING,

RESULTS, AND TAX IMPACT
This section describes a high-level funding approach to achieving resilient and sustainable infrastructure by 2050, the various sources of funds available for this work, results that could be delivered, and a review of the tax impacts on residents for implementing a Vision 2050 program.

31 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT

4.1 Funding Sources
Achieving a resilient and sustainable infrastructure
by 2050 will require new revenue from a variety of
sources, including new voter-approved measures.

Adjustment to user fees and rates that are dedicated
to certain services will be another important source
of infrastructure funding. For example, Berkeley’s
sewer system is operated and maintained through
user fees charged to customers. Through financial
analysis, staff have determined that the $194
million needed in the city’s sewer systems can be
addressed in the next decade or so with cost-of-
living adjustments to existing rates. Other services
have dedicated funding sources (or rates), but
that funding falls short. This is true of the city’s
stormwater fee and a special parcel tax for parks
and trees. Other sources of funds include grants
(federal, state, and other), developer fees, city funds (including the General Fund), and property owner
fees, e.g., 50/50 sidewalk repairs.

Figure 11 shows the anticipated funding sources
that will be available to complete each of the four
Program outcomes and deliver sustainable and
resilient infrastructure by 2050. This is a high-level
projection with many assumptions yet to be proven,
but is offered to show a funding path to the Vision
2050 destination and its dependence on a variety of
revenue sources.

Figure 11: Vision 2050 Funding Sources

32 May 2022

4.2 Funding Alternatives
For the November 2022 ballot, two types of
infrastructure revenue measures are being
considered: a General Obligation Bond (or
Infrastructure Bond) and Parcel Tax.

General Obligation Bonds (GO Bonds) are paid
by an ad valorem property tax based on taxable
property assessed value and can only be used
to fund capital improvements (no maintenance,
operations or services). GO Bonds are considered
the most secure type of municipal debt and carry
the lowest interest rates given the taxing power
for repayment of the debt service. GO Bonds can
also be structured to match the life expectancy of
the infrastructure improvements and be issued in
independent series as required based on project
costs and timing. This phasing can allow for a better
alignment of infrastructure utilization and repayment
of the debt. Also, bond measures are generally
considered progressive forms of taxation since they
are based on the assessed value of properties.

The city has historically managed its GO Bond
program for each authorization (Measures G, S, I,
FF, M, T1 and O) through the issuance of individual
bond series calculated to meet the capital funding
requirements of the projects. Bonds were issued
in amounts that minimized the impact on the tax
rate required to make debt service payments. Since
1992, the city has maintained annual tax rates below
original projections represented to voters for each
of the GO Bond authorizations.

A Parcel Tax is a property tax that generates
annual special revenues for capital, operations,
maintenance and services. State law provides for
a number of different tax formulas for levies to all
properties (residential and commercial) including
per parcel, building square footage or land use.

A parcel tax cannot be based on property value.

A parcel tax based on building square feet is
generally considered a progressive form of taxation
since larger properties pay more than smaller
properties, and exemptions for seniors and low-
income property owners are allowed.

Given the scale of the infrastructure need, the
Program Plan assumes an initial funding phase in
the range of $600M, to be generated through one
or more voter-approved measures in November
2022. The measures could include a single $600M
GO Bond (Infrastructure Bond) or a combination of
a $300M GO Bond and an additional $0.30 building
square foot parcel tax.

Comparisons of general obligation bonds and
parcel taxes are summarized in Table 4 on the
next page.

Option #1 – $600 million GO Bond
(Infrastructure Bond)
A $600 million GO Bond would be used to fulfill a
portion of the asset replacement priorities following
the priorities developed using the Vision 2050/
Envision prioritization scorecard, as discussed
above. This distribution of funds would focus on
improving the city’s street, traffic, and pedestrian
safety, which present the highest risk for any of the
Asset Categories. Such a measure could have the
following investment priorities:
› $250 million – Outcome 1: Streets are safe,
sustainable, and in good condition

33 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
TABLE 4

FUNDING MECHANISMS
Type GO Bond Parcel Tax
TAX BASIS Assessed Value (AV) Building square footage
USE OF FUNDS Capital only Capital + Maintenance
TAX PROGRESSIVITY Progressive Progressive
EXEMPTIONS None Low income/senior
PROS Relative tax burden decreases as
total AV increases
Fixed payments with cost of living
adjustments, funds capital and
maintenance
CONS
Cannot pay for maintenance
or operations
Does not adjust for future costs
Increases tax burden if building
square footage increases
› $150 million – Special Need: Affordable
housing for low-income and homeless residents
› $125 million – Outcome 2: Infrastructure is
resilient and adapts to climate change
› $75 million – Outcomes 3 and 4: Other public
infrastructure improvements
This option funds the community’s top priorities
voiced in the public outreach: affordable housing,
street repair, and resilience to climate change.

Street repair is also the top and most urgent
need identified by online survey respondents,
and is supported by the city’s prioritization using
the Vision 2050/Envision scorecard. This option
would significantly reduce the city’s risk related to
infrastructure unfunded liabilities, and improve the
City’s streets to good condition while making streets
safer for all users.

Why is affordable housing included in these possible revenue measures? The Vision 2050 Framework focused on infrastructure, not affordable housing. However, on April 27, 2021, City Council approved exploring revenue measures that addressed both infrastructure and affordable housing, given both were top priorities for residents. Housing and infrastructure are connected. Ensuring affordable housing in a city such as Berkeley reduces greenhouse gas emissions because it affords lower and middle-income residents an opportunity to live closer to where they work, which means less emissions getting to work. At the same time, ensuring affordable housing is an important tool for ensuring a diverse and equitable city, which is an important priority of our community and City Council.

34 May 2022
Option #2 – Bond and Parcel
Tax Measures
Multiple measures on the November 2020 ballot
could include the following:
› An parcel tax of $0.30 per building square foot,
raising approximately $28 million annually,
that is dedicated to streets and traffic safety as
described under Outcome No. 1
› An infrastructure bond of $300 million with
$150 million to address affordable housing for
low-income persons and the unhoused and
$150 million to improve resilience to climate
change, wildfire prevention and protection, and
to improve other select public infrastructure, as
described in Outcome No. 2, 3, and 4
Similar to Option No. 1, this approach also funds
voters’ top priorities. In addition, having multiple
measures provides more flexible sources of funding
that could address maintenance needs in addition
to capital improvements. Results from these
investments are likely to be better than the results
from Option No. 1. However, each of these measures
would have to separately meet the two-thirds
voter-support threshold for approval. If one or both
measures are not approved by voters, the city will
not be able to address the current backlog of
infrastructure or housing needs.

Results
Per Section 4.1, these results assume the City
continues its track record of successfully leveraging
state, federal, and regional grants, and City Council
allocates a total of $15 million to annual paving from
non-revenue measure sources in order to ensure
proper ongoing maintenance of the City’s streets.

These investments would:
› Improve streets to good paving condition
› Implement 75%+ of adopted traffic safety plans
(bike/ped) and achieve Berkeley’s vision of a
low-stress bike network
› Complete selected sea level rise projects,
and begin to implement undergrounding of
evacuation routes and the stormwater/green
infrastructure plan
› Assist in advancing the city’s park and public
realm projects, e.g., Waterfront and Civic
Center Renovation
One significant caveat is that Option #2 is much
better positioned to deliver these needs after
accounting for costs that increase in future years.

A parcel tax can include an annual cost of living
adjustment, whereas a GO bond’s funding maximum
amounts are static.

35 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
Property tax rates for Berkeley property owners are
comparable to neighboring cities. After accounting
for ad valorem taxes, city voter-approved taxes and
assessments, school district taxes, and other fixed
charges, FY 2021 tax rates in Berkeley (1.58%) were
on par with Oakland (1.54%) and lower than in
Albany (1.89%).

The city’s prior bond issuances include Measure
FF (neighborhood libraries), Measures G, S, and I
(public safety, main library/seismic retrofit, animal
shelter), Measure O (affordable housing), Measure
M (streets and watershed), and Measure T1
(infrastructure and public facilities). Debt service
from prior bond measures constitutes only 3.2% of
the average property owner’s tax bill.

The city has a current debt service of $52.90 per
$100,000, which is low compared to nearby cities
and their school districts, as shown in the table
below. Even after implementation of Options 1 or 2,
the city’s debt service will continue to be lower than
nearby cities and school districts.

The city has historically maintained low GO Bond
tax rates as shown in Figure 12. This represents
the previously approved bond measures including
the remaining bonds for Measures T1 and O to be
issued over the next four years.

If voters approved a $600 million GO bond,
the maximum tax required for the new bond
authorization will be $91 per $100,000 of assessed
value. Assuming the existing GO bond authorization
capacity are issued as scheduled, the cumulative
debt service on all GO Bonds will increase through
2036, and then begin to decrease as prior bonds
are paid off. Over the life of the $600M GO Bond,

4.3 Review of Tax Implications
TABLE 5

EXISTING DEBT SERVICE

AND TAX IMPACT
2021/22 Tax Rates Total GO Bond
Tax Burden
Per $100,000 $52.90
Average Tax
(based on assessed
property value of
$647,972)
$342.78
TABLE 6

DEBT SERVICE COMPARISON
City or District
Debt Service per
$100,000 of
Assessed Value
City of Oakland $201.10
Albany School District $195.00
Berkeley School District $145.10
City of Albany $130.30
Oakland School District $120.20
City of Berkeley plus
Option 1, $600M Bond
$103.90
(average)
City of Berkeley plus
Option 2, $300M bond
$79.75
(average)
City of Berkeley
(current)
$52.90
(average)

36 May 2022
a property owner will have an average annual
property tax of $51 per $100,000 of assessed value.

If a $300 million bond is approved by voters, the
average annual property tax is estimated to be
$26 per $100,000 of assessed value (excluding the
existing GO Bond authorizations). Due to this lower
bond amount being insufficient to address the City’s
infrastructure need, it is coupled with a separate
parcel tax at an estimated value of $0.30 per square
foot of developed property. Assuming average
developed property size of 1,900 square feet, this
parcel tax would add $570 annually to the average
property owner’s tax bill, which is comparable to the
annual cost of refuse service based on a
32-gallon cart.

Below is a summary of the tax impacts of these
options on an average property, assumed to be an
average valued house at $647,972 (assessed value)
with 1,900 sq ft.

Figure 12: Historical & Projected Property Tax
TABLE 7

SUMMARY OF TAX IMPACTS
Option #1 $600M
GO Bond
Option #2 $300M
GO Bond + Parcel Tax
Tax Rate ($100,000 A.V.)
Avg $51
Max $91
Avg Bond =
Parcel =
$27
30 cents per sq. ft.

Tax (Avg Home: $647,972;
1,900 sq ft)
Avg $332
Max $589
Avg Bond =
Parcel =
Total =
$166
$570
$736

37 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
Infrastructure spending has other benefits. It creates
jobs. The U.S. Department of Transportation has
found that for every $1 billion in infrastructure
investment, 13,000 jobs are created. In a place like
Berkeley, which follows both state law on public
works expenditures and local law via a Community
Workforce Agreement, this means jobs that pay
prevailing wages and benefits.

Infrastructure spending also can add art to our
public spaces. If 1 percent of a revenue measure is
dedicated to local public art, as was the case with
Measure T1, or City Council commits an annual
General Fund allotment of a similar amount, then
Berkeley’s public spaces will get more public art.

Public art plays an integral role in improving our
community’s wellbeing by creating inspired spaces
that reflect the unique character of our city. Public art breathes life into the built environment, engages the
community with creative art experiences, and fosters
a sense of belonging.

4.4 Other Benefits of Infrastructure Spending
Art Installation at Civic Center Garage
Statue of William Byron Rumford
Art Installation at Shattuck & Center
Figure 13: Public Art in Berkeley

38 May 2022
05 PROGRAM DELIVERY
The City has well-established capital project divisions in the Public Works Department and Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Departments, delivering a wide range of infrastructure projects. Given this major 30-year program to rebuild infrastructure, this section looks ahead on how the City will deliver the program, evaluating the City’s current capabilities, sharing information on other cities’ approaches to implementing large capital programs, and recommending actions to implement the Vision 2050 program.

39 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT

5.1 Current Organization and Measure T1 Implementation
Capital projects are delivered by the Engineering
and Transportation Divisions in the Public Works
Department, and Capital Projects Division of the
Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department. Most
of this work is based on regular, annual contributions
from special funds, including ratepayer funds (sewer,
stormwater, and streetlight) and a parks-focused
parcel tax.

As shown in the table below, capital investments
have more than doubled in the last decade.

This growth has largely been driven by Measure T1
and the large project to rebuild Tuolumne Camp.

In November of 2016, Berkeley voters passed
Measure T1, authorizing the city to sell $100 million
of General Obligation Bonds to repair, renovate,
replace, or reconstruct portions of the city’s
aging infrastructure.

The City of Berkeley has managed all T1 projects
internally with a team that includes administrative,
financial, and project management staff from the
Public Works and Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront
Departments. Five full-time equivalent positions
were allocated across 11 staff within PW and PRW.

One of the five FTEs is a T1 Associate Management
Analyst. While projects are managed by city staff, the
planning, design, and construction management of
projects are largely completed by consultants.

As a part of preparing this Program Plan, interviews
were conducted with the T1 Management Team and
project managers to learn what has worked well and
how things can be done better in the future.

Positive outcomes of T1 implementation:
› The City has completed nearly all of the
39 projects in Phase 1. Phase 2 projects
are approved and are on track to be
completed by 2026
› Interdepartmental collaboration has been very
effective with regular meetings and
open communications
› Community messaging has been regular and
recurring, with ongoing updates to the website
and email distribution lists, periodic reporting
to Council, and a January 2022 informational
brochure mailed to residents
› The program team has been able to staff up
and retain staff during the program
› Staff costs have been kept to a minimum, i.e.,
less than 12% of project costs
› Meetings are held at the conclusion of each
project to discuss challenges, successes, and
lessons learned
› The project teams have largely been able to
keep up with the project schedules

Year Capital Program
2010 $41.6 million
2020 $114.5 million

40 May 2022
Ideas for future improvements:
› Reduce the time it takes to hire staff
› Increase IT and legal support to match the
program size
› Add consultants to help with certain tasks in
project management
› Improve tools to aid in project management
› Streamline contracting policies, including bid
protest procedures and purchasing policies
It is important to note there will be overlap with
the T1 team completing the Phase 2 projects
and the Vision 2050 team ramping up. The future
organization will need to account for this to ensure
the success of both programs.

5.2 Research on Other Programs
The City and its consultants conducted interviews
with three cities implementing large capital
programs. Interview topics included organization,
tools, implementation, and accountability.

Successes, challenges, and lessons learned were
discussed with each group, too. Table 8 summarizes
the cities and their programs.

TABLE 8

CITIES INTERVIEWED AND THEIR CAPITAL PROGRAMS
City Program Description Budget and Staff
City of Oakland
› Measure KK’s funding allocations are a) $350 million for streets and roads, b) $150 million for facilities and c) $100 million for anti-displacement and affordable housing
› CIP projects are delivered through Public Works (PW) and Transportation (OakDOT). PW delivers non-transportation projects, such as sewer, drainage, and parks. OakDOT delivers transportation projects through two divisions: a) Great Streets (large projects) and b) Safe Streets (street repairs)
› Program management is primarily done with City staff with some consultant support. There are about 20 dedicated staff members for program management
› Staffing vacancies have been as high as 25%
$87M / 20 employees =
~$4.4M per employee.

41 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
City of Oakland (cont.)
› Oakland’s PCI was 53 in 2019 and increased to 58 in 2021.

They are using $100 M of Measure KK funds over 3 years to improve 350 miles of street surface
› Measure KK has a 9 member Public Oversight Committee.

The members were appointed by the Mayor and report to
the City Council
City of Sunnyvale
› The Public Works Engineering Division delivers all capital projects through four groups: a) special projects, b) project design, c) construction management, and d) land development
› The special projects group manages very large capital projects, e.g., $1 billion wastewater treatment plant re-build. Consultants handle the day-to-day project management but do not have monetary authority › There are 8 staff in the project design group, who manage the smaller on-going capital projects
› The City uses e-Builder software
› Staffing vacancies are a problem
› City Council’s target PCI is 80. Their current PCI is about 76 $176.5M / 30 employees
= ~$5.9M per employee.

City of San Diego
› The City delivers capital projects through two departments: a) Capital Projects and b) Strategic Capital Projects. Capital Projects perform projects that are $5 to 20 million in size, the work is long-term and they have about 700 staff. The Strategic Capital department works on projects over $100 million in size, the work requires special expertise, there are about 50 staff and there is a high reliance on consultants › The current 5-year CIP has a funding need of $8.4 billion › The City uses OCI (overall condition index) instead of PCI. The City’s target for OCI is 70
› Staff vacancies range from 15 – 20%
› A State of CIP Report is provided to City Council twice per year › San Diego is a participant is a California multi-agency benchmarking group
$830M / 750 employees
= ~$1.1M per employee

42 May 2022
While Berkeley uses City staff for project
management and consultants for planning, design,
and construction management, by comparison, the
larger programs are managed by a combination
of City staff and consultants. Berkeley’s 5 full
time equivalent employees are handling $45
million projects at present, a higher ratio than
these other cities. City staff make all financial
decisions, manage City processes, and complete
repeatable tasks. Consultants assist City staff with
a wide variety of tasks involving project planning,
design, construction management, and execution,
and provide necessary specialized expertise
and knowledge. Some program teams include a
dedicated group who administer grant funding.

Challenges experienced during large program
implementation include difficulty in recruiting and
retaining a talented workforce, having sufficient
administrative and support services, and having
effective and efficient hiring and on-boarding
processes, including a continuous
recruitment process.

These issues could be addressed in part by
including dedicated financial and recruiting staff
that are funded through the revenue measure, and
developing program-specific hiring policies
and procedures.

The recommendations presented in the section
below build off the successes and lessons learned
from implementation of Measure T1 and the
City’s regular capital program, and from the three
cities we interviewed and researched. These
recommendations will help in delivering a more
significant investment in the city’s infrastructure:
› Responsible organization – A Vision 2050
program management team should be formed
and report to the Public Works Director for the
first phase of improvements, given this phase’s
focus is likely within the right of way, which is
Public Works’ responsibility. This team would
be multi-discipline, meaning the team would
be responsible for implementing all aspects
of the Vision 2050 program, including projects
outside of the normal purview of Public Works.

In future phases, as determined by future Vision
2050 priorities, this program management team
could report either to Directors of Public Works
or Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront, a Deputy
City Manager, or the City Manager.
› Multiple Benefits – The Vision 2050 Framework
recommended infrastructure improvements that
have multiple benefits. Given this Plan’s initial
focus on streets and traffic safety, the program
management team will ensure projects are
delivered that, to the extent feasible, combine
paving, traffic safety, and green infrastructure
improvements. Recent annual paving projects
demonstrated progress in this regard, as they
have included paving, green infrastructure,
and various traffic safety features such as
traffic circles, traffic diverters, and pedestrian
islands. Given this plan prioritizes the co-
benefits of street paving and traffic safety,
staff have modeled how to meet both goals
simultaneously. By dedicating two-thirds of
streets-focused investments to paving and one-
third to traffic safety, this Plan’s goals can be met
in ten years or so.
› Program management team and
staffing – The City should initiate a recruitment
for a new full-time position, Vision 2050

5.3 Recommendations for Vision 2050 Implementation

43 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
Program Manager. The manager should have
an administrative support person and project
managers (the number to be determined
prior to implementation). The City team would
ideally include dedicated staff in lieu of 3-year
limited term positions, given the duration of the
work. In addition, the city team should include
both an in-house construction inspector and a
project coordinator to assist with time-intensive
tasks such as compiling budget data, preparing
public outreach materials, and coordinating
meetings. Outreach support should be included
on this team as well. The Program Manager
should also have a mix of staff and consultant
support in a blended team. Consultant support
may include: a) preparation of a project
management manual, b) project cost tracking,
c) performance indicator tracking, and d)
management of special projects.
› Engineering functions – As discussed above,
the engineering and capital delivery divisions
in the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and
Waterfront Departments will continue to
deliver ongoing projects. These include
aspects of street paving, sidewalk repairs,
sewer rehabilitation, and park and
playground improvements.
› Special projects – Projects that are not
normally handled by the City’s engineering
divisions should be managed by the program
management team or assigned to a consultant.

Examples of these projects may include utility
undergrounding, seismic improvement to
public buildings, public realm projects, etc
› Supporting departments – Advanced
planning needs to be held with the City’s
procurement, legal, human resources and
information technology departments.

Challenges experienced during large program
implementation include difficulty in recruiting
and retaining a talented workforce and having
effective on-boarding processes. In addition,
the City’s procurement procedures need
updating and improvement. The ideal Vision
2050 organization may include dedicated
recruitment and financial staff, as well as new
policies that are developed specifically for the
program. For example, the City of Oakland
cut 500 staff hours and months from project
timelines by reducing the number of project
and procurement approvals.
› Tools, software and procedures – An
evaluation of current and new tools will be
made for delivering the program. This will
include: a) procurement tools for goods and
services, b) project scheduling and tracking
software, c) document management,
and d) reporting.

44 May 2022
06 SUPPORTING STRATEGIES
This section describes the performance monitoring, oversight and reporting and on-going maintenance that will be a part of implementing a successful Vision 2050 program.

45 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT

6.1 Performance Indicators
TABLE 9
VISION 2050 KEY PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. Streets are Safer, More Sustainable, Improved to a Good Condition, and Maintained Paving condition % of sidewalks in safe condition
Three year average of severe injuries/fatalities % of Bicycle, Pedestrian, and ADA Transition Plans implemented
% of 2020 pavement surface converted to pervious surface Public satisfaction with right of way % of commute trips by solo occupant vehicle % of trips by walking, micro mobility or transit

2. Infrastructure is Resilient, Protects the Environment, and is Adapted to Climate Change Impacts Citywide GHG reductions % of public buildings fossil-fuel free Citywide natural gas consumption % of automobiles that are EV citywide % of Stormwater and GI plans implemented % of sea level rise, undergrounding, and evacuation route projects completed
% of target acres treated by Green Infrastructure % of 2022 vacant street tree sites planted % of public buildings seismically retrofitted

3. Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Improve our Quality of Life % of Backlog Addressed Annually Diversity of the Urban Forest # of Street Trees/Tree Canopy Ratio Public satisfaction at Parks and open spaces

4. Public Facilities are Safe and Provide Community Placemaking % of public realm/placemaking opportunities implemented % of Backlog Addressed % of ADA Transition Plan implemented in buildings Public satisfaction in public spaces % of public buildings with battery storage
A large complex program like Vision 2050 can
benefit from identifying Key Performance Indicators
(KPIs) to track progress. An initial list of KPIs is
shown on Table 9 and are organized around the four
Vision 2050 outcome objectives. The indicators go
beyond the traditional tracking of cost and schedule
progress and incorporate indicators that reflect
sustainability and resilience goals.

It will be important to update these KPIs at the
beginning of each phase of this thirty-year program,
and more frequently in some areas, in order to
incorporate changing conditions, new technologies,
and new priorities.

46 May 2022

6.2 Equity

6.3 Reporting and Oversight
Incorporating equity into infrastructure is a core
value of the Vision 2050 Framework, and is
something Berkeley residents want. Three-fourths
of voters said an infrastructure measure should
incorporate equity.

Poorly maintained infrastructure is inherently
inequitable, as it is more detrimental to Berkeley’s
most vulnerable residents. Those with mobility
impairments can find potholes, deficient sidewalks,
failing hand rails, or out-of-service elevators as
insurmountable challenges. Those on bikes or
walking, instead of in vehicles, are more at risk of
death or serious injury on streets with potholes,
failing pavement markings, and lacking traffic safety
controls. As reported by the city auditor, low-income
residents who depend on their automobile to get
to work face greater risk from the estimated annual
$1,049 repair bill attributable to poorly maintained
streets. The state of our parks, recreation and senior
centers has a serious impact on the programs and
services delivered to children of color and lower
income seniors.

In implementing equity into Vision 2050,
Berkeley will build on recent progress. The City’s
transportation plans prioritize projects in historically underinvested neighborhoods in Berkeley, including
improvements like bus bulbouts and dedicated
bus lanes which help lower income residents more
likely to use transit. Many capital projects approved
in Measure T1 implementation advanced equity.

These projects include the African American Holistic
Resource Center, South Berkeley Senior Center,
the Martin Luther King Jr. Youth Services Center,
and public restrooms citywide approved as part of
Measure T1, Phase 2. In addition, Phase 1 projects
such as paving and park improvements at San Pablo
Park and 10 play structures in West Berkeley also
advance equity.

A Vision 2050 program team will prepare a Program
Management Manual. The manual will include the
performance indicators and a format for reporting
progress. Typically, performance monitoring reports
are prepared on a semi-annual basis. The reports will
be provided to Council and will be available to the
public via the Vision 2050 website.

To ensure accountability, an independent oversight
committee will be formed. This can be an existing
Berkeley commission or a newly formed oversight
committee, as has been used with Berkeley’s Sugar
Sweetened Beverage Product Panel of Experts,
Berkeley Unified School District’s Bond Oversight
Committee, and Oakland’s Measure KK Public
Oversight Advisory Committee. The committee will
review the progress of the work and will prepare an
independent annual report of progress.

47 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT

6.4 Lifecycle Maintenance
Asset Management is an important concept in
which the city’s infrastructure systems are managed
throughout the life cycle from ‘cradle to grave.’
Taking an asset management approach was
a key part of the City Council adopted Vision
2050 recommendations.

A Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) was
recently prepared to develop policy guidance, to
review the city’s current maintenance practices,
and to prepare a roadmap of key initiatives for
implementing a full Asset Management Program
(AMP) in Berkeley’s Public Works and Parks,
Recreation & Waterfront Departments. Critical
systems that we depend on every day are simply
wearing out. Recent budgets were inadequate for
infrastructure capital and maintenance needs, let
alone modernizing them. An AMP is needed to
manage our infrastructure assets throughout their
useful life.

The city retained a consultant to assess the city’s
current asset management practices against a
global standard benchmark on Asset Management
in six areas: asset strategy and planning, asset
management decision-making, lifecycle delivery,
asset information, organization and people, and risk
assessment. Based on the benchmark, Berkeley’s
average assessment was in the ‘developing’ level of
asset management implementation and comparable
to many U.S. cities, but not nearly good enough.

The consultant worked with city staff to develop
a ‘Roadmap’ of key initiatives in the next two
years to implement an effective AMP .

The components include:
› Prepare an Asset Management policy for City
Council’s adoption
› Form an Asset Management team, consisting of
a team leader and two program staff
› Form an AM Steering Committee to guide the
program implementation
› Provide consultant support
› Prepare the strategies, procedures and analyses
to implement an AMP
The SAMP conducted an asset-by-asset review of
annual infrastructure maintenance funding and
found that some asset categories such as streets
and city buildings had insufficient maintenance
funding by a wide margin, while other assets like
sewer and streetlights had adequate maintenance
funding. Assets such as stormwater have sufficient
maintenance funding now. However, climate change
and green infrastructure might make current funding
commitments insufficient in future years.

48 May 2022

6.5 General Fund Support for Infrastructure Maintenance The level of General Fund contribution for public
infrastructure in the last 12 years has remained flat
in nominal terms. Given escalating annual costs,
this led to a decline in General Fund support
for infrastructure. To remedy this, City Council
is currently considering two budget referrals to
find existing City funding sources that total $15
million per year for street maintenance, which is
the level of investment required to ensure paving
condition does not deteriorate. A common theme
from community engagement has been to grow
General Fund support for infrastructure and, at the
very least, that revenue from any new measures
not replace existing General Fund commitments
to infrastructure. One approach is to set a “floor”
for General Fund support of infrastructure moving
forward, akin to the State of California’s requirement
that cities demonstrate a maintenance of effort in
street funding before allowing cities to use Gas Tax
proceeds to maintain a city’s streets.

The FY 2022 CIP in Brief was the beginning of
melding Vision 2050 into the City’s capital budget

49 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
07 APPENDICES
A. Acknowledgements
City of Berkeley
Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager
Liam Garland, Director, Public Works
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Ray Yep, Vision 2050 Implementation Team Member (volunteer) Margo Schueler, Vision 2050 Implementation Team Member (volunteer) Gordon Wozniak, Vision 2050 Implementation Team Member (volunteer) Andrew Brozyna, Deputy Director, Public Works
Christina Erickson, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Farid Javandel, Deputy Director, Public Works
Joe Enke, Manager of Engineering, Public Works
Input from the Leadership Teams in the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Departments

Consultant Team
V.W. Housen and Associates: Vivian Housen, Project Manager Mor
gan DeAngelis, Project Engineer

Woodward & Curran: Dave Richardson, Principal
Daniel Windsor
Josh Ueck
er
S
tephanie Hubli

50 May 2022
B. GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Terminology Definition
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AMP Asset Management Program
Asset categories A logical grouping of similar assets or equipment types used to categorize, organize, and manage the asset portfolio.

Asset management
Data driven planning that improves operational, maintenance and capital forecasting of potential needs, and optimization of investments to realize the greatest value from assets while operating over their lifecycle.

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Program
City City of Berkeley
Council City Council of Berkeley
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
Envision
Developed by the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure and Harvard University, Envision provides industry-wide sustainability metrics for all types and sizes of infrastructure to help users assess and measure the extent to which their project contributes to conditions of sustainability across the full range of social, economic, and environmental indicators.

KPI Key Performance Indicator
General obligation bond
A General Obligation bond is a common type of municipal bond that is secured by a government’s pledge to use legally-available resources, including tax revenues, to repay bondholders.

Parcel tax
The parcel tax is a tax on parcels of real property collected as part of a property tax bill.

Unlike the property tax, the parcel tax cannot be based on property value. To impose a parcel tax, governments must win support from two-thirds of voters.

PCI Pavement Condition Index, which is a scale of 0 to 100 (with 100 being the best) that indicates the condition of an asphalt street surface.

Program plan A structured approach to organizing a long term complex array of subcomponents. The plan typically describes the project components, schedule, outcomes, funding, and reporting.

SAMP
Strategic Asset Management Plan. This is a high level plan that reviews an organization’s policies, assesses its maturity on maintenance, and develops a roadmap to implement a lifecycle maintenance management program.

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
Vision 2050
An initiative of Berkeley’s Mayor Jesse Arreguin to take a long term approach to improving Berkeley’s aging infrastructure. The approach incorporates sustainability and resiliency and anticipating a future world with climate impacts.

WMP Watershed Management Plan

51 Vision 2050 Program Plan - DRAFT
C. Reference Documents

1. Information on Vision 2050 can be found on its website: BerkeleyVision2050.org. 2 . Refer
ence documents referenced in this program plan can be found on the City of Berkeley website (BerkeleyCA.gov) using the search feature

3. Information on Berk
eley’s Measure T1 program can be found on its website:

BerkeleyCA.gov/your-government/our-work/ballot-measures/measure-t1.

4. Information on the Envision pr
ocess can be found on the Institute for
Sustainable Infrastructure’s website: SustainableInfrastructure.org.

52 May 2022

MEET YOUR COUNCILMEMBERS
MAYOR DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2

JESSE ARREGUIN RASHI KESARWANI TERRY TAPLIN
Term Expires 11/30/2024 Term Expires 11/30/2022 Term Expires 11/30/2024 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5

BEN BARTLETT KATE HARRISON SOPHIE HAHN
Term Expires 11/30/2024 Term Expires 11/30/2022 Term Expires 11/30/2024 DISTRICT 6 DISTRICT 7 DISTRICT 8

SUSAN WENGRAF RIGEL ROBINSON LORI DROSTE
Term Expires 11/30/2024 Term Expires 11/30/2022 Term Expires 11/30/2022 INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM PLAN CITY OF BERKELEY VISION 2050 INITIATIVE

City Council Comments
on the FY 2023 and FY 2024
Proposed Biennial Budget and
Capital Improvement Program
Please refer to the following Agenda Packet for the
material for this item.
• May 24, 2022 Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
Item 17: Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024 Proposed Budget
and Proposed Budget Public Hearing #1
https://berkeleyca.gov/city-council-regular-meeting-eagenda-may-24-2022 This material is also on file and available for review from the City Clerk Department, or can be accessed from the
City Council Website.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900
or from:

The City of Berkeley, City Council’s Web site
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas

38

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

ACTION CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Harrison
Subject: Referral to the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Policy Committee Policy Committee to Consider Strategies and Make Recommendations to Council and Staff to Ensure Potential Infrastructure Bond Expenditure Is Consistent With Climate Action Goals and Other Environmental Policies

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability (FITES) Policy Committee Policy Committee to consider strategies and make recommendations to the Council and staff to ensure that potential infrastructure bond is consistent with Climate Action goals and other environmental policies.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On May 4, 2022, the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Robinson/Taplin) to send the enclosed non-binding recommendations to Council with a qualified positive recommendation and support for Staff’s ongoing work to establish public-facing metrics to measure projected and actual outcomes around potential bond projects that support Climate Action goals and other environmental policies. Vote: All Ayes.

CURRENT SITUATION, EFFECTS, AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The City is facing a historic crisis of underinvestment in its infrastructure. Perhaps the most visible area is the City’s streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure vulnerable to climate change.

Council agreed at its January 20, 2022 special Council meeting to provide direction to staff to explore and prepare a draft $300-$600 million infrastructure bond and/or parcel tax ahead of the November 2022 election.

While the condition of the City’s streets is of paramount concern to the Berkeley community, in the spirit of the Vision 2050 report, the Climate Action Plan, Climate Emergency Declaration and various other policies, Berkeley cannot afford to merely rebuild the same infrastructure dating from the past century. Rather, new expenditures on infrastructure should holistically contribute to building a Berkeley of the future, which

39

Referral to the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Policy Committee Policy Committee to Consider Strategies and Make Recommendations to Council and Staff to Ensure Potential Infrastructure Bond Expenditure Is Consistent With Climate Action Plan and Other Environmental Policies

ACTION CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
is much less carbon intensive, greener, modern, and more equitable. Doing so will require intentional policies and consideration.

To this end, it is in the public interest to refer to the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability (FITES) Policy Committee Policy Committee to consider strategies and make recommendations to the Council and staff to ensure that potential infrastructure bond is consistent with Climate Action goals and other environmental policies.

BACKGROUND
At the Council’s direction, the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability (FITES) Policy Committee has spent two years investigating the overall paving situation, paving policies, and multi-faceted paving funding/bonding solutions. As part of its work, the Committee collaborated with staff and the Public Works Commission to update the City’s Paving Policy to include certain environmental and green paving considerations. However, the Paving Policy was largely adopted in light of status quo paving funding levels, and was not designed for a potential once in a generation opportunity to reenvision the City’s infrastructure.

If carefully crafted, the Bond could simultaneously stabilize PCI and include critical complimentary upgrades that support health, safety, and the environment/climate.

For example, the Committee should consider investigating and making recommendations with respect to the following concepts:
 Future-proofing / Curbside EV Integrate conduit and infrastructure to support public curbside EV charging, fiber optic cables, and electrification infrastructure upgrades (e.g., transformers) with paving work. Work with regional agencies such as EBCE to explore opportunities to leverage capital and other resources;  Green Paving Techniques Explore how the bond expenditures can be structured to maximize durability/lifecycle and minimize greenhouse gasses, to include concrete, pavers and potentially stabilized gravel or hybrid. For example, Marin Avenue has not been substantially paved for nearly a half century because of its design;
 Efficiency Consider strategies to pave whole neighborhoods or sections of the City at once to capitalize on equipment and labor economies of scale, reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with repositioning equipment, and as an opportunity to make projects attractive to unionized labor; • Bike/Pedestrian/Transit Upgrades Explore the maximum amount of mobility goals we can accomplish as part of the Bond and how to best achieve Vision 2050, Vision Zero, and Climate Action goals;

Referral to the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Policy Committee Policy Committee to Consider Strategies and Make Recommendations to Council and Staff to Ensure Potential Infrastructure Bond Expenditure Is Consistent With Climate Action Plan and Other Environmental Policies

ACTION CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
 Trees and Bio Diversity Explore how to integrate street trees and plants into upgrades to improve local air quality and urban canopy as well as reduce heat islanding;
 Road Diets Explore narrowing certain wider streets by extending curbs and reducing maintenance and paving costs overtime, calming traffic, and reducing embodied greenhouse gases;
 Car-free Zones Carefully, strategically, and equitably consider whether and which streets might be made vehicle-free (e.g., Telegraph) except for emergency, certain delivery, and senior/disabled access; • Climate Adaptation Provide feedback and input on climate impacts and resilience aspects of the bond, including identifying areas vulnerable to sea level rise.
• Tax Equity Consider applying any parcel taxes to unimproved spaces and garages to broaden base and ensure a more progressive and equitable distribution of potential tax impacts.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Carefully considering the potential infrastructure bond in the context of existing climate and infrastructure policies could lead to cost savings in terms of lifecycle and upfront expenditures.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
FITES recommendations can help guide how potential bond funds are spent to further accelerate mode shifts away from fossil fuel vehicles, reduce embodied carbon, and enhance urban bio diversity.

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

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

INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 31, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Eleanor Hollander, Economic Development Manager Subject: Referral Response: Further Supporting Worker Cooperatives

INTRODUCTION
This report responds to a referral adopted by City Council on February 9, 2016 to develop policies and programs to support worker cooperatives.1 This report provides additional information to the previous referral response on the same topic which was provided to the City Council on February 26, 2019, entitled Referral Response:

Supporting Worker Cooperatives.2 This report reviews the City’s current activities to assist worker cooperatives as outlined in the original 2016 referral and 2019 referral response, and suggests additional strategies to expand efforts for cooperative conversion going forward. The program summary and recommendations for implementation were provided to the Land Use, Housing & Economic Development Policy Committee during the April 21, 2022 Small Business Listening Session (Attachment 1).

SUMMARY
A number of worker cooperatives are located in Berkeley are an integral part of the community’s fabric, and many others are demonstrating transition to cooperative ownership’s effectiveness as a succession planning approach for local serving businesses. The Office of Economic Development (OED), in coordination with community partners, and other City departments, have developed new programs and analyzed potential policies that support worker cooperatives. These include: providing technical assistance for succession planning and worker cooperatives conversions, revising the Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) lending criteria, reviewing the business tax and land use incentives for cooperative conversion, and developing educational materials for businesses considering conversion to a cooperative model.

Rather than developing a Worker Cooperative Ordinance for Council consideration, this report suggests continuing the work by creating a ‘worker cooperative preference’ in city 1 Supporting Worker Cooperatives and Referral to City Manager to Develop a Worker Cooperative Ordinance, Item 27, Berkeley City Council Meeting, February 9, 2016. 2 Referral Response: Supporting Worker Cooperatives, Item 22, Berkeley City Council Meeting, February 19, 2019.