Berkeley City Council
December 13, 2022

Tuesday, December 13, 2022 AGENDA Page 1

AG E N D A

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, December 13, 2022
6:00 PM

SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702

JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – RIGEL ROBINSON
DISTRICT 4 – KATE HARRISON DISTRICT 8 – LORI DROSTE

PUBLIC ADVISORY: THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A HYBRID MODEL WITH BOTH IN -PERSON

ATTENDANCE AND VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION

For in-person attendees, face coverings or masks that cover both the nose and the mouth are required. Physically distanced seating will be available. If you are feeling sick, please do not attend the meeting in person.

Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet accessible video stream at http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=1244.

To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this UR L https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81885763338. If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen, then use the drop down menu and click on "rename" to rename yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen.

To join by phone: D ial 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 818 8576 3338 . If you wish to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair.

Please be mindful that the meeting will be recorded and all rules of procedure and decorum apply for in-person attendees and those participating by teleconference or videoconference.

To submit a written communication for the City Council’s consideration and inclusion in the public record , email [email protected].

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981 -6900. The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda. Meetings will adjourn at 11:00 p.m. - any items outstanding at that time will be carried over to a d ate/time to be specified.

Tuesday, December 13, 2022 AGENDA Page 2

Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Land Acknowledgement Statement: The City of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in was built on the territory of xučyun (Huchiun (Hooch-yoon)), the ancestral and unceded land of the Chochenyo (Cho-chen-yo)-speaking Ohlone (Oh-low-nee) people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County. This land was and continues to be of great importance to all of the Ohlone Tribes and descendants of the Verona Band. As we begin our meeting tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley, the documented 5,000 -year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shellmound, and the Ohlone people who continue to reside in the East Bay. We recognize that Berkeley’s residents have and continue to benefit from the use and occupation of this unceded stolen land since the City of Berkeley’s incorporation in 1878. As stewards of the laws regulating the City of Berkeley, it is not only vital that we recognize the history of this land, but also recognize that the Ohlone people are present members of Berkeley and other East Bay communities today. The City of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the Lisjan Tribe and to create meaningful actions that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.

Ceremonial Matters: In addition to those items listed on the agenda, the Mayor may add additional ceremonial matters.

City Manager Comments: The City Manager may make announcements or provide information to the City Council in the form of an oral report. The Council will not take action on such items but may request the City Manager place a report on a future agenda for discussion.

Public Comment on Non-Agenda Matters: Persons will be selected to address matters not on the Council agenda. If five or fewer persons wish to speak, each person selected will be allotted two minutes each. If more than five persons wish to speak, up to ten persons will be selected to address matters not on the Council agenda and each person selected will be allotted one minute each. Persons attending the meeting in-person and wishing to address the Council on matters not on the Council agenda during the initial ten-minute period for such comment, must submit a speaker card to the City Clerk in person at the meeting location and prior to commencement of that meeting. The remainder of the speakers wishing to address the Council on non-agenda items will be heard at the end of the agenda.

Consent Calendar
The Council will first determine whether to move items on the agenda for “Action” or “Information” to the “Consent Calendar”, or move “Consent Calendar” items to “Action.” Three members of the City Council must agree to pull an item from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar for it to move to Action.

Items that remain on the “Consent Calendar” are voted on in one motion as a group. “Information” items are not discussed or acted upon at the Council meeting unless they are moved to “Action” or “Consent”.

No additional items can be moved onto the Consent Calendar once public comment has commenced. At any time during, or immediately after, public comment on Information and Consent items, any Councilmember may move any Information or Consent item to “Action.” Following this, the Council will vote on the items remaining on the Consent Calendar in one motion.

For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, per sons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again at the time the matter is taken up during the Action Calendar.

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, December 13, 2022 AGENDA Page 3
Public Comment on Consent Calendar and Information Items Only: The Council will take public comment on any items that are either on the amended Consent Calendar or the Information Calendar. Speakers will be entitled to two minutes each to speak in opposition to or support of Consent Calendar and Information Items. A speaker may only speak once during the period for public comment on Consent Calendar and Information items.

Additional information regarding public comment by City of Berkeley employees and interns: Employees and interns of the City of Berkeley, although not required, are encouraged to iden tify themselves as such, the department in which they work and state whether they are speaking as an individual or in their official capacity when addressing the Council in open session or workshops.

Consent Calendar

1. Fair Workweek Ordinance; Adding Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.102 From: Commission on Labor
Recommendation: Adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 7,846-N.S., the proposed Fair Workweek Ordinance, adding Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter

13.102.

First Reading Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Taplin, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Robinson, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Wengraf, Droste.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Margot Ernst, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-5400

2. Referral Response: Amendments to the Sign Ordinance to Clarify Procedures and to Establish a Coordinated Sign Design Program, Amending BMC Titles 20 and 23, and Establish a New Fee for Coordinated Sign Design Programs From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 7,847-N.S. amending the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20 [Signs] to clarify design review procedures for signs, establish an optional Coordinated Sign Design program, and amend Section 20.12.070 [Issuance authorized when] and Section 23.204.070B [Design Review – When required] to provide internal consistency.

First Reading Vote: All Ayes.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, December 13, 2022 AGENDA Page 4

3. Resolution Reviewing and Ratifying the Proclamation of Local Emergency Due to the Spread of a Severe Acute Respiratory Illness Caused by a Novel (New) Coronavirus (COVID-19)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution reviewing the need for continuing the local emergency due to the spread of a severe acute respiratory illness caused by a novel (new) coronavirus (COVID-19) and ratifying the Proclamation of Local Emergency issued by the Director of Emergency Services on March 3, 2020, initially ratified by the City Council on March 10, 2020, and subsequently reviewed and ratified by the Council on April 21, 2020, June 16, 2020, July 28, 2020, September 22, 2020, November 17, 2020, December 15, 2020, February 9, 2021, March 30, 2021, May 25, 2021, July 20, 2021, September 14, 2021, December 14, 2021, February 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, May 10, 2022, June 28, 2022, July 26, 2022, September 20, 2022, and November 3, 2022.

Financial Implications: To be determined
Contact: Farimah Brown, City Attorney, (510) 981-6950

4. Resolution Making Required Findings Pursuant to the Government Code and Directing City Legislative Bodies to Continue to Meet Via Videoconference and Teleconference
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution making the required findings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3) and determining that as a result of the continued threat to public health and safety posed by the spread of COVID-19, City legislative bodies shall continue to meet via videoconference and teleconference, initially ratified by the City Council on September 28, 2021, and subsequently reviewed and ratified on October 26, 2021, November 16, 2021, December 14, 2021, January 10, 2022, February 8, 2022, March 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, April 12, 2022, May 10, 2022, May 31, 2022, June 28, 2022, July 26, 2022, August 23, 2022, September 20, 2022, October 11, 2022, November 3, 2022, and November 29, 2022.

Financial Implications: To be determined
Contact: Farimah Brown, City Attorney, (510) 981-6950

5. Waiver of the Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance’s Requirements for AG Witt, LLC Contract
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving a waiver of the Sanctuary City Contracting ordinance’s requirements for the City’s FEMA Cost-Recovery Contract with AG Witt LLC.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Farimah Brown, City Attorney, (510) 981-6950

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, December 13, 2022 AGENDA Page 5

6. City of Berkeley 2023 State and Federal Legislative Platform From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the City of Berkeley's State and Federal Legislative Platform
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager, (510) 981-7000

7. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a License Agreement with East Bay Community Energy for Electric Vehicle Fast Charging Stations on Municipal Property
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or their designee to execute a Master Site License Agreement with East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) for the installation and operation of publicly-available electric vehicle (EV) direct current fast charging stations on municipal property.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000

8. Interactive Kiosk Experience (IKE) Smart City Kiosk Locations, Phase Two From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution, pursuant to Ordinance No. 7,626-N.S.

Franchise Agreement with IKE Smart City, LLC approving 22 locations for the second phase of deployment of IKE Smart City Kiosks in Berkeley.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Eleanor Hollander, Economic Development, (510) 981-7530

9. Contract: Berkeley Fire Medical Director
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, with Herbert Gene Hern, MD to serve as the Berkeley Fire Medical Director for five years from July 1, 2022 until June 30, 2027 in the amount not to exceed $400,000.

Financial Implications: See Report
Contact: David Sprague, Fire, (510) 981-3473

10. Contract: Statewide Prevention and Early Intervention Project FY2023 Participation Agreement – California Mental Health Services Authority From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee to enter into a Participation Agreement for FY2023 and any amendments with the California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA) to allocate Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds in the amount of $70,907 to participate in the Statewide Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) Project, for a total amount not to exceed $70,907 through June 30, 2023.

Financial Implications: Mental Health Services Act Fund - $70,907 Contact: Lisa Warhuus, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, December 13, 2022 AGENDA Page 6

11. Contract: Resource Development Associates Specialized Care Unit and Community Crisis Response Services Program Evaluation
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Resource Development Associates (Contractor) to design and implement an evaluation for program effectiveness of the Specialized Care Unit and Community Crisis Response Services (Bridge Services). Services will begin on January 1, 2023 and extend to June 30, 2025 in an amount not to exceed $150,000.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Lisa Warhuus, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400

12. Contract: Bonita House for Specialized Care Unit Provider From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Bonita House (Contractor) to implement Berkeley’s Specialized Care Unit for a two-year pilot. Services will begin on February 1, 2023 and extend to January 30, 2025 in an amount not to exceed $4,500,000.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Lisa Warhuus, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400

13. Reserving Predevelopment Funds for the Development of Affordable Housing at the North Berkeley BART Station
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1. Reserving $500,000 for the selected development team to support the development of affordable housing at the North Berkeley BART site, contingent on the team’s selection and approval by the BART Board at its December 1, 2022 meeting, and the team’s timely submission of a completed predevelopment application demonstrating they meet the City’s funding criteria. 2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute all original or amended documents or agreements to effectuate this action.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Lisa Warhuus, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, December 13, 2022 AGENDA Page 7

14. Contract: California Constructores for Ohlone Park (East) Playground Replacement and Site Improvements Project
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1. Approving the plans and specifications for the Ohlone Park (East) Playground Replacement and Site Improvements Project; and 2. Accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, California Constructores; and 3. 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, with California Constructores, for the Ohlone Park (East) Playground Replacement and Site Improvements Project at 1933 Hearst Avenue, in an amount not to exceed $1,120,344 which includes a contract amount of $933,620 and a 20% contingency in the amount of $186,724.

Financial Implications: Various Funds - $1,120,344
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

15. Contracts: Consultants for On-Call Transportation Planning Services From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt five Resolutions authorizing the City Manager to execute individual contracts and any amendments, each for the period January 1, 2023 through June 30, 2028 for a total amount of all contracts not to exceed $5,000,000 with the following consultants for On-call Transportation Planning Services:

1. Alta Planning + Design, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $$1,000,000.

2. Community Design + Architecture for an amount not to exceed $1,000,000.

3. Fehr & Peers for an amount not to exceed $1,000,000.

4. NN Engineering, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $1,000,000

5. Toole Design Group, LLC for an amount not to exceed $1,000,000.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Liam Garland, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

16. Contracts: On-Call Architectural Services: ELS Architecture and Urban Design; Noll & Tam Architects; and Siegel & Strain Architects
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt three Resolutions authorizing the City Manager to execute contracts and any amendments with the following firms for on-call architectural design services in support of the City’s annual Facilities CIP program, each from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025:

1. ELS Architecture and Urban Design (ELS), for an amount not to exceed $3,333,334.

2. Noll & Tam Architects (N&T), for an amount not to exceed $3,333,333.

3. Siegel & Strain Architects (SSA), for an amount not to exceed $3,333,333.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Liam Garland, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, December 13, 2022 AGENDA Page 8

17. Authorization for an Additional Commission on Disability Meeting in 2022 From: Commission on Disability
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing one additional meeting of the Commission on Disability in 2022.

Financial Implications: None.

Contact: Andrew Brozyna, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-6300

18a. Measure FF Budget Recommendation - Expanded Fire Prevention Inspection Program (Reviewed by the Public Safety Committee)
From: Disaster and Fire Safety Commission
Recommendation: With the risk of catastrophic wildfire steadily increasing due to climate change, the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission (DFSC) recommends prioritizing wildfire fuel reduction in the FY 23 and FY 24 Measure FF budget by expanding the Fire Department’s Fire Prevention Inspection Program and fully enforcing the existing Fire Code to clear vegetation build-up and overgrowth within 100 feet of structures in Berkeley’s Very High Fire Severity Zones (VHFSZs) (Fire Zones 2 and 3). In addition, the Fire Code would be strengthened as needed to require removal of hazardous vegetation on the entirety of properties beginning in FY

25. The program would provide for City vegetation management crews to clear vegetation where property owners opt into the program or fail to comply, with no- interest liens placed upon properties to recover direct costs upon transfer. Special emphasis should be placed on eucalyptus groves due to their high flammability and potential to create spot fires. Funding for this expanded program, together with the Fire Department’s existing home inspection program, which is focused on creating defensible space around structures, would be supported by devoting 21 percent and 26 percent of Measure FF revenues for FY 23 and FY 24, respectively.

Policy Committee Recommendation: Positive recommendation to adopt the City Manager’s recommendation as presented in the companion report.

Financial Implications: See Report
Contact: Keith May, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-3473

18b. Companion Report: Measure FF Budget Recommendation – Expanded Fire Prevention Inspection Program (Reviewed by the Public Safety Committee) From: City Manager
Recommendation: That the Berkeley City Council reaffirms its support for the work being conducted by the Fire Department (Department) and considers the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission’s (DFSC) Report during the FY24 budget process if the DFSC so chooses to resubmit an updated version at that time.

Policy Committee Recommendation: Positive recommendation to adopt the City Manager’s recommendation as presented in the companion report.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: David Sprague, Fire, (510) 981-3473

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, December 13, 2022 AGENDA Page 9

19. Zero-Emission Vehicle Parking Support Letter
From: Environment and Climate Commission
Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager to send a letter to State Assemblymember Buffy Wicks and State Senator Nancy Skinner asking them to advance a proposal to allow cities to dedicate parking spaces for Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs).

Financial Implications: See report.

Contact: Billi Romain, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-7400 Council Consent Items

20. Berkeley Holiday Fund: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds
From: Mayor Arreguin (Author), Councilmember Hahn (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember including $500 from Mayor Arreguin to the Berkeley Holiday Fund’s annual campaign with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Mayor Arreguin and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, (510) 981-7100

Action Calendar
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action as the item is taken up. For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again at the time the matter is taken up during the Action Calendar.

The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time. Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons inter ested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council.

Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Staff shall introduce the public hearing item and present their comments. This is followed by five -minute presentations each by the appellant and applicant. The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to be recognized and to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time.

Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker.

Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Tuesday, December 13, 2022 AGENDA Page 10
Each member of the City Council shall verbally disclose all ex parte contacts concerning the subject of the hearing. Councilmembers shall also submit a report of such contacts in writing prior to the commencement of the hearing. Written reports shall be available for public review in the office of the City Clerk.

21. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Making Technical Edits and Corrections to Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Title 23
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt the first reading of an Ordinance containing technical edits, corrections and other non- substantive amendments to the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance:
- BMC Section 23.108.020 (Zoning Districts)
- BMC Section 23.202.020 (Allowed Land Uses)
- BMC Section 23.202.140 (R-SMU District)
- BMC Section 23.204.150 (R-BMU District)
- BMC Section 23.204.020 (Allowed Land Uses)
- BMC Section 23.204.060 (C-U District)
- BMC Section 23.204.080 (C-E District)
- BMC Section 23.204.100 (C-SA District)
- BMC Section 23.206.040 (Use-Specific Regulations)
- BMC Section 23.406.050 (Variances)
- BMC Section 23.502.020 (Glossary)
Financial Implications: None
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

Action Calendar – New Business

22. FY 2022 Preliminary Year End Status
From: City Manager
Contact: Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager, (510) 981-7000

23. Amendment: FY 2023 Annual Appropriations Ordinance
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending the FY 2023 Annual Appropriations Ordinance No. 7,828-N.S. for fiscal year 2023 based upon recommended re-appropriation of committed FY 2022 funding and other adjustments authorized since July 1, 2022, in the amount of $176,583,851 (gross) and $170,322,312 (net).

Financial Implications: See Report.

Contact: Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager, (510) 981-7000

24. Status Report - Berkeley's Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021): Pension Liabilities and Infrastructure Need Attention
From: City Manager
Contact: Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager, (510) 981-7000

Council Action Items
Tuesday, December 13, 2022 AGENDA Page 11

25. Resolution Supporting Trip Reduction Alternative for BUSD Berkeley High School Tennis and Parking Structure Project
From: Councilmember Taplin (Author), Councilmember Harrison (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution in support of a Trip Reduction Alternative to be included in the scope of the Environmental Impact Report for the Berkeley High School Tennis and Parking Structure Project at 2000 Bancroft Way, and send a copy of Resolution to the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) Board of Directors.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Terry Taplin, Councilmember, District 2, (510) 981-7120

Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda
Adjournment
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

Archived indexed video streams are available at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas.

Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

Communications to the 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 to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. 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 Department for further information.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street as well as posted on the City's website at https://berkeleyca.gov/.

Agendas and agenda reports may be accessed via the Internet at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas and may be read at reference desks at the following locations:

City Clerk Department - 2180 Milvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: [email protected]

Libraries: Main – 2090 Kittredge Street,
Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue, West Branch – 1125 University, North Branch – 1170 The Alameda, South Branch – 1901 Russell

Tuesday, December 13, 2022 AGENDA Page 12
COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at (510) 981-6418 (V) or (510) 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.

Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B-TV, and on the Internet. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the agenda for this meeting 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 December 1, 2022.

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Communications
Council rules limit action on Communications to referral to the City Manager and/or Boards and Commissions for investigation and/or recommendations. All communications submitted to Council are public record. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

North Berkeley BART Development

1. 9 similarly-worded form letters

2. genetic@igc

3. David Brandon

4. Donna DeDiemar

5. Barbara Fisher

Eviction Moratorium

6. Robert Bahme

7. Kathleen Lee Verani

8. Sarah Davis

9. Ron Edwards

10. Misha

Cost/Benefit Analysis of City Policies

11. Barbara Gilbert

Water Leak at Acton and Delaware

12. Gavin Tyler

Undemocratic Process

13. Ben and Sarah Davis

Tuesday, December 13, 2022 AGENDA Page 13
Cyclist Traffic Safety

14. Marc Hedlund

National Whistleblower Center

15. Boona Cheema

16. Christoverre Kohler

Horizons Shelter and SPARK Lease

17. Elana Auerbach

18. Boona Cheema

No Right Turn on Red

19. Michael Frantz

Indigenous Liberation

20. Sophie

Draft Housing Element

21. Michael Trujillo, on behalf of East Bay Community Law Center

Berkeley High School Coach

22. Ramona Parks
Supplemental Communications and Reports
Items received by the deadlines for submission will be compiled and distributed as follows. If no items are received by the deadline, no supplemental packet will be compiled for s aid deadline.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 1
Available by 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the meeting.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 2
Available by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 3
Available by 5:00 p.m. two days following the meeting.

Ordinance No. 7,846-N.S. Page 1 of 12
ORDINANCE NO. 7,846-N.S.

FAIR WORKWEEK EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.102 is added to read as follows:

CHAPTER 13.102

FAIR WORKWEEK EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
Sections:

13.102.010 Purpose and Intent

13.102.020 Definitions.

13.102.030 Applicability.

13.102.040 Waiver through Collective Bargaining

13.102.050 Advance Notice of Work Schedules.

13.102.060 Notice, Right to Decline, and Compensation for Schedule Changes.

13.102.070 Offer of Work to Existing Employees.

13.102.080 Right to Rest.

13.102.090 Right to Request a Flexible Working Arrangement.

13.102.100 Notice and Posting.

13.102.110 Implementation.

13.102.120 Enforcement.

13.102.130 Retaliation Prohibited

13.102.140 Retention of Records.

13.102.150 City Access.

13.102.160 No Preemption of Higher Standards.

13.102.170 Severability.

13.102.010 Purpose and Intent
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Berkeley Fair Workweek Ordinance”. It is the purpose of this chapter and the policy of the City: (i) to enact and enforce fair and equitable employment scheduling practices in the City of Berkeley; (ii) to provide the working people of Berkeley with protections that ensure employer scheduling practices do not unreasonably prevent workers from attending to their families, health, education, and other obligations; and (iii) to require Employers needing additional hours, whether temporary or permanent, to first offer those hours to current part-time Employees.

Ordinance No. 7,846-N.S. Page 2 of 12

13.102.020 Definitions
As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) “Building services” means the care and maintenance of property, including, but not limited to, janitorial services, building and grounds maintenance services, and security services.
(b) “Calendar week” shall mean a period of seven consecutive days starting on Sunday.
(c) “City” shall mean the City of Berkeley.
(d) “Covered employer” shall mean an employer subject to the provisions of this chapter, as specified in Section 13.102.030.
(e) "Department" shall mean the City Manager’s Department, as specified in Chapter

2.36, or another department or agency as the City Manager shall designate. (f) “Employee” shall mean any person who:
(1) In a calendar week performs at least two hours of work within the geographic boundaries of the City of Berkeley for a covered employer; (2) Qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any employer under the California minimum wage law, as provided under Labor Code Section 1197 and wage orders published by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. Employees shall include learners, as defined by the California Industrial Welfare Commission; and
(3) Is (i) not exempt from payment of an overtime rate of compensation pursuant to Labor Code Section 510; and (ii) is not paid a monthly salary equivalent to at least forty hours per week at a rate of pay of twice the minimum wage required by Berkeley Municipal Code Section 13.99.040.
(g) “Employer” shall mean any person, as defined in Labor Code Section 18, who directly or indirectly through any other person or employer, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any Employee, or any person receiving or holding a business license through Title 9 of the Berkeley Municipal Code. (h) “Franchise” shall have the meaning in California Business and Professions Code Section 20001.
(i) “Franchisee” shall have the meaning in California Business and Professions Code Section 20002.
(j) “Franchisor” shall have the meaning in California Business and Professions Code Section 20003.
(k) “Good faith” shall mean a sincere intention to deal fairly with others. (l) “Healthcare” shall mean either a Hospital, Medical Practitioner Office, Nursing Home, or Supportive Housing as defined in BMC Section 23.502.020, or a facility that provides outpatient maintenance dialysis.
(m) “Hotel” shall mean Tourist Hotel as defined in BMC Section 23.502.020.

Ordinance No. 7,846-N.S. Page 3 of 12
(n) “Manufacturing” shall mean a Manufacturing Use as defined in BMC Section

23.502.020.
(o) “Predictability pay” shall mean wages paid to an employee, calculated on an hourly basis at the employee’s regular rate of pay as that term is used in 29 U.S.C. Section 207 (e), as compensation for schedule changes made by a covered employer to an employee’s schedule pursuant to Section 13.102.060, in addition to any wages earned for work performed by that employee.
(p) “Restaurant” shall mean a Food Service Establishment as defined in BMC Section

23.502.020.
(q) “Retail” shall mean a Retail Products Store as defined in BMC Section 23.502.020. (r) “Shift” shall mean the consecutive hours an employer requires an employee to work including employer-approved meal periods and rest periods. (s) “Warehouse services” shall mean Warehouse Based Non-Store Retail as defined in BMC Section 23.502.020.
(t) “Work schedule” shall mean all of an employee’s shifts, including specific start and end times for each shift, during a calendar week.
(u) "Writing" or "written" means a printed or printable communication in physical or electronic format including a communication that is transmitted through electronic mail, text message or a computer system or is otherwise sent and stored electronically.

13.102.030 Applicability
(a) This chapter shall apply to: the City of Berkeley as an employer, and any employer in the City of Berkeley with 10 or more employees in the City of Berkeley that is:
(1) primarily engaged in the building services, healthcare, hotel, manufacturing, retail, or warehouse services industries, and employs 56 or more employees globally; or
(2) primarily engaged in the restaurant industry, and employs 100 or more employees globally; or
(3) a franchisee primarily engaged in the retail or restaurant industries and is associated with a network of franchises with franchisees employing in the aggregate 100 or more employees globally; or
(4) a not-for-profit corporation organized under Section 501 of the United States Internal Revenue Code in the industries specified under subsection (a)(1), (2), and (3) and employs 100 or more employees globally.
(b) In determining the number of employees performing work for a covered employer during a given week, all employees performing work for the covered employer for compensation on a full-time, part-time, or temporary basis, at any location, shall be counted, including employees made available to work through the services of a temporary services or staffing agency or similar entity.
(c) For the purposes of determining whether a nonfranchisee entity is a covered employer as defined by this chapter, separate entities that form an integrated enterprise shall be

Ordinance No. 7,846-N.S. Page 4 of 12
considered a single employer. Within one year of the effective date of the ordinance, the City Manager shall promulgate rules pursuant to the authority provided in Section

13.102.110 to implement this subsection clarifying factors to be considered in determining what constitutes an integrated enterprise.
(d) This chapter shall become operative with respect to employees not subject to a collective bargaining agreement, including employees working for the City of Berkeley and all other employers, one year after the effective date of the ordinance. Unless waived pursuant to Section 13.102.040, with respect to employees subject to a collective bargaining agreement, this chapter shall become operative upon the commencement of a bona fide second or successor collective bargaining agreement or one year after the effective date of the ordinance, whichever is earlier.

13.102.040 Waiver through Collective Bargaining
Except for existing collective bargaining agreements in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance, as provided for in Section 13.102.030(d), the requirements of all or of specific portions of this chapter may be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement, but only if the waiver is set forth explicitly in such agreement in clear and unambiguous terms.

13.102.050 Advance Notice of Work Schedules.
(a) Initial Estimate of Minimum Hours. An employer shall provide each employee with a good faith estimate in writing of the employee’s work schedule. The employee may submit a written request to modify the estimated work schedule, and the covered employer in its sole discretion may accept or reject the request and shall notify the employee of covered employer’s determination in writing prior to or on commencement of employment.
(b) Two Weeks’ Advance Notice of Work Schedule. A covered employer shall provide its employees with at least two weeks’ notice of their work schedules by doing one of the following:
(1) posting the work schedule in a conspicuous place at the workplace that is readily accessible and visible to all employees; or
(2) transmitting the work schedule by electronic means, so long as all employees are given access to the electronic schedule at the workplace.

For new employees, a covered employer shall provide the new employee prior to or on their first day of employment with an initial work schedule. Thereafter, the covered employer shall include the new employee in an existing schedule with other employees. (c) An Employee who is a victim of domestic violence or sexual violence as defined in Sections 6211 or 6203 and encompassing the acts described in Section 6320 of the California Family Code may request that the Employee's Work Schedule not be posted or transmitted to other employees. An oral or written request shall be sufficient and implemented immediately and is sufficient until the Employee gives written permission to post the Employee's schedule. An Employer may request a written statement from the Employee that states that the Employee is a victim of domestic violence or sexual

Ordinance No. 7,846-N.S. Page 5 of 12
violence. The written statement shall constitute the documentation needed for the Employer to implement the request. The Employer may not require a written statement more than once in a calendar year from any Covered Employee for this purpose.

13.102.060 Schedule Changes.
(a) Notice. A covered employer shall provide an employee written notice of any change to the employee’s posted or transmitted work schedule within 24 hours of a schedule change. This notice requirement shall not apply to any schedule changes the employee initiates.
(b) Right to Decline. Subject to the exceptions in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, an employee has the right to decline any previously unscheduled hours that the covered employer adds to the employee’s schedule, and for which the employee has been provided advance notice of less than 14 days before the first day of any new schedule. (c) Predictability Pay for Schedule Changes. Subject to the exceptions in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a covered employer shall provide an employee with the following compensation per shift for each previously scheduled shift that the covered employer adds or subtracts hours, moves to another date or time, cancels, or each previously unscheduled shift that the covered employer adds to the employee’s schedule:
(1) with less than 14 days notice, but 24 hours or more notice to the employee: one hour of predictability pay;
(2) with less than 24 hours notice to the employee,
(i) When hours are cancelled or reduced, four hours or the number of cancelled or reduced hours in the employee’s scheduled shift, whichever is less; (ii) For additions and all other changes, one hour of predictability pay. The compensation required by this subsection shall be in addition to the employee’s regular pay for working such shift.
(d) Scheduling Exceptions. The requirements of this section shall not apply under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Mutually agreed-upon work shift swaps or coverage arrangements among employees;
(2) Employee initiated voluntary shift modifications, such as voluntary requests to leave a scheduled shift prior to the end of the shift or to use sick leave, vacation leave, or other policies offered by the Employer. This paragraph shall apply only to the employee initiating the voluntary shift modification; or (3) To accommodate the following transitions in shifts:
(i) If an employee works no more than thirty minutes past the end of a scheduled shift to complete service to a customer, provided the employee is compensated at their regular rate of pay for the additional work performed by the employee.

Ordinance No. 7,846-N.S. Page 6 of 12
(ii) An employee begins or ends their scheduled shift no more than ten minutes prior to or after the scheduled shift, provided the employee is compensated at their regular rate of pay for the additional work performed by the employee. (e) Operational Exceptions. The requirements of this section shall not apply under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Operations cannot begin or continue due to threats to covered employers, employees or property, or when civil authorities recommend that work not begin or continue;
(2) Operations cannot begin or continue because public utilities fail to supply electricity, water, or gas, or there is a failure in the public utilities or sewer system; (3) Operations cannot begin or continue due to acts of nature (including but not limited to flood, fire, explosion, earthquake, tidal wave, drought), pandemic, war, civil unrest, strikes, or other cause not within the covered employer’s control; (4) When, in manufacturing, events outside of the control of the manufacturer result in a reduction in the need for covered employees, including, but not limited to, when a customer requests the manufacturer to delay production or there is a delay in the receipt of raw materials or component parts needed for production; or (5) With regard to healthcare employers, in (i) any declared national, State, or municipal disaster or other catastrophic event, or any implementation of an Employer's disaster plan, or incident causing a hospital to activate its Emergency Operations Plan that is reasonably expected to substantially affect or increase the need for healthcare services; (ii) any circumstance in which patient care needs require specialized skills through the completion of a procedure; or (iii) any unexpected substantial increase in demand for healthcare due to large public events, severe weather, violence, or other circumstances beyond the healthcare employer's control.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a covered employer from providing greater advance notice of employee’s work schedules and/or changes in schedules than that required by this section.

13.102.070 Offer of Work to Existing Employees.
(a) Subject to the limitations in this chapter, before hiring new employees, including hiring through the use of temporary services or staffing agencies, a covered employer shall first offer additional hours of work to existing part-time employee(s) who have worked on behalf of the employer for more than two weeks, if the part-time employee(s) are qualified to do the additional work, as reasonably and in good faith determined by the covered employer, and if the additional hours needed are not the same hours the part- time employee is scheduled to work. This section shall not be construed to require any employer to offer employees work hours paid at a premium rate under Labor Code Section 510 nor to prohibit any employer from offering such work hours. These hours will not be required to be distributed on the basis of seniority.

Ordinance No. 7,846-N.S. Page 7 of 12
(b) A covered employer has discretion to distribute the additional work hours among qualified part-time employees consistent with this section; provided, that: (1) the employer’s system for distribution of hours must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, age, marital or familial status, nor on the basis of family caregiving responsibilities; and (2) the employer may not distribute hours in a manner intended to avoid an increase in the number of employees working 30 or more hours per week, or with regard to the City of Berkeley, to avoid the granting of any benefits that an employee earns based on hours worked. Additionally, for the City of Berkeley, the offering of these additional hours shall not in themselves confer career status on any non-career employee or confer benefits on any non-benefitted employee, unless required by state or federal law.
(c) A part-time employee may, but is not required to, accept the covered employer’s offer of additional work under this section. (1) Part-time employees shall have 24 hours to accept an offer of additional hours of work under this section, after which time the covered employer may hire new employees to work the additional hours.
(2) The 24-hour period referred to in this subsection begins either when the employee receives the written offer of additional hours, or when the covered employer posts the offer of additional hours as described in subsection (d) of this section, whichever is sooner. A part-time employee who wishes to accept the additional hours must do so in writing.
(d) When this section requires a covered employer to offer additional hours to existing part-time employees, the covered employer shall make the offer either in writing or by posting the offer in a conspicuous location in the workplace or electronically where notices to employees are customarily posted.

13.102.080 Right to Rest.
(a) An employee has the right to decline work hours that occur less than 11 hours after the end of the previous shift.
(b) An employee who agrees in writing to work hours described in this section shall be compensated at one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for any hours worked less than 11 hours following the end of a previous shift.

13.102.090 Right to Request a Flexible Working Arrangement.

An employee has the right to request a modified work schedule, including but not limited to additional shifts or hours; changes in days of work or start and/or end times for the shift; permission to exchange shifts with other employees; limitations on availability; part- time employment; job sharing arrangements; reduction or change in work duties; or part- year employment. Notwithstanding any obligations under Section 13.102.060, an employer may accept, modify, or decline the employee’s request. A covered employer shall not retaliate against an employee for exercising their rights under this section or the

Ordinance No. 7,846-N.S. Page 8 of 12
rights outlined in the Berkeley Family Friendly and Environment Friendly Workplace Ordinance, Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.101.

13.102.100 Notice and Posting.
(a) The Department shall publish and make available to covered employers, in English and other languages as provided in any implementing regulations, a notice suitable for posting by covered employers in the workplace informing employees of their rights under this chapter.
(b) Each covered employer shall give written notification to each current employee and to each new employee at time of hire of their rights under this chapter. Every covered employer shall also provide each employee at the time of hire with the covered employer’s name, address, and telephone number in writing. The written notification shall be in English and other languages as provided in any implementing regulations, and shall also be posted prominently in areas at the work site where it will be seen by all employees.

Failure to post such notice shall render the covered employer subject to administrative citation, pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. The Department is authorized to prepare sample notices and covered employer use of such notices shall constitute compliance with this subsection.

13.102.110 Implementation.
(a) The Department shall be authorized to coordinate implementation and enforcement of this chapter and may promulgate appropriate guidelines or rules for such purposes.

Any guidelines or rules promulgated by the City shall have the force and effect of law and may be relied on by covered employers, employees and other parties to determine their rights and responsibilities under this chapter. Any guidelines or rules may establish procedures for ensuring fair, efficient and cost-effective implementation of this chapter, including supplementary procedures for helping to inform employees of their rights under this chapter, for monitoring covered employer compliance with this chapter, and for providing administrative hearings to determine whether a covered employer has violated the requirements of this chapter.
(b) Reporting Violations. An aggrieved employee may report to the Department in writing any suspected violation of this chapter. The Department shall keep confidential, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable laws, the name and other identifying information of the employee reporting the violation; provided, however, that with the authorization of such employee, the Department may disclose their name and identifying information as necessary to enforce this chapter or other employee protection laws. (c) Investigation. The Department may investigate any possible violations of this chapter by a covered employer. The Department shall have the authority to inspect workplaces, interview persons and subpoena records or other items relevant to the enforcement of this chapter.
(d) Informal Resolution. If the Department elects to investigate a complaint, the City shall make every effort to resolve complaints informally and in a timely manner. The City’s investigation and pursuit of informal resolution does not limit or act as a prerequisite for an employee’s right to bring a private action against a covered employer as provided in this chapter.

Ordinance No. 7,846-N.S. Page 9 of 12

13.102.120 Enforcement.
(a) Enforcement by City. The Department may take any appropriate enforcement action to ensure compliance, including but not limited to the following:

The Department may issue an administrative citation pursuant to Chapter 1.28 of the Berkeley Municipal Code. The amount of this fine shall vary based on the provision of this chapter violated, as specified below:
(1) A fine may be assessed for retaliation by a covered employer against an employee for exercising rights protected under this chapter. The fine shall be $1,000 for each employee retaliated against.
(2) A fine of $500 may be assessed for any of the following violations of this chapter:
(i) Failure to provide notice of employees’ rights under this chapter. (ii) Failure to timely provide an initial work schedule or to timely update work schedules following changes.
(iii) Failure to provide predictability pay for schedule changes with less than24 hours advance notice.
(iv) Failure to offer work to existing employees before hiring new employees or temporary staff or to award work to a qualified employee. (v) Failure to maintain payroll records for the minimum period of time as provided in this chapter.
(vi) Failure to allow the Department access to payroll records. (3) A fine equal to the total amount of appropriate remedies, pursuant to subsection (c) of this section. Any and all money collected in this way that is the rightful property of an employee, such as back wages, interest, and civil penalty payments, shall be disbursed by the Department in a prompt manner. (b) City Access. Each covered employer shall permit access to work sites and relevant records for authorized City representatives for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this chapter and investigating employee complaints of noncompliance, including production for inspection and copying of its employment records, but without allowing Social Security numbers to become a matter of public record. (c) Any person aggrieved by a violation of this Chapter, any entity a member of which is aggrieved by a violation of this Chapter or any other person or entity acting on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law, may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the Employer or other person violating this Chapter and, upon prevailing, shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and shall be entitled to such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation including, without limitation, the payment of any back wages unlawfully withheld, the payment of an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of $50 to each Employee or person whose rights under this Chapter were violated for each day that the violation occurred or continued with a maximum penalty of $1,000 per Employee per year, reinstatement in employment and/or injunctive relief.

Ordinance No. 7,846-N.S. Page 10 of 12
This Section shall not be construed to limit an Employee’s right to bring legal action for a violation of any other laws concerning wages, hours, or other standards or rights nor shall exhaustion of remedies under this Chapter be a prerequisite to the assertion of any right. (d) The remedies for violation of this chapter include but are not limited to:
(1) Reinstatement, the payment of predictability pay unlawfully withheld, and the payment of an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of $50 to each employee whose rights under this chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, and fines imposed pursuant to other provisions of this chapter or State law.
(2) Interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the California Civil Code, which shall accrue from the date that the wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200) of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, to the date the wages are paid in full.
(3) Reimbursement of the City’s administrative costs of enforcement and reasonable attorney’s fees.
(4) If a repeated violation of this chapter has been finally determined in a period from July 1 to June 30 of the following year, the Department may require the employer to pay an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of $50 to the City for each employee or person whose rights under this chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, and fines imposed pursuant to other provisions of this Code or State law. (e) The remedies, penalties and procedures provided under this chapter are cumulative and are not intended to be exclusive of any other available remedies, penalties and procedures established by law which may be pursued to address violations of this chapter. Actions taken pursuant to this chapter shall not prejudice or adversely affect any other action, administrative or judicial, that may be brought to abate a violation or to seek compensation for damages suffered.
(f) No criminal penalties shall attach for any violation of this chapter, nor shall this chapter give rise to any cause of action for damages against the City.

13.102.130 Retaliation Prohibited.

An employer shall not discharge, reduce the compensation of, discriminate against, or take any adverse employment action against an employee, including discipline, suspension, transfer or assignment to a lesser position in terms of job classification, job security, or other condition of employment, reduction of hours or denial of additional hours, informing another employer that the person has engaged in activities protected by this chapter, or reporting or threatening to report the actual or suspected citizenship or immigration status of an employee, former employee or family member of an employee to a Federal, State or local agency, for making a complaint to the Department, participating in any of the Department’s proceedings, using any civil remedies to enforce their rights, or otherwise asserting their rights under this chapter. Within 120 days of an employer being notified of such activity, it shall be unlawful for the employer to discharge

Ordinance No. 7,846-N.S. Page 11 of 12
any employee who engaged in such activity unless the employer has clear and convincing evidence of just cause for such discharge.

13.102.140 Retention of Records.

Each employer shall maintain for at least three years for each employee a record of their name, hours worked, pay rate, initial posted schedule and all subsequent changes to that schedule, consent to work hours where such consent is required by this chapter, and documentation of the time and method of offering additional hours of work to existing staff. Each employer shall provide each employee a copy of the records relating to such employee upon the employee’s reasonable request.

13.102.150 City Access.

Each employer shall permit access to work sites and relevant records for authorized Department representatives for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this chapter and investigating employee complaints of noncompliance, including production for inspection and copying of its employment records, but without allowing Social Security numbers to become a matter of public record.

13.102.160 No Preemption of Higher Standards.

The purpose of this chapter is to ensure minimum labor standards. This chapter does not preempt or prevent the establishment of superior employment standards (including higher wages) or the expansion of coverage by ordinance, resolution, contract, or any other action of the City. This chapter shall not be construed to limit a discharged employee’s right to bring a common law cause of action for wrongful termination.

13.102.170 Severability.

If any part or provision of this Chapter, or the application of this Chapter to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Chapter, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected by such a holding and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Chapter are severable.

Section 2. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Ordinance No. 7,846-N.S. Page 12 of 12
At a special meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on November 21, 2022, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Hahn, Harrison, Kesarwani, Robinson, Taplin, and Arreguin.

Noes: None.

Absent: Droste and Wengraf.

Ordinance No. 7,847-N.S. Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE NO. 7,847-N.S.

AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) SECTION 20.12.070 TO MODIFY THE SIGN ORDINANCE, MODIFYING CHAPTER 20.16 TO ADOPT SECTION

20.16.105 INTRODUCING A COORDINATED SIGN DESIGN PROGRAM, AND AMENDING SECTION 23.406.070 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE SIGN ORDINANCE.

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That BMC Section 20.12.070 is hereby amended to clarify the issuance process and when signs are exempt from Design Review as follows:

20.12.70 Issuance authorized when.

A. Applications for proposed signs or alteration/relocation of existing signs are subject to review by the Director of Planning and Development or their designee, including specifications for compliance with all requirements of this title.

B. The Building Official shall determine if a sign requires a Building Permit or Electrical Permit to meet the requirements of the Berkeley Building Code.

C. A building permit and/or an electrical permit for a sign subject to Design Review pursuant to Section 23.406.070 shall not be issued until Design Review approval has been granted and the permit has been found in conformance with the approved design.

D. A Coordinated Sign Design Program may, at the applicant’s discretion, be reviewed and approved simultaneously with or subsequent to Design Review for a building.

E. Exempt Signs.

1. Approved existing signs may be refaced, re-painted or replaced with the same location, size, and design, subject to review by the Building Official in cases where a Building Permit is required.

2. Signs pursuant to a Coordinated Sign Design Program may be installed and replaced without Design Review and shall be approved with a Zoning Certificate, subject to review by the Building Official in cases where a Building Permit is required.

Section 2. That BMC Section 20.16.105, Coordinated Sign Design Programs, is hereby added as follows:

20.16.105 Coordinated Sign Design Programs.

A. Purpose.

1. To create a streamlined sign review process for development projects, projects with multiple signs, and projects with multiple tenants.

2. To ensure consistent design, quality and display of signs.

B. Applicability. The following projects are eligible for a Coordinated Sign Design Program:

1. Four or more contiguous non-residential tenant spaces.

2. Four or more permanent non-exempt signs associated with one development project, business or Use Permit.

Ordinance No. 7,847-N.S. Page 2 of 4

3. Projects with unique characteristics, including but not limited to site visibility and site location, as determined by the Director of Planning and Development or their designee.

C. Approval and Appeal Authority.

1. A Coordinated Sign Design Program may be part of preliminary or final Design Review and shall be decided upon by the Design Review Committee or Landmark Preservation Commission, according to their jurisdiction. Appeals shall be heard by the Zoning Adjustment Board whose decision is final.

2. The Building Official shall determine if a sign allowed under a Coordinated Sign Design Program requires a Building Permit or Electrical Permit to meet the requirements of the Berkeley Building Code.

D. Regulations.

1. A Coordinated Sign Design Program shall outline regulations including, but not limited to, sign area, number of signs, maximum height, and location.

2. A Coordinated Sign Design Program may include exceptions to the regulations established in this Chapter when deemed necessary or desirable.

E. Application Requirements. A Coordinated Sign Design Program shall include all information and materials required in administrative guidelines published by the Planning Department, including the Coordinated Sign Design Program fee in the Fee Schedule.

F. Findings. In order to approve a Coordinated Sign Design Program, the following findings shall be made:

1. The Coordinated Sign Design Program complies with the purpose of this Chapter;

2. The Coordinated Sign Design Program ensures proposed signs enhance the overall project;

3. The Coordinated Sign Design Program ensures proposed signs are in harmony with other signs and structures included in the project;

4. The Coordinated Sign Design Program ensures proposed signs are in harmony with surrounding development;

5. The Coordinated Sign Design Program contains provisions to accommodate Change in Use or new tenants; and

6. The Coordinated Sign Design Program complies with the standards of this Chapter and/or includes specific exceptions as deemed necessary or desirable.

G. Revisions to Coordinated Sign Design Programs. Revisions to Coordinated Sign Design Programs shall be considered by the original decision- maker.

H. Binding Effect.

1. A Coordinated Sign Design Program, once adopted, shall be adhered to unless amended.

2. A Coordinated Sign Design Program shall be enforced in accordance with this Chapter.

Ordinance No. 7,847-N.S. Page 3 of 4
Section 3. That BMC Section 23.406.070.B is amended as follows:

23.406.070.B Design review.

B. When Required.

1. Design Review is required for:
a. Projects in all Non-Residential Districts.
b. Mixed use and community and institutional projects in the R-3 district within the Southside Plan area. See Figure 23.202-1: R-3 Areas Subject to Design Review; and
c. Commercial, mixed-use, and community and institutional projects in the R-4, R-SMU, and R-S districts.

2. As used in Paragraph (1) above, “project” means an activity requiring a building or sign permit that involves any of the following:
a. Modifying the exterior of an existing structure.
b. Additions to an existing structure.
c. Demolishing all or a portion of an existing structure. d. Removing all or part of a building facade fronting the public right-of-way. e. Constructing a new structure.
f. Installing a sign or replacing a sign with a different location, size, or design. g. Signs not part of a Coordinated Sign Design Program.

Section 4. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Ordinance No. 7,847-N.S. Page 4 of 4
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on November 29, 2022, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Droste, Hahn, Harrison, Kesarwani, Robinson, Taplin, Wengraf, and Arreguin.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

Office of the City Attorney

CONSENT CALENDAR
December 13, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Farimah Faiz Brown, City Attorney
Subject: Resolution Reviewing and Ratifying the Proclamation of Local Emergency Due to the Spread of a Severe Acute Respiratory Illness Caused by a Novel (New) Coronavirus (COVID-19)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution reviewing the need for continuing the local emergency due to the spread of a severe acute respiratory illness caused by a novel (new) coronavirus (COVID-19) and ratifying the Proclamation of Local Emergency issued by the Director of Emergency Services on March 3, 2020, initially ratified by the City Council on March 10, 2020, and subsequently reviewed and ratified by the Council on April 21, 2020, June 16, 2020, July 28, 2020, September 22, 2020, November 17, 2020, December 15, 2020, February 9, 2021, March 30, 2021, May 25, 2021, July 20, 2021, September 14, 2021, December 14, 2021, February 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, May 10, 2022, June 28, 2022, July 26, 2022, September 20, 2022, and November 3, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION
To be determined.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Pursuant to California Government Code section 8630 and Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 2.88, on March 3, 2020, the City Manager, in her capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency due to conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the City as a consequence of the global spread of a severe acute respiratory illness caused by a novel (new) coronavirus (COVID-19), including a confirmed case in the City of Berkeley. As a result of multiple confirmed and presumed cases in Alameda County, the County has declared a local health emergency. The Proclamation of Local Emergency empowers the Director of Emergency Services to make and issue rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by such local emergency.

Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(b) and Berkeley Municipal Code section

2.88.040.A.1, on March 10, 2020, the City Council ratified the Proclamation of Local Emergency with the passage of Resolution No. 69-312.

Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every sixty (60) days. The Council last reviewed and ratified the Proclamation of Local Emergency on May 10, 2022. The Council therefore must review the continuing need for the local emergency by July 9, 2022.

This item requests that the Council review the continued need for the local emergency and again ratify the Proclamation of Local Emergency issued on March 3, 2020, initially ratified by the Council on March 10, 2020, and subsequently reviewed and ratified by the Council on April 21, 2020, June 16, 2020, July 28, 2020, September 22, 2020, November 17, 2020, December 15, 2020, February 9, 2021, March 30, 2021, May 25, 2021, July 20, 2021, September 14, 2021, December 14, 2021, February 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, May 10, 2022, June 28, 2022, July 26, 2022, September 20, 2022, and November 3, 2022. If reviewed and ratified on December 13, 2022, the Council will need to again review and ratify the proclamation by February 11, 2023 in order to continue the local emergency.

If at any time the Council determines that the need for continuing the local emergency has ended, state law directs the Council to terminate the local emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. (Cal. Gov. Code section 8630(d).)

BACKGROUND
On March 1, 2020, Alameda County Public Health Department and Solano County Public Health Department reported two presumptive cases of COVID-19, pending confirmatory testing by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), prompting Alameda County to declare a local health emergency.

On March 3, 2020, the City’s Director of Emergency Services proclaimed a local emergency due to the spread of COVID-19, including a confirmed case in the City of Berkeley and multiple confirmed and presumed cases in Alameda County.

On March 10, 2020, the City Council ratified the Proclamation of Local Emergency.

Since that date, there have been over 4,955 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and at least 55 deaths in the City of Berkeley.

Since April 2021, the highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (“Delta”) variant has been detected in the City of Berkeley and is contributing to substantial levels of community transmission.

The City Council has subsequently reviewed and ratified the Proclamation of Local Emergency on April 21, 2020, June 16, 2020, July 28, 2020, September 22, 2020, November 17, 2020, December 15, 2020, February 9, 2021, March 30, 2021, May 25, 2021, July 20, 2021, September 14, 2021, December 14, 2021, February 8, 2022,

March 22, 2022, May 10, 2022, June 28, 2022, July 26, 2022, September 20, 2022, and November 3, 2022.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Not applicable.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Resolution would enable the Director of Emergency Services to continue to efficiently allocate resources due to the ongoing and imminent threat to public safety.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager, City Manager’s Office (510) 981-7000 Farimah Brown, City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office (510) 981-6998 Attachments:
1: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. –N.S.

RESOLUTION REVIEWING AND RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL

EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, the Emergency Services Act, Government Code sections 8558(c) and 8630 authorize the proclamation of a local emergency when conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of a city exist; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 8630, such an emergency may be proclaimed by the governing body or by an official designated by ordinance adopted by the governing body; and
WHEREAS, Berkeley Municipal Code section 2.88.040 provides that the City Manager, serving as the Director of Emergency Services, may request that the City Council proclaim the existence of a local emergency; and
WHEREAS, under provision of local law, if the City Council cannot be convened and, in the judgment of the Director of Emergency Services, the circumstances warrant it, a proclamation of local emergency may be issued which must be ratified or nullified by the City Council within seven days of issuance; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with authority granted under the above provisions of state and local law, the Director of Emergency Services beginning on March 3, 2020 did proclaim the existence of a local emergency caused by epidemic in the form of the global spread of a severe acute respiratory illness caused by a novel (new) coronavirus (“COVID-19”), including confirmed cases in California and the San Francisco Bay Area, and presumed cases in Alameda County prompting the County to declare a local health emergency; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, the City Council ratified the Proclamation of Local Emergency with the passage of Resolution No. 69-312; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 8630(c) requires that the City Council review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every sixty (60) days; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently reviewed the need for continuing the local emergency and again ratified the Proclamation of Local Emergency on April 21, 2020, June 16, 2020, July 28, 2020, September 22, 2020, November 17, 2020, December 15, 2020, February 9, 2021, March 30, 2021, May 25, 2021, July 20, 2021, September 14, 2021, December 14, 2021, February 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, May 10, 2022, June 28, 2022, July 26, 2022, September 20, 2022, and November 3, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council does find that the aforesaid conditions of extreme peril continue to exist, and now include over 13,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and at least 61 deaths in the City of Berkeley, thereby warranting and necessitating the continuation of the local emergency; and

WHEREAS, the City Council will need to again review the need for continuing the local emergency and ratify the Proclamation of Local Emergency by August 27, 2022; WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (“Delta”) variant of COVID-19 that is currently circulating nationally and within the City is contributing to a substantial increase in transmissibility and more severe disease; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2021, in light of the apparent increased transmissibility of the Delta variant, the City of Berkeley recommended that all individuals including fully vaccinated persons wear masks in public indoor settings; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2021, the California State Health Officer issued an order requiring vaccination or routine testing of all employees working in high-risk health care and congregate settings, in light of the fact that current requirements of staff in health care settings, such as universal mask requirements for all staff are not proving sufficient to prevent transmission of the more transmissible Delta variant; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, the CDC updated its guidance for fully vaccinated persons to reflect new evidence regarding the Delta variant, noting that “[i]nfections in fully vaccinated people (breakthrough infections) happen in only a small proportion of people who are fully vaccinated, even with the Delta variant”; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2021, the Health Officer for the City of Berkeley issued an order requiring all individuals to wear masks in all indoor public settings; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 2021, the California State Health Officer issued an order requiring that workers in healthcare settings be fully vaccinated by September 30, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on August 11, 2021, the City announced its intention to implement a vaccination policy for City employees to protect the health and safety of the City of Berkeley’s employees and community members from the imminent and substantial threat to public health and safety posed by the Delta variant; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2021, given the increased and unforeseen risk posed by the Delta variant, as compared to earlier variants of the COVID-19 virus previously present in the City of Berkeley, the City Council found that a Citywide vaccination policy protects public health and reduces the risk of substantial harm to City staff and community members that could result from workplace outbreaks caused by the Delta variant; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2021, given the urgency posed by the highly transmissible nature of the Delta variant, the City Council recognized the variant’s existence as creating an emergency of grave character and as warranting immediate adoption of a Citywide vaccination policy.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it is hereby proclaimed and ordered that the Proclamation of Local Emergency, issued by the Director of Emergency Services on March 3, 2020, initially ratified by the City Council on March 10, 2020, and subsequently reviewed and ratified by the City Council on April 21, 2020, June 16, 2020, July 28, 2020, September 22, 2020, November 17, 2020, December 15, 2020, February 9, 2021, March 30, 2021, May 25, 2021, July 20, 2021, September 14, 2021, December 14, 2021, February 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, May 10, 2022, June 28, 2022, July 26, 2022, September 20, 2022, and November 3, 2022, has been reviewed and is hereby again ratified and confirmed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during the existence of this local emergency the powers, functions, and duties of the emergency organization of this City shall be those prescribed by state law, and the Charter, ordinances, resolutions and approved plans of the City of Berkeley.

Office of the City Attorney

CONSENT CALENDAR
December 13, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Madame City Manager
From: Farimah Faiz Brown, City Attorney
Subject: Resolution Making Required Findings Pursuant to the Government Code and Directing City Legislative Bodies to Continue to Meet Via Videoconference and Teleconference

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution making the required findings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3) and determining that as a result of the continued threat to public health and safety posed by the spread of COVID-19, City legislative bodies shall continue to meet via videoconference and teleconference, initially ratified by the City Council on September 28, 2021, and subsequently reviewed and ratified on October 26, 2021, November 16, 2021, December 14, 2021, January 10, 2022, February 8, 2022, March 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, April 12, 2022, May 10, 2022, May 31, 2022, June 28, 2022, July 26, 2022, August 23, 2022, September 20, 2022, October 11, 2022, November 3, 2022, and November 29, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION
To be determined.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City Council made the initial findings required under the Government Code on September 28, 2021. The Council must make the findings every thirty days in order to continue to meet exclusively through video conference or teleconference.

Pursuant to California Government Code section 8630 and Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 2.88.040, on March 3, 2020, the City Manager, in her capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency due to conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the City as a consequence of the global spread of a severe acute respiratory illness caused by a novel (new) coronavirus (COVID-19), including a confirmed case in the City of Berkeley. As a result of multiple confirmed and presumed cases in Alameda County, the County has declared a local health emergency. On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued a Proclamation

of a State of Emergency due to the spread of COVID-19. On March 10, 2020, the City Council ratified the Proclamation of Local Emergency with the passage of Resolution No. 69-312.

On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-29-20, which suspended certain portions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.) related to the holding of teleconferenced meetings by City legislative bodies. Among other things, Executive Order N-29-20 suspended requirements that each location from which an official accesses a teleconferenced meeting be accessible to the public.

These changes were necessary to allow teleconferencing to be used as a tool for ensuring social distancing. City legislative bodies have held public meetings via videoconference and teleconference pursuant to these provisions since March 2020.

These provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 will expire on September 30, 2021.

COVID-19 continues to pose a serious threat to public health and safety. There are now over 4,700 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and at least 55 deaths in the City of Berkeley.

Additionally, the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (“Delta”) variant of COVID-19 that is currently circulating nationally and within the City is contributing to a substantial increase in transmissibility and more severe disease.

As a result of the continued threat to public health posed by the spread of COVID-19, state and local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing, mask wearing and vaccination. Holding meetings of City legislative bodies in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of the public and members of legislative bodies, and therefore public meetings cannot safely be held in person at this time
Assembly Bill 361 (Rivas), signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2021, amended a portion of the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54953) to authorize the City Council, during the state of emergency, to determine that, due to the spread of COVID-19, holding in-person public meetings would present an imminent risk to the health or safety of attendees, and therefore City legislative bodies must continue to meet via videoconference and teleconference. Assembly Bill 361 requires that the City Council must review and ratify such a determination every thirty (30) days.

Therefore, if the Council passes this resolution on December 13, 2022, the Council will need to review and ratify the resolution by January 12, 2023.

This item requests that the Council review the circumstances of the continued state of emergency posed by the spread of COVID-19, and find that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the public and members of City legislative bodies to meet safely in person, that holding public meetings of City legislative bodies in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees, and that state and local officials continue to promote social distancing, mask wearing and vaccination. This item further requests that the Council determine that City legislative bodies, including but not limited to the City Council and its committees, and all commissions and boards, shall continue to hold public meetings via videoconference

and teleconference, and that City legislative bodies shall continue to comply with all provisions of the Brown Act, as amended by SB 361.

BACKGROUND
On March 1, 2020, Alameda County Public Health Department and Solano County Public Health Department reported two presumptive cases of COVID-19, pending confirmatory testing by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), prompting Alameda County to declare a local health emergency.

On March 3, 2020, the City’s Director of Emergency Services proclaimed a local emergency due to the spread of COVID-19, including a confirmed case in the City of Berkeley and multiple confirmed and presumed cases in Alameda County.

On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued a Proclamation of a State of Emergency due to the spread of COVID-19.

On March 10, 2020, the City Council ratified the Proclamation of Local Emergency.

Since that date, there have been over 4,700 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and at least 57 deaths in the City of Berkeley.

On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-29-20 which suspended certain portions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.) to allow teleconferencing of public meetings to be used as a tool for ensuring social distancing. As a result, City legislative bodies have held public meetings via teleconference throughout the pandemic. The provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 allowing teleconferencing to be used as a tool for social distancing will expire on September 30, 2021.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Not applicable.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Resolution would enable the City Council and its committees, and City boards and commissions to continue to hold public meetings via videoconference and teleconference in order to continue to socially distance and limit the spread of COVID-

19. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Farimah Brown, City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office (510) 981-6998 Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6908
Attachments:1: Resolution Directing City Legislative Bodies to Continue to Meet Via Videoconference and Teleconference

RESOLUTION NO. –N.S.

RESOLUTION MAKING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(E)(3) AND DIRECTING CITY LEGISLATIVE BODIES TO

CONTINUE TO MEET VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE AND TELECONFERENCE WHEREAS, in accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code section 2.88.040 and sections 8558(c) and 8630 of the Government Code, which authorize the proclamation of a local emergency when conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of a City exist, the City Manager, serving as the Director of Emergency Services, beginning on March 3, 2020, did proclaim the existence of a local emergency caused by epidemic in the form of the global spread of a severe acute respiratory illness caused by a novel (new) coronavirus (“COVID-19”), including confirmed cases in California and the San Francisco Bay Area, and presumed cases in Alameda County prompting the County to declare a local health emergency; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, the City Council ratified the Proclamation of Local Emergency with the passage of Resolution No. 69-312; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued a Proclamation of a State of Emergency pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act, in particular, Government Code section 8625; and
WHEREAS, the Proclamation of a State of Emergency issued by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020 continues to be in effect; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361, which authorizes the City Council to determine that, due to the continued threat to public health and safety posed by the spread of COVID-19, City legislative bodies shall continue to meet via videoconference and teleconference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does find that the aforesaid conditions of extreme peril continue to exist, and now include over 4,700 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and at least 55 deaths in the City of Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (“Delta”) variant of COVID-19 that is currently circulating nationally and within the City is contributing to a substantial increase in transmissibility and more severe disease; and WHEREAS, as a result of the continued threat to public health posed by the spread of COVID-19, state and local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing, mask wearing and vaccination; and

WHEREAS, holding meetings of City legislative bodies in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of the public and members of legislative bodies, and therefore public meetings cannot safely be held in person at this time; and WHEREAS, the City Council made the initial findings required by the Government Code on September 28, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City Council made subsequent findings required by the Government Code on October 26, 2021, November 16, 2021, December 14, 2021, January 10, 2022, February 8, 2022, March 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, April 12, 2022, May 10, 2022, May 31, 2022, June 28, 2022, July 26, 2022, August 23, 2022, September 20, 2022, October 11, 2022, November 3, 2022, November 29, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council will need to again review the need for the continuing necessity of holding City legislative body meetings via videoconference and teleconference by January 12, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that, pursuant to Government Code section 54953, the City Council has reviewed the circumstances of the continued state of emergency posed by the spread of COVID-19, and finds that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the public and members of City legislative bodies to meet safely in person, that holding public meetings of City legislative bodies in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees, and that state and local officials continue to promote social distancing, mask wearing and vaccination.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City legislative bodies, including but not limited to the City Council and its committees, and all commissions and boards, shall continue to hold public meetings via videoconference and teleconference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all City legislative bodies shall comply with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(e)(2) and all applicable laws, regulations and rules when conducting public meetings pursuant to this resolution.

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
December 13, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Farimah Brown, City Attorney
Subject: Waiver of the Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance’s Requirements for AG Witt, LLC Contract

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving a waiver of the Sanctuary City Contracting ordinance’s requirements for the City’s FEMA Cost-Recovery Contract with AG Witt LLC.

FISCAL IMPACT
Likely none as the City will be seeking reimbursement through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance Program for the costs of the AG Witt contract.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Since June 2020, AG Witt, LLC has been providing the City with support in developing and submitting reimbursement requests to the FEMA Public Assistance Program for costs incurred during the COVID-10 pandemic. Due to the urgency surrounding this process and the need to comply with federal contracting rules in place at the time, a Sanctuary City compliance certification was not obtained at the time the contact was initially entered into. Although AG Witt has attested that it does not provide any services prohibited by Chapter 13.105, a retroactive waiver is being sought out of an abundance of caution.

BACKGROUND
As part of the City's COVID-19 response, the City underwent a Request for Proposal process to retain a firm to provide disaster cost recovery consulting services. After a selection process that included interviews with the top two responders, the City's evaluation team consisting of representatives from the offices of the City Manager, City Auditor, City Attorney and the Office of Emergency Services, determined that the best qualified firm meeting the City's needs was AG Witt, LLC. In June 2020, the City entered into a contract with AG Witt.

The work AG Witt has done has been extremely helpful in developing policies and processes related to the COVID-19 response. AG Witt has helped the City to prepare

AG Witt, LLC Sanctuary City Ordinance Waiver CONSENT CALENDAR December 13, 2022

and submit cost reimbursement requests to the FEMA and the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services.

The Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance prohibits contracting with an entity that provides “data broker” or “extreme vetting” services to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department unless a waiver is granted by the Council. An AG Witt LLC representative has attested that it does not provide any of the prohibited services and the City is unaware of any information that would contradict this statement.

However, because a notice regarding the Sanctuary City Contracting ordinance was not included in the RFP process and the City did not obtain a formal Sanctuary City compliance certification from AG Witt, LLC, a retroactive waiver is being sought out of an abundance of caution.

The waiver does not conflict with the intent of the Ordinance, because AG Witt, LLC is not a data broker and is not engaged in “extreme vetting.” No reasonable alternative to the City’s actions existed at the time because the President of the United States had repeatedly threatened to withhold FEMA reimbursement to states and localities engaged in “Sanctuary City” activities, and the use of the Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance notices and affidavit would have likely invited the Trump Administration to deny FEMA reimbursement for the substantial expenses incurred by the City in responding to the pandemic. The City has already applied for approximately $500,000 in reimbursements and the City has no alternative source for this funding.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information described above, the waiver is being sought out of an abundance of caution.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Farimah Brown, City Attorney, (510) 981-6998
Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

APPROVE A WAIVER OF THE SANCTUARY CITY CONTRACTING ORDINANCE’s REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY’S COST-RECOVERY CONTRACT WITH AG WITT, LLC
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No. 7650-N.S. and Chapter 13.105, the Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance, prohibits the City from doing business with a vendor that provides the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency with “data broker” or “extreme vetting” services; and
WHEREAS, the City entered into a contract with AG Witt, LLC to provide valuable services related to the City’s COVID -19 cost recovery efforts but a notice regarding the Sanctuary City Contracting ordinance was not included in the RFP process and the City did not obtain a signed declaration from AG Witt, LLC related to its compliance with the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a waiver is being sought out of an abundance of caution; and WHEREAS, the waiver does not conflict with the intent of the Ordinance, because AG Witt, LLC has attested that is does not provide any of the services prohibited by the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, no reasonable alternative to the City’s actions existed at the time because the President of the United States had repeatedly threatened to withhold FEMA reimbursement to “Sanctuary Cities”; and
WHEREAS, the City has applied for significant reimbursements and has no alternative source for this funding; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that a waiver of the Ordinance’s requirements for the City’s cost-recovery contract with AG Witt, LLC is approved.

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
December 13, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Subject: City of Berkeley’s 2023 State and Federal Legislative Platform

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the City of Berkeley’s 2023 State and Federal Legislative Platform.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Formal adoption and use of a legislative platform, by clearly indicating the City of Berkeley’s priorities, may increase the City’s effectiveness when competing for federal or state funding opportunities.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECT
On December 14, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 70-146-N.S., which approved the City of Berkeley’s 2022 State and Federal Legislative Platform. The Proposed 2023 State and Federal Legislative Platform is similar to the prior platform and reiterates the City’s priority areas related to homelessness, housing, economic development, transportation and related infrastructure, public safety, sustainability and the environment, and health, as described more fully in Exhibit A.

In addition, the platform supports the City’s efforts to seek federal and state funding assistance in the areas of affordable housing and homelessness, infrastructure improvements and climate resiliency including wildfire prevention. Many of these policy and funding priorities support the City’s long-term Strategic Plan goals, including providing state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, providing a financially-healthy government, creating affordable housing and housing support services, creating a resilient and safe city, and continuing to be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley’s 2023 legislative platform reiterates the priorities adopted by the City Council in 2022. The City Manager and City Department Directors provided input regarding the priority areas and projects to include within the 2023 legislative platform.

City of Berkeley’s 2023 State and Federal Legislative Platform CONSENT CALENDAR December 13, 2022

In addition, the Budget and Finance Policy Committee reviewed the draft platform during its November 10, 2022 meeting.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
While adopting the legislative platform will not directly impact climate or improve environmental sustainability, these items will be supported by the platform through related policy and funding priorities.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
A formally adopted legislative platform clearly indicates the City’s policy and funding priorities, allowing for more effective, targeted advocacy for the City’s needs at the state and federal level.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The City could choose not to formally adopt a legislative platform. This could result in missing funding opportunities and a less clear position, voice or impact during state and federal level policy discussions and decisions.

CONTACT PERSON
Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager, (510) 981-7000
Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: City of Berkeley’s 2023 State and Federal Legislative Platform

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

CITY OF BERKELEY 2023 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has an interest in indicating to state and federal government the City’s own legislative platform; and
WHEREAS, said platform can improve the City’s ability to influence state and federal policy; and
WHEREAS, said platform can improve the City’s effectiveness when competing for state and federal funding opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley 2023 State and Federal Legislative Platform clearly outlines the City’s policy and funding priorities.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it approves and adopts Exhibit A, the City of Berkeley’s 2023 State and Federal Legislative Platform.

Exhibits
A: City of Berkeley 2023 State and Federal Legislative Platform

M E M O R A N D U M
To: The Honorable Jesse Arreguin and Members of the Berkeley City Council CC: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
From: Christopher Townsend, President, Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.

Niccolo De Luca, Vice President
Ben Goldeen, Federal Advocacy Manager
Andres Ramirez, Senior Associate
Carly Shelby, Legislative Associate
Sammi Maciel, Federal Associate
Date: October 28, 2022
Subject: 2023 State and Federal Legislative Agenda
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) has prepared this initial draft for the City of Berkeley as we move forward to adopt the City’s state and federal legislative platform.

The City’s legislative platform for 2023 will reflect the priorities of the Mayor, the City Council, and the people of Berkeley. The platform will include advocating for legislation, regulations, and funding that is consistent with the City’s adopted goals.

Once adopted, this blueprint will be shared with key stakeholders in the State Legislature and Governor’s Administration as well as Congress and the Biden Administration. However, it will be necessary to remain nimble and responsive as we move through the legislative year. Our legislative agenda will be fluid as some issues will be addressed with introduced legislation.

Proposed Legislative Priorities for 2023
In addition to the onset of new laws, next year will mark massive changes in the State Legislature. The decennial redistricting process caused numerous lawmakers to move, battle for new district spots, or retire. This, coupled with the onset of another gra duating class of legislators under the new term limit requirements established by Prop. 140 (1990), has prompted many legislators to not seek reelection.

As such, 2023 will bring forward a new class of freshman legislators – specifically, 10 new Senators and 19 new Assembly Members.

It is expected that in 2023 the State Legislature will maintain its focus on its recent priorities, including the following topics below.
o Affordable housing
o Climate change
o Homelessness
o Housing
o Transportation and Related Infrastructure
o Wildfire prevention
Exhibit APage 4 of 10

Proposed 2023 Legislative Platform Page 2 of 7 Federal and State Legislative Monitoring and Potential Action The following legislative priorities are being recommended for monitoring, analysis, and potential action.

The City Council may choose to take a position on a piece of legislation, continue to monitor without a position, or determine if any further response is required.

TPA maintains a constantly updated matrix of state legislation and in years past have presented recommendations after session has started then providing rolling updates. TPA will monitor legislative activity in the following areas.

Homelessness
Policy Priorities:
1) Prevent displacement of tenants and residents
2) Expand emergency, transitional, and permanent housing opportunities 3) Support legislative efforts that require counties to partner with cities when receiving direct allocation of homeless funds and have a regional focus in the expenditure of state funds 4) Support legislative efforts that will allocate State homeless dollars such as the HHAP program and others, based off city point-in-time count numbers
5) Support legislative changes to Coordinated Entry requirements that allow local governments to prioritize based on local unsheltered needs for housing placements 6) Support legislative efforts that have a focus on keeping people in housing, once placed, for many years which could include legislative changes to emergency shelter crisis declarations

Funding Priorities:
1) Continue the state-funded emergency rent and utility assistance program for those at-risk of becoming homeless
2) Expand funding for homeless services (e.g., the wrap around services necessary for transitional and permanent housing), non-congregate shelters and emergency shelters, as well as operating costs for permanent supportive housing
3) Funding for permanent housing interventions that reduce and prevent homelessness 4) Support for more mental health and behavioral health outreach servi ces; incentivize County provision of In-Lieu of Services in the CalAIM system change 5) Funding for targeted homeless prevention programs that provide financial assistance, legal and housing navigation services
6) Funding for employment, wage-earning programs for homeless people 7) Funding for substance abuse services
8) Support funding efforts for non-congregate shelter such as Safe Parking programs and allow existing rent subsidies sources to be used to subsidize the rent at these programs 9) Support funding for homeles s services (e.g., the wrap around services necessary for transitional and permanent housing) and emergency shelters, as well as operating costs for permanent housing 10) Investment in mental health treatment across the continuum of care, including efforts to support or encourage creation of additional board and care beds as well as subacute treatment and psychiatric skilled nursing facilities
Housing
Policy Priorities:
1) Help promote and support housing legislation to enable the construction of more housing at various income levels; fight to repeal Article 34
2) Support legislation that advances the creation or funding of affordable housing projects 3) Pursue updates to the State building code, if necessary, and to promote innovative forms of housing construction
4) Reasonable reform to CEQA to streamline development and housing opportunities 5) Support legislative and funding efforts relating to housing preservation and acquisition and operation 6) Support legislative efforts to protect tenants and small property owners impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic which includes residential lease terminations

Proposed 2023 Legislative Platform Page 3 of 7 7) Support legislative efforts to extend the State rent relief program and to bring back the eviction moratorium/eviction protections
8) Support legislative efforts to reduce the voter threshold for passage of affordable housing bonds 9) Support legislative efforts to repeal or reform the Ellis Act and the Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act
10) Work with UC Regents to help support more opportunities for student housing 11) Support legislative efforts that clarify recent ADU related legislation and count ADUs towards RHNA goals
12) Support efforts that also encourage other forms of housing such as co -ops, land trusts, social housing, public housing, and other efforts
13) Seek amendments to ADU legislation t o establish additional conditions/protections on ADU construction in high fire hazard zones

Funding Priorities:
1) Support for soft-story seismic retrofits
2) Funding for housing programs that advance racial equity 3) Funding for innovative programs to prevent displacement and address hazardous housing conditions
4) Enhance funding of state programs for operating costs that support permanent affordable housing for individuals with area median income up to 120 percent (which includes extremely low-income up to moderate incomes, i.e., workforce housing)
5) Enhance funding opportunities for existing state programs to help support bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in connection to housing
6) Develop a state funding program that can support small sites acquisition and reha b ( like San Francisco)
7) Expand funding for affordable housing on transit agency sites 8) Support funding for remediation of hazardous sites (to make viable for housing) 9) Support efforts to create more student housing funding opportunities

Economic Development
Policy Priorities:
1) Support and funding for arts and cultural spaces, arts education, and outdoor commerce 2) Measures providing for new tax increment financing opportunities (i.e., business district establishment or Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts) to support commercial districts as well as infrastructure and affordable housing
3) Efforts to encourage the development of sectors (and real estate sites) that align with quality job opportunities in local manufacturing, light industrial, bioscience, research and development, and other priority industry sectors. This includes environmental remediation of large industrial sites for redevelopment into research and development and/or life sciences use 4) Cannabis Tax reform which includes lowering taxes and tax simplification 5) Support efforts to address the digital divide
6) Support legislation relating to Online Sales Tax Distribution Formula reform 7) Support legislative and other efforts for programs that create pathways out of poverty , including guaranteed income programs
8) Support legislative efforts to create and expand public banking

Funding Priorities:
1) Support for small business recovery, tourism/visitor recovery and other business sectors deeply impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic
2) Support funding for environmental rem ediation at the Pacific Steel site and other toxic sites throughout the City
3) Support funding for the seismic retrofit and renovation public landmark buildings (Civic Center, Veterans Building and Civic Center Plaza revitalization)

Proposed 2023 Legislative Platform Page 4 of 7 4) Loan access for minority- and women-owned businesses who experience difficulties in accessing loans from private banks

Infrastructure
Policy Priorities:
1) Support developing climate smart, resilient infrastructure to address growing climate threats and address deferred maintenance
2) Funding for programmatic implementation of hardware and software to ensure security 3) Funding for programmatic initiatives to advance use of technology in partnership with de livering cutting edge and strategic programs
4) Funding for upgrading and updating outdated technological infrastructure 5) Measures affecting funding for roads, transit, “last mile” projects and goods movement as well as alternative modes of transportation (bik es, ebikes, escooters, etc.), and support the needs of the disabled community
6) Support efforts to help commuters and increase public transportation 7) Measures that tax ride sharing networks and help reduce vehicle congestion 8) Measures that support data sharing of TNCs with local government 9) Support regional transportation projects that would provide a benefit to the City and surrounding communities
10) Support for public infrastructure projects including Maudelle Shirek (Old City Hall), Veterans Building, African American Holistic Resource Center, and San Pablo Park and Pool 11) Increasing resiliency of public infrastructure from threats of climate change 12) Support for public infrastructure that supports ADA access to all City facilities including buildings, Right of Way, and Parks
13) Support equity in infrastructure by improving City facilities and amenities in South and West Berkeley

Funding Priorities:
1) Increased funding for bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements 2) Increased funding for utility undergrounding
3) Increased funding to address the wildland urban interface and fire safety 4) Funding to electrify and add e-charging in public facilities and for the public fleet and to provide public e-charging stations
5) Funding for the Safe Routes to School program
6) Funding for improving, restoring, and enhancing public infrastructure including landmark sites (e.g., Maudelle Shirek)
7) Funding for lifting equity through an African American Holistic Resource Center 8) Funding to enhance and build recreation facilities to address neighborhood youth engagement and enrichment. (i.e., San Pablo Park and Pool)
9) Funding for cyber security and necessary, related technological improvements 10) Funding for riding transit especially when linked to housing

Public Safety
Policy Priorities:
1) Support automated speed enforcement legislation and to seek alternatives to sworn traffic/parking enforcement
2) Support disaster preparedness, training, response, and resilience efforts 3) Criminal justice reform
4) Support additional efforts to help prevent violence such as mental health services, supporting street outreach teams, focusing on other individuals before they are at risk 5) Support efforts that reimagine public safety and incorporate community-based organizations to help address problems
6) Support efforts to increase peace officer accountability and provide a means of decertifying police officers who engage in serious misconduct

Proposed 2023 Legislative Platform Page 5 of 7 7) Support legislative efforts that seek to legalize safe crossings for pedestrian’s aka ‘jaywalking’, allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, red lights as stop signs and yield at traffic light intersections if they're making a right-hand turn, and other related efforts 8) Support legislative modifications to the CalVIP program to help cities such as Berkeley 9) Support legislation and funding to improve fire safety

Funding Priorities:
1) Support funding opportunities for alternative traffic enforcement efforts 2) Support funding opportunities for violence prevention services 3) Support funding opportunities for dispatch and service redesign or expansion 4) Support wildland fire mitigation grants to support home hardening, vegetation management and suppression and response such as low or no-interest loan/grant programs to assist homeowners in clearing hazardous vegetation and hardening homes in high fire hazard zones 5) Support funding opportunities for community paramedicine and alternative destination protocols 6) Support funding/resources for analysis, development and implementation of road network for wildfire evacuation programs
7) Support funding for park access and ADA amenities
8) Support funding for law enforcement engagement and community-centered collaborative approaches in support of reimagining public safety efforts (Specialized Care Unit)

Sustainability and the Environment
Policy Priorities:
1) Support legislative efforts to incentivize Low-Carbon Construction: ability to and tools for incentivizing lower-carbon construction with fees from higher-carbon construction projects. 2) Support legislative efforts relating to electric bicycles: legislation to subsidize electric bicycle purchase, in coordination with electric vehicle subsidies. 3) Support legislative efforts to expand funding for electric vehicle charging in the public right of way 4) Measures that provide new tools and potential revenue opportunities to address illegal dumping 5) Measures that support regional planning for a climate change strategy which includes sea level rise
6) Support efforts that enhance data sharing for utility companies

Funding Priorities:
1) Support technological advancements that reduce our draw on paper and nonrenewable resources 2) Support development of software infrastructure to support current and emerging initiatives in the most sustainable way possible
3) Funding for enhancing capacity in Information Department to support ongoing movement towards sustainable systems that require forward thinking processes and modern technological systems 4) Support funding to address sea level rise along waterfront and Aquatic Park (inclusive of state lands)
5) Support funding for electrification and seismic retrofitting of care and shelter facilities 6) Support for reaching Climate Action Plan, Clean Water, and Resilience Plan goals 7) Support funding for Zero Waste efforts
8) Support funding for more EV charging stations at apartments and elsewhere

Health
Policy Priorities:
1) Support legislative efforts that will require counties to partner with cities relating to unspent Prop 63 mental health funds
2) Support legislative and other efforts to keep Alta Bates Hospital open and operating as an emergency and acute care hospital

Proposed 2023 Legislative Platform Page 6 of 7 3) Support legislative efforts that support and increase psychiatric care facilities and acute care facilities
4) Support legislative efforts to protect the rights of women and reproductive health 5) Support legislative efforts that increase services such as mental health, substance abuse, treatment beds and other services for people living in encampments and in unsheltered settings 6) Support legislative efforts that existing mental health and substance programming prioritize people who are referred by the homeless system
7) Support legislative efforts that soften data sharing constraints at the Federal level: HIPAA contains broad information -sharing allowances among “treatment providers” for the purposes of “care coordination”—issue guidance defining homeless encampment or homeless -serving teams as “treatment providers” and making it clear that information can be shared on a need-to-know basis 8) Support legislative efforts related to oversight of guardians, receivership, and other forms of care

Funding Priorities:
1) Support funding and regulatory changes to advance for emergency readiness, particularly in relation to public health
2) Support funding efforts relating to mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and other relates services

Miscellaneous
Policy Priorities:
1) Support legislative efforts to make changes to the Brown Act to help encourage greater public participation and further encourage online meetings
2) Support legislative efforts to address the way ballot measures are formulated, worded, and advertised
3) Support funding for emergency readiness, particularly in relation to public health

One Time State and Federal Funding Priorities for “Member Request” Consideration As we have seen at both the Federal and State level, new initiatives and various funding opportunities have taken form over the last year. This also includes both legislative provisions that direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects, sometimes referred to as “Member Requests” or “Congressionally Directed Spending”.

As it relates to state and federal “Member Requests” / “ Congressionally Directed Spending”, our recommended strategy is for the adopted Legislative Platform to include a handful of funding buckets that capture various project themes. This provides the City with the highest amount of flexibility as it is important to not only reflect the priorities of the state and federal lawmakers who sponsor these requests, but also to ensure that the City’s projects fit the eligibility requirements of the various state and federal funding sources.

These buckets include:
• Affordable Housing/Homelessness which could include funding to reduce unsheltered homelessness including outreach and mental health services, non -congregate shelter, housing subsidies and gap funding for affordable housing projects including new construction a nd acquisition and rehabilitation of housing.
• Infrastructure Improvements which could include funding for enhancements to public infrastructure including landmark sites, active transportation enhancements which includes bicycle and pedestrian upgrades at various city locations such as the Telegraph Shared Street project. • Climate Resiliency which could include funding for urban forestry interface, wildfire prevention, cooling centers, HVAC upgrades, and other related items.

Proposed 2023 Legislative Platform Page 7 of 7

Process for Reporting/Next Steps
In addition to weekly legislative updates and other communications we send to the City Team, TPA suggests verbal reports to the City Council when the State Legislature is on recess. For example, we would report out in April while they are on Spring Recess, during July while they are on Summer Recess, and in November or December when Session has concluded.

Due to the ever-changing nature of legislation in Sacramento and Washington, TPA will provide monthly updates which can be shared with the City Council.

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
December 13, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager
Subject: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a License Agreement with East Bay Community Energy for Electric Vehicle Fast Charging Stations on Municipal Property

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or their designee to execute a Master Site License Agreement with East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) for the installation and operation of publicly-available electric vehicle (EV) direct current fast charging stations on municipal property.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The Master Site License Agreement (MSLA) and the siting of charging stations will have no costs to the City’s General Fund or other City funds. EBCE will fully fund the cost of the fast charging stations and their installation, operation, and maintenance on municipal property. Staff time will be required for review and approval of a Notice to Proceed prior to the charging station development at each site. The City may see an increase in utility user tax (UUT) revenue as a result of increased electricity use for fueling cars. EBCE estimates that there will be an additional $400,000-$600,000 in UUT proceeds annually over next 2-3 years due to existing City policies, and up to $1.3 million per year by 2025 if Berkeley meets its EV adoption goals.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This proposal seeks authorization for the City Manager or their designee to execute a Master Site License Agreement (MSLA) with EBCE for the development of publicly available EV direct current fast charging stations on municipal property. As directed by Council Resolution 70,216-N.S. (February 8, 2022), staff has been working with EBCE to identify municipal parking lots and garages, in areas of dense concentrations of multifamily dwelling units, to serve as sites for EBCE fast charging stations.

Staff are negotiating a draft MSLA that identifies these locations as potential charging station sites:
 4th Street and University Avenue (parking stalls on the east and west side of 4th Street under the University Avenue overpass)

Resolution to Execute a License Agreement with EBCE for Public EV CONSENT CALENDAR Fast Charging Hubs on Municipal Property December 13, 2022

 Parking lot at the southeast corner of Adeline Street and Alcatraz Avenue1 EBCE requires each project site to have a standard design goal of 10 dual-port fast charging stations, requiring approximately 22-23 parking spaces to accommodate charging station spaces (a charging hub), ADA accessibility for the spaces, and space for transformers or other ancillary equipment.

Both of the potential locations in Berkeley can meet EBCE requirements. Both locations are located in areas identified for investment for equitable electric mobility within the Berkeley Electric Mobility Roadmap and as Equity Priority Areas designated by the Transportation Division. Both locations also have sufficient other nearby municipal on- street parking so that no parking constraints in either area are anticipated as a result of developing these fast charging spaces. Once the MSLA is executed, EBCE will conduct detailed engineering assessments, secure project financing, and work with PG&E to provide the additional utility service required for EV charging. A Notice to Proceed, detailing the site design, charging stall descriptions, construction coordination schedule, and site access hours for each site must be still be agreed upon and executed by the City Manager or designee prior to charging hub development.

City owned parking garages, including the Center Street Garage and Telegraph Channing Garage, were also considered but have not been included due to the bond obligations for parking revenue as well as space, electrical, and access constraints.

Key features of the MSLA include:
 A term of 15 years in which EBCE would use designated municipal parking spaces to install and operate fast charging stations, with removal and restoration of the site at the end of the term, or an extension if authorized by Council  EBCE will pay for the equipment, installation, operation, and maintenance of the charging stations
 The City will provide the parking spaces used for the charging hubs  EBCE will be responsible for all electricity and communication costs of the charging stations
 Rates for use of the charging stations will be set by EBCE and may change over time at the discretion of EBCE (the City has representation on the EBCE Board of Directors, which will be involved in rate setting)
 EBCE may place signage at the sites for the charging hubs  The City will issue a Notice to Proceed for each charging hub site before development begins
1 Resolution No. 66,829-N.S. (2014) allows the City to allocate up to 40% of the total spaces at this lot to long-term parking exclusively for tenants of 3271 Adeline Street/1835 Alcatraz Avenue. This allocation is currently being used by Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA).

Resolution to Execute a License Agreement with EBCE for Public EV CONSENT CALENDAR Fast Charging Hubs on Municipal Property December 13, 2022

Creating public EV fast charging hubs is consistent with the Berkeley Electric Mobility Roadmap and 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. Partnership with EBCE, Berkeley’s public power provider, could provide cost-effective public fast charging stations at locations that prioritize equity, providing charging in proximity to multifamily housing and in areas that have less access to transportation options and/or are more highly impacted by pollution, poverty, and other socioeconomic factors.

BACKGROUND
EBCE is building a network of EV fast charging hubs on behalf of its customers and Joint Power Authority (JPA) member cities. These public fast charging stations will help EBCE’s service area meet statewide mandates for zero-emission vehicles and help meet the needs of current and future EV drivers, especially renters who do not have access to at-home charging.

As directed by Resolution 70,216-N.S. (February 8, 2022), staff has been working with EBCE to identify municipal parking lots and garages, in areas of dense concentrations of multifamily dwelling units, to serve as sites for EBCE fast charging stations. EBCE had originally requested non-binding terms that required an annual service fee from the City of $100,000 per fast charging hub, resulting in annual costs of $200,000-$300,000 to the City. This expense may have been offset, and potentially exceeded over time, by a site license fee, paid by EBCE to the City when the project net operating income exceeded EBCEC’s cost to service the debt.

EBCE has since adjusted its original plans and financing mechanism. Rather than developing the charging hubs directly, with payments from JPA members, EBCE is pursuing private infrastructure capital through a tolling partnership available to the utility industry. EBCE now aims to develop 40-50 public fast charging hubs by 2030 through a tolling structure contract with a counterparty who will finance, construct, and maintain the charging stations over a 10-year period for a fixed monthly payment from EBCE at no cost to the City.

This new model removes risk, uncertainties, and expenses for the City. Original calculations of revenues from EBCE’s Site License fees were based on Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) credit pricing above $160; in the intervening time LCFS credits have dropped to $60-70 average sales, which reduces the revenue projections for the chargers by $1.2M over 10 years. As a result, the City’s estimated total revenues of $50,000 to $851,000 over the agreement term in EBCE’s original proposal would be completely subsumed and the City would not recover the investment made in the project.

EBCE’s new model eliminates the capital request to the City, while still delivering the benefit in the form of beginning a robust charging network in Berkeley and across the

Resolution to Execute a License Agreement with EBCE for Public EV CONSENT CALENDAR Fast Charging Hubs on Municipal Property December 13, 2022

County. EBCE will be requesting approval from their Board of Directors to sign contracts with development partners, with an overall program cost not to exceed $3M/year or $30M over their 10-year agreements. EBCE hopes not to spend $30M to provide this charging infrastructure, but is setting expectations with their Board that this program may not earn returns/profits as the market is volatile, costs are shifting, and EBCE wants the flexibility to deliver low cost charging to all customers, which could include discounts for low income customers that would reduce project revenues. Any profits generated by EV charging hubs will be delivered back to EBCE customers and communities through lower electricity rates and/or local programs investments in further electrification projects.

In order to include Berkeley sites as Phase I charging hubs, the City needs to execute the MSLA by the end of the year, so that EBCE can attract private infrastructure capital through a tolling partnership. Hayward and Pleasanton City Councils both authorized their city managers to authorize their MSLAs with EBCE on November 1, 2022.

As of August 2022, there were 184 publicly-available Level 2 EV charging ports and 22 direct current fast charge (DCFC) ports in Berkeley. Approximately 7.5% of registered cars in the community were electric. These values have doubled in the last four years; in late 2018 there were 105 publicly-available EV charging ports and nearly 4% of registered personal vehicles were electric.

In order to meet the Berkeley Electric Mobility goals of increasing the share of light-duty EVs registered in Berkeley to 25% by 2025, 55% by 2030, and 100% by 2045, more public charging is needed to ensure that all residents, especially renters without access to at-home charging, have convenient refueling options. Berkeley’s goal is to install at least 100 public DCFC ports by 2025. Partnering with EBCE to site and develop DCFC hubs could result in approximately 40 new public DCFC ports within Berkeley in the next 1-3 years.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
According to Berkeley’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) inventory, 46% of Berkeley’s emissions result from transportation. In addition to increasing the use of public transportation, walking, biking and scooters, replacing internal combustion engine cars with EVs is necessary to reduce transportation emissions. Partnering with EBCE to create new EV direct current charging stations in Berkeley advances equity in line with Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan, Electric Mobility Roadmap, and Climate Emergency Declaration. Siting charging in equity priority areas in proximity to multifamily housing and the inclusion of prevailing wage and other labor standards in the MSLA supports the Just Transition to becoming a Fossil Fuel Free City.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
In order to include Berkeley sites as Phase I charging hubs, the City needs to execute the MSLA by the end of the year. Partnering with EBCE to site and develop DCFC hubs

Resolution to Execute a License Agreement with EBCE for Public EV CONSENT CALENDAR Fast Charging Hubs on Municipal Property December 13, 2022

could result in approximately 40 new public DCFC ports within Berkeley in the next 1-3 years without cost to the City.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None. The City lacks funding, expertise, and staffing develop and operate this scale of fast charging stations. The City could wait for the private market to build fast-charging infrastructure at scale. However, this may not materialize in the timeframe needed to meet state and local climate action goals. Private sector owned fast-charging will not necessarily be sited in convenient or equitable locations that serve renters in multifamily housing. Staff has concentrated on protecting the City’s real assets and interests, including maximizing community reinvestment and benefits, while negotiating the MSLA.

CONTACT PERSON
Sarah Moore, Sustainability Program Manager, OESD, Planning, (510) 981-7494 Farid Javandel, Deputy Director of Transportation, Public Works, (510) 981-7057 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Resolution Establishing City Process for Siting and Developing Public Electric Vehicle DC Fast Charging Hubs (Resolution No. 70,216-N.S.)

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

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LICENSE

AGREEMENT WITH EAST BAY COMMUNITY ENERGY FOR PUBLIC ELECTRIC

VEHICLE FAST CHARGING STATIONS ON MUNICIPAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the State of California has a goal of 7.5 million zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) on California roads and approximately 1.2 million public and shared chargers to meet the fueling demands of those vehicles by 2030; and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2022, the California Air Resources Board approved a rule requiring 100 percent of new car sales in California to be ZEVs by 2035; and WHEREAS, the Berkeley Electric Mobility Roadmap targets the development of at least 100 public DC fast charging ports in Berkeley by 2025 to support carbon neutrality by 2045; and
WHEREAS, there are currently 22 DC fast charging ports in Berkeley; and WHEREAS, the Berkeley Electric Mobility Roadmap includes developing public EV charging on municipal property through partnerships with third-party charging providers as a strategy to achieve zero net carbon; and
WHEREAS, East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), the not-for-profit public power agency which serves Berkeley, aims to deploy 40-50 charging hubs throughout its service area by 2030; and
WHEREAS, in their first phase of development, EBCE is seeking to develop two fast charging hubs in Berkeley, each providing approximately 20 DC fast charging ports, for a total of about 40 new DC fast charging ports; and
WHEREAS, EBCE’s fast charging hubs would be installed, operated, and maintained by EBCE on municipal property at no cost to the City of Berkeley; and WHEREAS, any revenues generated by EBCE’s fast charging hubs would be reinvested in programs, including transportation electrification, or used to lower rates, in Berkeley and the other member jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, additional EV charging infrastructure is needed in Berkeley to meet the current and future needs of residents, particularly renters, and visitors.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or their designee is authorized to execute a Master Site License

December 13, 2022

Agreement with East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) for publicly available EV fast charging stations on municipal property.

Attachment 2Page 8 of 9

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
December 13, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Eleanor Hollander, Economic Development Manager Subject: Interactive Kiosk Experience (IKE) Smart City Kiosk Locations, Phase Two

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution, pursuant to Ordinance No. 7,626-N.S. Franchise Agreement with IKE Smart City, LLC approving 22 locations for the second phase of deployment of IKE Smart City Kiosks in Berkeley (Attachment 1).

SUMMARY
The total number of proposed IKE Kiosk locations is 22; 17 are in within the Downtown, Telegraph, Gilman, and University commercial business districts, and 5 are in gateway commercial district locations (Attachment 2).

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
With 22 Phase Two IKE kiosks deployed, in addition to the operational 9 IKE kiosks from Phase One (Attachment 3), preliminary projections anticipate approximately $829,374 in general fund revenue will accrue annually to the City of Berkeley according to the IKE Smart City LLC Franchise Agreement executed in 2019 (Attachment 4).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Interactive Kiosk Experience (IKE) is a wayfinding smart city technology platform displayed on a publicly accessible screen or ‘kiosk’ in the public right of way. In addition to Berkeley, IKE Kiosks have been successfully installed in 15 cities across the country including Denver, Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Detroit, Tempe, and Baltimore. Each interactive kiosk consists of dual-sided touchscreens that provide access to wayfinding resources to navigate the city, including real-time transit information, directory listings for local businesses and non-profit organizations, social services and civic resources, 311, and emergency (911) phone calls. The IKE kiosk network is installed, operated, and maintained wholly by IKE Smart City LLC at no direct cost to the City of Berkeley.

The IKE kiosk platform is supported through advertising revenues, and a portion of the revenues generated from the kiosk network are shared back to the city and codified in a 15 years-long franchise agreement (Attachment 4).

IKE Smart City Kiosk Locations, Phase Two CONSENT CALENDAR December 13, 2022
On October 30, 2018, the Berkeley City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,626-N.S. granting a Franchise Agreement to IKE Smarty City, LLC, and modified two sections of the Berkeley Municipal Code to exempt IKE kiosks from regulations of signage and encroachments of the public right-of-way.1 Visit Berkeley, Berkeley’s local destination marketing organization and convention and visitor bureau, has partnered with IKE Smart City, LLC to curate the city-directed and community content on the kiosks in Berkeley. City-directed and community content is provided at no cost to the city on 2 of the 8 advertising slides or “flips” which are displayed when the kiosk is in passive mode.

The City of Berkeley’s 2019 Franchise Agreement with IKE Smart City permits thirty (31) IKE digital kiosks throughout the City of Berkeley at major intersections, key points of interest, and heavily foot-trafficked areas. In 2018, the City Council approved 15 locations as part of phase one of kiosk deployment. Of the 15 approved locations; 9 kiosks were installed and the remining 6 locations were deemed infeasible and were abandoned (Attachment 3). As a result, a total of 22 remaining kiosk locations are proposed. Table 1 below summarizes the installation status of both phase one and phase two.

Table 1. IKE Smart City Kiosk Count & Installation Status Total Kiosks Approved per the 2019 Franchise Agreement 31 Phase One (I) - Completed
Locations approved 15
Locations deemed infeasible* 6
Kiosks installed as of November 2022 9
Remaining locations available 22
Phase Two (II)
Locations proposed 22
Kiosks to be installed 22**
Remaining locations available 0
*Infeasible Phase I locations are indicated in gray on Attachment 3: IKE Smart City Kiosk Installed Locations (Existing & Infeasible), Phase I. They include three in Downtown Berkeley at the intersections of Shattuck & Berkeley Way, Shattuck & Allston, and Center & Milvia, two in the Telegraph area at the intersections of Dana & Bancroft and Telegraph & Bancroft, and one in the Lorin District at the Ed Roberts Campus entrance at the intersection of Adeline & Woolsey.
**Per the 2019 Franchise Agreement, (page 9, section 8, item L) Phased Deployment “Grantee [IKE Smart City] shall conduct a phased deployment of kiosks such that after the first phase of fifteen (15) units are installed no additional units may be installed for six (6) months. The second phase may include up to sixteen (16) kiosks.” No more than 31 kiosk units (total) shall be installed in the City of Berkeley.
1 Facilitation of the Installation of IKE Smart City Kiosks; Amending Chapters 20.16 and 16.18 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, Item 30, Berkeley City Council Meeting, October 30, 2018.

IKE Smart City Kiosk Locations, Phase Two CONSENT CALENDAR December 13, 2022
Determining Kiosk Locations – Phase II
In July through September 2022, the Office of Economic Development (OED), Visit Berkeley, and IKE Smart City conducted community outreach meetings to determine the specific locations for the second phase of deployment of kiosks in the Downtown, Telegraph, Gilman, University, Fourth Street, Solano, North Shattuck and Elmwood commercial districts.2 As a result of the meetings, and attendant community outreach, the proposed remaining kiosk locations are listed below and included on a citywide map (Attachment 2) along with the approved and installed kiosks from phase one (Attachment 3).

Table 2. IKE Smart City Kiosk Proposed Phase II Locations Kiosk
Number
Intersection/Location Commercial
District
Council
District
1 Gilman St/Fifth St Gilman 1
2 Gilman St/Eighth St Gilman 1
3 Gilman St/San Pablo Ave Gilman 1
4 University Ave/San Pablo Ave University Ave 1&2
5 University Ave/Sixth St University Ave 1&2
6 University Ave/Addison St University Ave 1&2
7 University Ave/Sacramento St 1&2
8 Ashby Ave/San Pablo Ave 2
9 Ashby Ave/Sacramento St 2
10 Alcatraz Ave/Sacramento St 2
11 Ashby Ave/Telegraph Ave 3&8
12 Shattuck Ave/Blake St Downtown 4
13 Shattuck Ave/Haste St Downtown 4
14 Shattuck Ave/Addison St Downtown 4
15 Shattuck Ave/University Ave Downtown 4
16 Shattuck Ave/Hearst Ave Downtown 4
17 Oxford St/Hearst Ave Downtown 4
18 University Ave/Oxford St Downtown 4
19 University Ave/Milvia St Downtown 4
20 University Ave/Bonita Ave Downtown 4
21 Telegraph Ave/Blake Telegraph 7&8
22 Durant Ave/Bowditch St Telegraph 7
City Council approval of the above proposed locations would allow IKE Smart City to proceed to apply for and obtain engineering permits from the City’s Public Works department, and subsequently to proceed with kiosk installation. Given the complexity 2 Berkeley City Council, Off Agenda Memo, IKE Smart City Kiosks - Proposed Phase 2 Locations for Fulfilment of Executed Franchise Agreement (2019), July 25, 2022.

IKE Smart City Kiosk Locations, Phase Two CONSENT CALENDAR December 13, 2022
and analysis required for each location, it is difficult to estimate an exact date for installation in each case.

BACKGROUND
IKE is an interactive wayfinding and communication platform created to help cities and business improvement districts connect with citizens and visitors in new dynamic and engaging ways. Through a system of durable touchscreen displays containing a suite of applications including real-time transit information and wayfinding, IKE aims to enhance the pedestrian experience in the City of Berkeley. IKE generates revenues through digital advertising and is a self-sustaining platform that provides a meaningful recurring revenue stream to the city, and does not require any capital or operational investment from the City.

The first IKE kiosk network was deployed in Denver in 2016 through a partnership with the Downtown Denver Partnership with the goal to develop an interactive wayfinding and city communication tool dedicated to supporting the local business economy. Since then IKE has continued to evolve its capabilities to benefit convention and visitor bureaus including Visit Berkeley. By presenting relevant information along pedestrians’ path, it allows cities, business improvement districts and destination marketing organizations to connect with visitors and residents in interactive ways, utilizing smart city technologies. The implementation of the IKE Kiosks in Berkeley is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing two of the city’s Strategic Plan goals; to provide state-of-the- art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities and to foster a dynamic, sustainable, and locally-based economy.

The IKE kiosk screens are LED displays that utilize ambient light sensor technology that automatically dims and brightens the screens in response to environmental factors (e.g. direct sunlight) and provides high contrast picture quality. Further, the kiosks require a low electric power draw to operate, and IKE continually updates and refreshes both the kiosk hardware and software components to ensure the kiosks are adequately maintained. The IKE kiosks are fully compliant with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and have a robust multi-lingual capability that offers the following information and features for users in up to100 languages:
 Directories of local restaurants, stores, and other businesses  Listings of current local events and attractions
 Turn-by-turn directions, with mobile integration capability, known as “mobile hand off” to transfer directions to a cell phone or tablet (if selected by a kiosk user)  Real-time information on public transportation, ride sharing services, bike sharing station locations
 Public safety announcements
 Weather updates
 Wi-Fi hotspot
 Job Board, advertising current employment postings

IKE Smart City Kiosk Locations, Phase Two CONSENT CALENDAR December 13, 2022
 Public feedback opportunities through public polling or ‘questions of the week’  Shelter and city services information
 Emergency Service (911) call capability
Community Outreach
Staff collaborated with Visit Berkeley, IKE, commercial district associations, and other stakeholder groups to conduct outreach to members of the community to propose appropriate locations and districts for the kiosks. Community outreach was conducted in accordance with the 2019 IKE Smart City LLC Franchise Agreement: Section 8(A)(B) Permitting process and Prohibited Locations (Attachment 4). Staff from the City’s Office of Economic Development hosted two community meetings in each commercial district where the kiosks are proposed to be installed; the community meeting schedule is summarized in Table 3 below. The meetings provided business owners, property owners, residents, and other stakeholders the opportunity to give input on the most appropriate locations for the second phase of kiosk locations. In summary, the majority of the feedback indicated that the most appropriate locations for the IKE kiosks were in the larger commercial business districts as well as districts with major arterial streets.

Table 3. Community Outreach Schedule IKE Phase II, Summer 2022 District Meeting Location Date
Downtown Berkeley Zoom Meeting ID: 874 1913 5486 July 7, 2022 University Avenue Zoom Meeting ID: 858 2560 0114 July 7, 2022 North Shattuck Zoom Meeting ID: 854 6286 8456 July 7, 2022 Elmwood Former Espresso Roma Café, 2960 College Ave July 7, 2022 Telegraph The Graduate, 2600 Durant Ave July 8, 2022
Solano Ave Solano Oriental Rug Gallery, 1849 Solano Ave July 8, 2022 Fourth Street Zoom Meeting ID: 834 6400 2234 July 8, 2022 Gilman Zoom Meeting ID: 851 5480 6615 August 4, 2022
Elmwood Zoom Meeting ID: 849 9933 6078 August 24, 2022
Telegraph Zoom Meeting ID: 849 1888 5857 August 24, 2022 University Avenue Zoom Meeting ID: 883 3105 7387 August 25, 2022 Downtown Berkeley Zoom Meeting ID: 842 9658 3340 August 31, 2022 Gilman Zoom Meeting ID: 891 8686 5266 September 7, 2022 Proposed Locations
Attachment 2 includes maps of the proposed locations for installation of IKE Kiosks in Downtown, Telegraph, Gilman, and University commercial districts as well as five additional locations. Proposed kiosk locations were selected based on the following criteria:
 In the public right-of-way / public property.
 Commercial areas with active frontages and high pedestrian volume.  Maintain sidewalk accessibility, including a minimum path of travel.

IKE Smart City Kiosk Locations, Phase Two CONSENT CALENDAR December 13, 2022
 Proximity to power sources and avoiding conflict with other utilities.  Avoiding conflict with transportation resources such as bus shelters or bicycle share stations.
 Proximity to public amenities, civic buildings, and arts and cultural institutions and venues.

Locations were refined based on feedback from community members, neighboring business and property owners, input gathered during the community meetings (Table 3), feedback from district Councilmembers, and other direct outreach conducted by city staff, Visit Berkeley and IKE Smart City through phone calls, in person site meetings, and electronic mail.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
IKE Kiosks will feature real time transit information which will reinforce the City’s commitment to sustainable transportation services.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 7,626-N.S. granting a Franchise Agreement with IKE Smart City, LLC, the City of Berkeley will permit the installation of up to thirty-one (31) IKE digital kiosks throughout the City of Berkeley at major intersections, key points of interest and heavily foot-trafficked areas. The agreement requires the locations for the second phase of deployment of IKE Smart City Kiosks be submitted to the City Council on the consent calendar for approval after conducting the requisite community outreach stipulated in the 2019 IKE Smart City LLC Franchise Agreement: Section 8(A)(B) Permitting Process and Prohibited Locations (Attachment 4).

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Several other locations throughout Berkeley were considered; including placements in the Solano, North Shattuck, Fourth Street, Elmwood and Northside commercial districts, but were rejected due to negative community feedback.

CONTACT PERSON
Kieron Slaughter, Office of Economic Development, 510-981-2490 Attachments:
1: Resolution: Identifying Phase II locations for IKE Kiosks in Berkeley 2: IKE Smart City Kiosk Proposed Locations, Phase II
3: IKE Smart City Kiosk Installed Locations (Existing & Infeasible), Phase I 4: IKE Smart City LLC Franchise Agreement, 2019

IKE Smart City Kiosk Locations, Phase Two CONSENT CALENDAR December 13, 2022
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. –N.S.

IDENTIFYING 22 REMAINING LOCATIONS FOR IKE KIOSKS IN BERKELEY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2019 IKE SMART CITY LLC FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, per Ordinance No. 7,626-N.S. the city executed a franchise agreement (2019) with IKE Smart City LLC to install and operate wayfinding kiosks in Berkeley consisting of 31 kiosks on public sidewalks and other public property, for no less than 15 years; and
WHEREAS, Visit Berkeley (formerly the Convention and Visitors Bureau) entered into a contract with IKE Smart City LLC to install and operate wayfinding kiosks; and WHEREAS, the kiosks provide various public benefits, including real-time transportation information, job listings for Berkeley residents and youth, promotion of local retail , city service information, including public health and safety information and notifications; and WHEREAS, nine wayfinding kiosks are currently located on the City’s public rights of way and are generating revenue for Visit Berkeley and the City of Berkeley; and WHEREAS, community outreach was conducted in 2022 accordance with the IKE Smart City LLC Franchise Agreement: Section 8(A)(B) Permitting Process and Prohibited Locations to identify 22 remaining appropriate locations known as Phase II, and are listed below:

IKE Smart City Kiosk Phase II Locations
Kiosk Number Intersection/Location
1 Gilman St/Fifth St
2 Gilman St/Eighth St
3 Gilman St./San Pablo Ave
4 University Ave/Sacramento St
5 University Ave/San Pablo Ave
6 University Ave/Sixth St
7 University Ave/Addison St
8 Ashby Ave/San Pablo Ave
9 Ashby Ave/Sacramento St
10 Alcatraz Ave/Sacramento St
11 Ashby Ave/Telegraph Ave
12 Shattuck Ave/Blake St

IKE Smart City Kiosk Locations, Phase Two CONSENT CALENDAR December 13, 2022
Kiosk Number Intersection/Location
13 Shattuck Ave/Haste St
14 Shattuck Ave/Addison St
15 Shattuck Ave/University Ave
16 Shattuck Ave/Hearst Ave
17 Oxford St/Hearst Ave
18 University Ave/Oxford St
19 University Ave/Milvia St
20 University Ave/Bonita Ave
21 Telegraph Ave/Blake St
22 Durant Ave/Bowditch St
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the remaining twenty-two locations for IKE Kiosks pursuant to the IKE Smart City LLC Franchise Agreement (2019) are identified and approved for planning and installation.

Attachment 2: IKE Smart City Kiosk Proposed Locations, Phase II

Berkeley IKE – Ph
ase II Locations
• Downtown Berkeley
o University & Oxford
o Shattuck & Hearst
o Shattuck & Blake
o University & Bonita
o University & M
ilvia
o Hearst & Ox
ford
o Shattuck & University
o Shattuck & Haste
o Shattuck & Addison
• Telegraph
o Telegraph & B
lake
o Bowditch & Durant
• University Avenue
o San Pablo & Universit y
o San Pablo & Addison
o University & 6th
• Gilman
o Gilman & 9th
o Gilman
& 5th
o Gilman & San Pablo
• Gateway Locations (outside of a comme rcial district) o Alcatraz & Sacramento
o Ashby & Telegraph
o Ashby & Sacramento
o Ashby and San Pablo
o University & Sacramento
22 locations

Attachment 3: IKE Smart City Kiosk Installed Locations (Existing & Infeasible), Phase I Existing locations are indicated in Blue, Infeasible in Gray

Berkeley IKE – Phase I Existing Installed IKE Smart City Kiosk Locations • Downtown Berkeley
o Shattuck & Addison
o K
ala Bagai Way & Center
o Center & Oxford
o Shattuck & Kittredge
o Shattuck & Durant
• Telegraph
o Telegraph & Channi
ng
o Telegraph & Haste
o Telegraph & Dwight
• Lorin
o Adeline & Alcatraz
9 locations

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
December 13, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: David Sprague, Interim Fire Chief
Subject: Contract: Berkeley Fire Medical Director

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, with Herbert Gene Hern, MD to serve as the Berkeley Fire Medical Director for five years from July 1, 2022 until June 30, 2027 in the amount not to exceed $400,000.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Year one of the contract shall not exceed $112,000, each subsequent year will shall not exceed $72,000. The contract will be paid from Measure GG.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
As the Medical Director for the fire department since 2016, Dr. Herbert E. Hern oversaw the implementation of the department’s narcotic program. As such, he has deep and specialized knowledge of the program. Over the last six plus years Dr. Hern has directed the execution of the department’s Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement (QA/QI) plan, and supervised its annual revision for submission to regulators. This has provided him a unique understanding of the QA/QI program.

The department is on the threshold of implementing the largest transformation of its Emergency Medical Services (EMS) delivery model in four decades. A key to the successful implementation this new delivery model is having a Medical Director with his specific, unique, and direct knowledge of the Berkeley Fire Department’s current narcotic and QA/QI programs. This knowledge provides some stability to the Department as it adapts to a new model, as it will be important to know why current systems were created, how to adapt them to current needs while still maintaining compliance with local, state and federal regulators.

The payment in year one of this agreement includes an additional $40,000 than the subsequent four years to cover work that has been performed from July through December of 2022.

Contract: Berkeley Fire Medical Director CONSENT CALENDAR December 13, 2022

BACKGROUND
In order for the fire department to provide Advance Life Support (ALS) paramedic services it is required to have a Medical Director. The Medical Director fills several critical functions which include the purchase of medications (including controlled substances), evaluation of novel medical equipment, Quality Assurance / Quality Improvement program oversight, and liaison with receiving hospitals.

Under the Medical Director’s Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) license, the Medical Director is the DEA Registrant for the fire department. As the DEA registrant, the Medical Director authorizes the fire department to purchase and administer medications. Of particular importance, as the DEA registrant, the Medical Director provides oversight of the controlled substance program (Narcotic Program). This oversight includes the approval of the tracking system, reverse distribution (destruction of expired or half used medication), and purchasing.

Serving as the head of the QA / QI program, the Medical Director ensures the fire department is meeting regulator (Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency / California Emergency Medical Services Authority) requirements to monitor the care provided by department paramedics by overseeing the creation and maintenance of the QA / QI Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There is no environmental effect as a result of this Resolution.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Dr. Hern has been the medical director for the Department since 2016. As such, he has deep and specialized knowledge of the program. The department is on the threshold of implementing the largest transformation of its Emergency Medical Services (EMS) delivery model in four decades. A key to the successful implementation of a new delivery model is having a Medical Director that with his specific, unique, and direct knowledge of our current narcotic and QA/QI programs.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Conduct a full competitive solicitation.

CONTACT PERSON
David Sprague, Interim Fire Chief
Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT: HERBERT GENE HERN, MD FOR BERKELEY FIRE MEDICAL

DIRECTOR
WHEREAS, as the Medical Director for the fire department since 2016, Dr. Herbert E.

Hern oversaw the implementation of the departments narcotic program. As such, he has deep and specialized knowledge of the program, and
WHEREAS, the department is on the threshold of implementing the largest transformation of its Emergency Medical Services (EMS) delivery model in four decades, and WHEREAS, a key to the successful implementation of a new delivery model is having a Medical Director that with his specific, unique, and direct knowledge of our current narcotic and QA/QI programs, and
WHEREAS, in order for the fire department to provide Advance Life Support (ALS) paramedic services it is required to have a Medical Director.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments, with Herbert Gene Hern, MD to serve as the Berkeley Fire Medical Director for five years from July 1, 2022 until June 30, 2027 in the amount not to exceed $400,000.

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
December 13, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing and Community Services Subject: Contract: Statewide Prevention and Early Intervention Project FY2023 Participation Agreement – California Mental Health Services Authority

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee to enter into a Participation Agreement for FY2023 and any amendments with the California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA) to allocate Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds in the amount of $70,907 to participate in the Statewide Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) Project, for a total amount not to exceed $70,907 through June 30, 2023.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding in the amount of $70,907 for this PEI Statewide Project, is available in the FY2023 Budget in the Mental Health Services Act Fund (Fund #315).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Through the City’s approved MHSA Three Year Plans and Annual Updates, 4% of the City’s MHSA funds designated for PEI have been allocated annually to participate in the Statewide PEI Project administered by the California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA). Since 2018, the City has participated in this initiative. In FY2022, CalMHSA began requiring mental health jurisdictions to enter into a Participation Agreement on an annual basis in order to allocate funds and continue to receive services through the Statewide PEI Project. Staff recommend that Council approve executing the Statewide PEI Project Participation Agreement for FY2023 and transfer of funds to CalMHSA to be able to continue to receive information and resources from this project.

California mental health jurisdictions, like the City of Berkeley, can elect to participate in the PEI program by allocating a portion of local MHSA PEI funds on an annual basis to CalMHSA. CalMHSA then contracts for a variety of mental health prevention and early intervention activities which benefit the local jurisdictions.

Statewide PEI Project FY2023 Participation Agreement CONSENT CALENDAR California Mental Health Services Authority December 13, 2022

Funded services have included the distribution of information and resources on suicide prevention, stigma and discrimination reduction, and student mental health for local use.

Staff in the Mental Health Division of the Department of Health, Housing and Community Services (HHCS/MH) have also received trainings on client “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Expression” (SOGIE) through this project. Most recently, HHCS/MH has distributed materials in the community on the “Take Action for Mental Health” campaign, a new initiative of this project. This PEI funded project enables HHCS/MH to broaden the reach of information and resources to a wider population across the City. MHSA PEI funds are integral in supporting individuals with a variety of mental health needs across the spectrum of care.

BACKGROUND
The California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that was formed in 2009 to create a separate public entity to provide administrative and fiscal services in support of members mental/behavioral health departments statewide acting alone or in collaboration with other Departments.

CalMHSA is governed by a Board of Directors that is comprised of the participating county or city mental/behavioral health director and contributing cities/counties provide direction into the types of initiatives that are implemented.

Since 2018, the amount paid for this initiative on an annual basis has varied from year to year, between $42,000 to $66,000, depending on the amount of local PEI revenue.

With Resolution No. 70,461-N.S., the City Council approved the MHSA FY2023 Annual Update and allocated $70,907 of local PEI funds in FY2023 for this initiative.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
PEI services were included in the City’s MHSA Plan because of community need and interest. Council previously approved the MHSA Plan which identified using these funds for this purpose. The PEI program is an important resource that provides information, services, and supports to individuals with a variety of mental health needs across the system of care. Authorizing the required agreement will allow the community to access these resources.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The City could opt to stop participating in CalMHSA’s PEI Initiative. Staff do not recommend this course of action because of the high value of these services to the community.

CONTACT PERSON
Karen Klatt, Community Services Specialist III, HHCS, (510) 981-7644

Statewide PEI Project FY2023 Participation Agreement CONSENT CALENDAR California Mental Health Services Authority December 13, 2022

Attachment:

1. Resolution

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

STATEWIDE PREVENTION AND EARLY INTERVENTION PROJECT FY2023

PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT - CALIFORNIA MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), that provides administrative and fiscal services in support of Members’ Mental/Behavioral Health Departments acting alone or in collaboration with other Departments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley is a participant in this JPA; and WHEREAS, since 2018, through City Council-approved MHSA Three Year Plans and Annual Updates the City of Berkeley has allocated four percent of local Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) funds to participate in the statewide PEI program; and
WHEREAS, beginning in FY2022 in order to participate and allocate local PEI funds for this initiative, CalMHSA began requiring counties/cities to enter into an annual Participation Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the FY2022 Participation Agreement was executed and funds were allocated to participate in this initiative; and
WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 70,461-N.S., the City Council approved the City’s MHSA FY2023 Annual Update, which allocates $70,907 of local PEI funds for this initiative; and WHEREAS, in order to execute the FY2023 Participation Agreement and allocate funds to CalMHSA to continue participation in this initiative, City Council approval is required; and
WHEREAS, funding in the amount of $70,907 for this PEI Statewide Project, is available in the FY2023 Budget in the Mental Health Services Act Fund (Fund #315).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to execute a Statewide PEI Project Participation Agreement for FY2023 and any amendments with CalMHSA, and allocate funds in the amount of $70,907 for a total amount not to exceed $70,907, through June 30, 2023.

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
December 13, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing and Community Services Subject: Contract: Resource Development Associates Specialized Care Unit and Community Crisis Response Services Program Evaluation

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Resource Development Associates (Contractor) to design and implement an evaluation for program effectiveness of the Specialized Care Unit and Community Crisis Response Services (Bridge Services). Services will begin on January 1, 2023 and extend to June 30, 2025 in an amount not to exceed $150,000.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding in the amount of $150,000 for the Specialized Care Unit program effectiveness evaluation is available in the FY2023 budget in One-Time fund (Fund 336).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
As the City moves closer to implementing the Specialized Care Unit, there needs to be a robust evaluation of the pilot program to identify necessary operational changes and provide a report on the overall effectiveness of this new program for the Berkeley community. Similarly, an evaluation needs to be conducted for the Community Crisis Response Services (“Bridge Services” to the SCU) which have served community members over the last calendar year.

Given their previous engagement on a variety of SCU activities, the Department of Health, Housing and Community Services (HHCS) recommends entering in to new contract with Resources Development Associates (RDA) for the program evaluation services. In its previous work, RDA has gained expertise in the model chosen, provided excellent services and work products, and developed a high degree of trust among SCU stakeholders in the community.

The evaluation for the SCU and the associated Community Crisis Response Services is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.

Contract: RDA Evaluation for Specialized Care Unit
and Community Crisis Response Services CONSENT CALENDAR December 13, 2022

BACKGROUND
In Fall 2020, Resource Development Associates (RDA) was selected through a competitive bid process to provide an extensive research, community engagement, and recommendations to create the framework for the Specialized Care Unit (see Attachments 2-4). This process involved working across multiple Berkeley stakeholder groups, including service utilizers, and in-depth research regarding crisis response systems to best inform a behavioral crisis response model to meet Berkeley’s needs.

To oversee and advise on this process, the City formed an SCU Steering Committee consisting of representatives from the Health, Housing, and Community Services Department, the Berkeley Fire Department, appointees of the Mental Health Commission, and community representatives from the Berkeley Community Safety Coalition.

With guidance from the Steering Committee, RDA created three reports. The first report provides detailed information about 37 alternative crisis response models that have been implemented in the United States and internationally. The second report provides information about Berkeley’s current crisis response system and also summarizes stakeholder perspectives gathered through a deep community engagement process conducted by RDA; in which input was gathered from utilizers of Berkeley’s crisis response services, local community-based organizations (CBOs), local community leaders, and City of Berkeley and Alameda County agencies. RDA’s third and final report utilized information gathered in completing the first two reports and makes specific recommendations for an SCU model for Berkeley.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
No environmental sustainability and climate impacts directly associated with this recommendation have been identified.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Resource Development Associates (RDA) has been a significant partner on this project for the past two years and is the only contractor that possesses both extensive knowledge about the SCU design process and program model, and has established important and trusting relationships with key stakeholders who are driving SCU implementation.

Given their community engagement and Berkeley-specific expertise about what constitutes a successful SCU Pilot Program, working with RDA will elicit higher community trust, leading to increased validity of performance measures and outcomes.

Additionally, contracting with RDA will allow for more efficient evaluation given their existing strong familiarity with the SCU program.

Contract: RDA Evaluation for Specialized Care Unit
and Community Crisis Response Services CONSENT CALENDAR December 13, 2022

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The City could choose to go through another competitive bidding process to identify an evaluator. However, RDA’s existing level of knowledge and credibility with stakeholders would be impossible for another firm to match, so this approach is not recommended.

CONTACT PERSON
Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing and Community Services, 510-981-5404 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: City of Berkeley Crisis Models Report (Research Development Associates) 3: City of Berkeley Mental Health Crisis Response Services and Stakeholder Perspectives Report (Research Development Associates)
4: City of Berkeley Specialized Care Unit Crisis Response Recommendations (Research Development Associates)

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

CONTRACT: RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES EVALUATION FOR

SPECIALIZED CARE UNIT AND COMMUNITY CRISIS RESPONSE SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley passed an omnibus package to reimagine public safety, including the establishment of a Specialized Care Unit (SCU) to respond to nonviolent behavioral health calls and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley released a Request for Proposals and then awarded a contract to the most qualified applicant, Resource Development Associates (RDA), to conduct extensive community engagement to provide design recommendations for the Specialized Care Unit; and
WHEREAS, the Specialized Care Unit will be implemented using RDA’s recommendations and accompanying Steering Committee Analysis; and WHEREAS, the evaluation of the Specialized Care Unit will require expertise and community trust to create a valid and reliable evaluation of this program.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Resource Development Associates (Contractor) to design and implement an evaluation for program effectiveness of the Specialized Care Unit and Community Crisis Response Services (Bridge Services). Services will begin on January 1, 2023 and extend to June 30, 2025 in an amount not to exceed $150,000 in One-time Fund (Fund 336) available in the FY2023 budget.

City of Berkeley
Crisis Response Models Report

Crisis Response Models Report | 2

City of Berkeley
Specialized Care Unit Model Recommendations
Crisis Response Models Report

Caroline de Bie
Sarah Ferrell
Sasha Gayle-Schneider
Jamie Dorsey
Nicole Gamache-Kocol
Kevin Wu

This report was developed by Resource Development Associates under contract with the City of Berkeley Health, Housing & Community Services Department.

Resource Development Associates, September 2021

Crisis Response Models Report | 3

Table of Contents

Introduction 4
Crisis Response Models: An Overview 6
Components of Crisis Response Models 8
Program Administration 23
Program Planning Process 28
Lessons Learned 32
Appendices 36

Crisis Response Models Report | 4

Introduction
In response to the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in May 2020 and the ensuing protests across the nation for this and many other similar tragedies, a national conversation emerged about how policing can be done differently in local communities. The Berkeley City Council initiated a broad reaching process to reimagine policing in the City of Berkeley. As part of that process, in July 2020, the Berkeley City Council directed the City Manager to pursue reforms to limit the Berkeley Police Department’s scope of work to “primarily violent and criminal matters.” These reforms included, in part, the development of a Specialized Care Unit (SCU) pilot to respond to mental health crises without the involvement of law enforcement.

In order to inform the development of an SCU, the City of Berkeley contracted with Resource Development Associates (RDA) to conduct a feasibility study that includes community-informed program design recommendations, a phased implementation plan, and funding considerations. As part of this feasibility study, RDA reviewed the components of nearly 40 crisis response programs in the United States and internationally, including virtually meeting with 10 programs between June and July 2021. This report provides a synthesized summary of RDA’s findings, including common themes that emerged from across the programs, how they were implemented, considerations and rationale for design components, and overall key lessons learned. Please see the table below for a list of the programs that RDA reviewed. For the first nine programs listed (in bold and italics), RDA conducted phone interviews with representatives to obtain a further understanding of their program models; these programs are cited more often in this report because RDA had more details about them. For the remaining programs listed, RDA reviewed information that was available online. For a tabular summary of the key components of each crisis response program that RDA reviewed, please see Appendix C at the end of this report.

Additionally, SAMHSA’s summary of its National Guidelines for Behavioral Health Crisis Care (released in 2020) is included in Appendix A of this report.

Program Name Location
B-HEARD (the Behavioral Health Emergency Assistance
Response Division)
New York, NY
Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) Eugene, OR Crisis Response Pilot Chicago, IL
Expanded Mobile Crisis Outreach Team (EMCOT) Austin, TX Mental Health First / Anti-Police Terror Project Sacramento and Oakland, CA
Portland Street Response Portland, OR

Crisis Response Models Report | 5

Program Name Location
REACH 24/7 Crisis Diversion Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada
Support Team Assisted Response (STAR) Denver, CO
Street Crisis Response Team (SCRT) San Francisco, CA
Albuquerque Community Safety Department Albuquerque, NM Boston Police Department’s Co-Responder Program Boston, MA Community Assessment & Transport Team (CATT) Alameda County, CA Community Paramedicine California (statewide)
Crisis Call Diversion Program (CCD) Houston, TX
Crisis Now National model (via

SAMHSA)
Crisis Response Unit Olympia, WA
Cuyahoga County Mobile Crisis Team Cuyahoga County,
Ohio
Department of Community Response Sacramento, CA
Department of Community Solutions and Public Safety Ithaca, NY Downtown Emergency Service Center (DESC) Mobile Crisis
Team
King County, WA
Georgia Crisis & Access Line (GCAL) Georgia (statewide) Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health – ACCESS Center
Los Angeles County,
CA
Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health – Co-
Response Program
Los Angeles County,
CA
Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health –
Psychiatric Mobile Response Teams (PMRT)
Los Angeles County,
CA
Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland
(MACRO)
Oakland, CA
Mental Health Acute Assessment
Team (MHAAT)
Sydney, Australia
Mental Health Mobile Crisis Team (MHMCT) Nova Scotia, Canada Mobile Crisis Assistance Team (MCAT) Indianapolis, IN
Mobile Crisis Rapid Response Team (MCRRT) Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Mobile Emergency Response Team for Youth (MERTY) Santa Cruz, CA Mobile Evaluation Team (MET) East Oakland, CA
Psykiatrisk Akut Mobilitet (PAM) Unit, the
Psychiatric Emergency Response Team
Stockholm, Sweden

Crisis Response Models Report | 6

Program Name Location
Police and Clinician Emergency Response (PACER) Australia (several locations)
Seattle Crisis Response Team Seattle, WA
Street Triage England (several
locations)
Therapeutic Transportation Pilot Program/Alternative Crisis Response
Los Angeles City and
County, CA
Toronto Crisis Response Toronto, Ontario,
Canada

Crisis Response Models: An
Overview
Of the crisis response program models reviewed, almost all specify that they respond to mental health and behavioral health concerns in their communities. Some models additionally specify that they respond to non- emergency calls, crises or disturbances related to substance use, homelessness, physical assault and sexual assault, family crises, and/or youth-specific concerns, as well as conduct welfare checks.

In California, Alameda County has the highest rate of 5150 psychiatric holds in the entire state.
1 Of those Alameda County individuals placed on
a 5150 psychiatric hold that were transferred to a psychiatric emergency services unit, 75-85% of the cases did not meet medically necessary criteria to be placed in inpatient acute psychiatric services. This demonstrates an overuse of emergency psychiatric services in Alameda County, which creates challenges in local communities such as having lengthy wait times for ambulance services when these ambulances are tied up transporting and waiting to discharge individuals on 5150 holds at psychiatric emergency service units.

Mental health crises are varied - they affect individuals across their lifespans, manifest in a variety of behaviors, and exist on a spectrum of

1 INN Plan – Alameda County: Community Assessment and Transport Team (CATT) – October 25, 2018. (2018, October 25). California Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission. http://www.mhsoac.ca.gov/document/inn-plan-alameda-county- community-assessment-and-transport-team-catt-october-25-2018 & https://mhsoac.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018- 10/Alameda_INN%20Project%20Plan_Community%20Assessment%20and %20Transport%20Team_8.6.2018_Final.pdf

Crisis Response Models Report | 7

severity and risk. A crisis response system ultimately seeks to provide care to individuals in the midst of a mental health crisis, keeping the individual and their surrounding community safe and healthy, and preventing the escalation of the crisis or exacerbating strains to mental and emotional well-being. As such, there are many considerations for the design of a mental health crisis response system that addresses the current shortcoming or flaws in existing models around the country and internationally.

Traditionally, the U.S. crisis response system has been under the purview of local police departments, typically with the support of local fire departments and emergency medical services (EMS), and activated by the local 911 emergency phone line. Over time, communities have responded to the need for a response system that better meets the mental health needs of community members by activating medical or therapeutic personnel in crisis response instead of traditional first responders (i.e., police, fire, EMS).

Term Definition
Traditional Crisis
Response Model
For the purposes of this report, we assume a
traditional crisis response model includes having all
crises routed through a 911 center that then
dispatches the local law enforcement agency (as
well as fire department and/or EMS, if necessary) to
respond to the crisis.

Co-Responder
Model
Co-responder models vary in practice, but they
generally involve law enforcement officers and
behavioral health clinicians working together to
respond to calls for service involving an individual
experiencing a behavioral health crisis.
911 Diversion
Programs
Programs with processes whereby police, fire, and
EMS dispatchers divert eligible non-emergency,
mental health-related calls to behavioral health
specialists, who then manage crisis by telephone
and offer referrals to needed services.

Alternate Model
Emerging and innovative behavioral health crisis
response models that minimize law enforcement
involvement and emphasize community-based
provider teams and solutions for responding to
individuals experiencing behavioral health crises.

Like a physical health crisis that requires treatment from medical professionals, a mental health crisis requires responses from mental health professionals. Tragically, police are 16 times more likely to kill someone

Crisis Response Models Report | 8

with a mental health illness compared to others without a mental illness.2 A November 2016 study published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine estimated that 20% to 50% of fatal encounters with law enforcement involved an individual with a mental illness. 3 As a result,
communities have begun to consider the urgent need for crisis response models that include mental health professionals rather than police.

In the current national discussion about appropriate crisis response strategies for individuals experiencing mental health crises, the prominent concerns voiced have typically focused on the safety of crisis responders and community members, the funding of such programs, and balancing a sense of urgency to implement new models quickly with the need for intentional planning and preparation. In order to understand the current models that exist, RDA reviewed nearly 40 national and international crisis response programs and specifically interviewed staff from 9 programs about their:
● Program planning efforts, including community engagement strategies, coordinating across city agencies and partner organizations, and program planning, implementation, and evaluation activities;
● Models’ key elements, including dispatch, staffing, transport capabilities, follow-up care, and more;
● Program financing;
● Other considerations that were factored into their program planning; and
● Key lessons learned or advice for the City of Berkeley’s implementation of its SCU.

Components of Crisis Response
Models
While each crisis response program was designed to meet the needs of its local community, there are several overarching components that were common across the programs that RDA explored. The majority of crisis response programs use their community’s existing 911 infrastructure for dispatch. Most programs respond to mental health and behavioral health calls where they engage in de-escalation, assessment, referral, and

2 Szabo, L. (2015, December 10). People with mental illness 16 times more likely to be killed by police. USA Today.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/10/people-mental- illness-16-times-more-likely-killed-police/77059710/
3 DeGue, S., Fowler, K.A., & Calkins, C. (2016). Deaths Due to Use of Lethal Force by Law Enforcement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51 (5), S173-S187. https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(16)30384- 1/fulltext

Crisis Response Models Report | 9

transport. Nearly all programs recognize the need to operate 24/7.

Staffing structure varies by the needs of the community, but many response team units are staffed by teams of two to three individuals and can include a combination of mental health professionals, physical health professionals, and peers with lived experience. Many teams arrive in plainclothes or T-shirts with logos in a vehicle equipped with medical and engagement items. Teams typically receive skills-based training in de- escalation, crisis intervention, situational awareness, and communication.

Crisis teams will either transport clients themselves or call a third party to transport, depending on the legal requirements and staffing structure of the crisis response team. Programs varied in their inclusion and provision of follow-up care.

Underneath the high-level similarities of the crisis response models that RDA researched are the tailored nuances that each program adapted to its local needs, capacities, and priorities. Below are additional details, considerations, and examples from existing models to further inform the City of Berkeley’s development and implementation of its SCU.

Accessing the Call Center
Of the reviewed crisis response programs, the majority use the existing local 911 infrastructure, including its call receiving and dispatch technology and staff. There are several advantages to this approach. The general public is typically familiar with the number and process for calling 911, which can reduce the barrier for accessing services. Also, because 911 call centers already have a triage protocol for behavioral health calls, there can be a more seamless transfer of these types of calls to the local crisis response program. Additionally, some calls might not be reported as a mental health emergency but can be identified as such by trained 911 dispatch staff.

Generally, the administration of 911 varies across the nation. In some locales, 911 is operated by the police department, while in other locales it is administered centrally across all emergency services. Some programs have mental health staff situated in the 911 call center to: a) directly answer calls; b) support calls answered by 911 staff; and/or c) provide services over the phone as a part of the 911 call center’s response. In Chicago, in addition to diverting more calls to the crisis response program, the staff of Chicago’s Crisis Response Pilot anticipates that having mental health clinicians embedded in their call center to do triage and telemedicine will help them lay the foundation for a smooth transition to 988.
988 is the three-digit phone call for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

By July 16, 2022, phone service providers across the country will direct all calls to 988 to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, so that Americans in crisis can connect with suicide prevention and mental health crisis

Crisis Response Models Report | 10

counselors.4 In California, AB 988 was passed in the State Assembly on June 2, 2021(and is currently waiting on passage by the State Senate) – AB 988 seeks to allocate $50 million for the implementation of 988 centers that have trained counselors receiving calls, as well as a number of other system-level changes.5 In RDA’s research of crisis response models, some programs are actively planning for the upcoming 988 implementation when exploring the functionalities of their local 911 infrastructure and responsibilities; other programs were not differentiating 988 from 911 in the communities. For the purposes of this report, moving forward, we will not differentiate 911 from 988, and will refer to all emergency calls for service as going to 911.

Other programs use an alternative phone number in addition to or instead of 911. These numbers can be an existing non-emergency number (like 211) or a new phone number that goes directly to the crisis response program. Oftentimes a program will utilize an alternative phone number when they believe that people, particularly those disproportionately impacted by police violence, do not feel safe calling 911 because they fear a law enforcement response. Portland’s Street Response team & Denver’s STAR team use both a non-emergency number and 911, routed to the same call center. This supports community members that are hesitant to use 911 while also ensuring that calls that do come through 911 are still routed to Portland’s Street Response team. Overall, designing a system in Portland with both options was intended to increase community members’ access to mental health crisis services. Given that Portland’s program began on February 16, 2021, not enough time has elapsed for findings to be generated regarding the success of this model. But a current challenge that Portland shared with RDA is that some calls to their non-emergency number have wait times upwards of an hour because their call center needs to prioritize 911 calls.

In other program models, an alternate phone number may have been used in the community for years and, therefore, is a well-known resource.

For example, in Canada’s REACH Edmonton program, the 211 line is well- used for non-emergency situations, so it is used as the main connection point for its crisis diversion team.

Triage & Dispatch
Once a call is received, dispatch or call center staff will assess whether services could be delivered over the phone or whether the call requires an in-person response, and whether the response should be led by the crisis response team or another entity. Several programs utilize existing

4 Federal Communications Commission. (2021). Suicide Prevention Hotline. https://www.fcc.gov/suicide-prevention-hotline &
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/988-fact-sheet.pdf 5 Open States. (n.d.). California Assembly Bill 988. Retrieved September 2, 2021, from https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/AB988/

Crisis Response Models Report | 11

well-used triage tools and/or made modifications to those triage tools based on a renewed emphasis of having non-police responses for mental health crises. Please see Appendix B for sample outlines of types of scenarios for crisis response teams that were shared with RDA. A dispatch’s assessment of mental health related calls is dependent on the services provided by the local mental health crisis response team, an assessment of the situation and the caller’s needs, who the caller has identified as the preferred response team, and any other safety concerns.

Some programs prioritize staff assignment based on call volume and need, such as programs that have chosen to pilot non-police crisis response teams in specific geographic locations within their jurisdiction. In these programs, the call center must, therefore, determine the location of the requested response when dispatching a crisis response team. For example, Chicago’s Crisis Response Pilot has four teams that are assigned to different areas of the city based on their local ties and expertise of community needs; each team, therefore, only responds to calls that come from their assigned area. When programs are able to scale their services and hire more staff, many pilot programs plan to expand their geographical footprints.

Many crisis response teams are dispatched via radio or a computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system, and some have the ability to listen in on police radio and activate their own response if not dispatched. Of the nine programs that RDA interviewed, the Eugene CAHOOTS program allows its team to be self-dispatched, the Denver STAR program allows its team to directly see what calls are in the queue so they can be more proactive in taking and responding to calls, and the San Francisco SCRT program allows its team to respond to incidences that they witness while being out in the streets. Regarding the ability to self-dispatch, San Francisco’s SCRT program is currently figuring out the regulatory requirements that might prohibit self-dispatching paramedics because they must be dispatched through a dispatch center.

Having multiple opportunities to engage the crisis response team is important to ensure community members have the most robust access to the service. For example, in Denver, their police, fire, and EMS can call their Support Team Assisted Response (STAR) team directly. Across all incidents that the Denver STAR team responded to in the first six months of its pilot implementation, it was activated by 911 dispatch in 42% of incidents, by police/fire/EMS in 35% of incidents, and self-activated in 23% of incidents.
6 These data from the Denver STAR team demonstrate how, especially in the early stages of a new program’s implementation, new processes and relationships are continually being developed, learned, refined, and implemented. For this reason, it is beneficial to have safeguards in place in triage and dispatch processes so that the crisis

6 Denver STAR Program. (2021, January 8). STAR Program Evaluation. https://www.denverperfect10.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/STAR_Pilot_6_Month_Evaluation_FINAL- REPORT.pdf

Crisis Response Models Report | 12

response team can be flexible in responding to the various ways in which crisis response calls originate.

Assessing for Safety
The presence of weapons or violence are the most common reasons why a crisis response team would not be sent into the field. Some of the reviewed programs only respond to calls in public settings and do not go to private residences as an effort to protect crisis team staff, though this was the case in a few of the 40 reviewed programs. Calls that are deemed unsafe or not appropriate for a crisis response team will often be responded to by police, co-responder teams, police officers trained in Critical Intervention Team (CIT) techniques, or other units within the police department. Many alternative models have demonstrated that the need for a police response is rare for calls that are routed to non-law enforcement involved crisis response teams. For instance, in 2019, Eugene’s Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) team only requested police backup 150 times out of 24,000 calls, or in fewer than one percent of all calls received by the crisis team;7 this demonstrates that effective triage assessments and protocols do work in crisis response models.

Several of the programs interviewed by RDA mentioned that they are currently evaluating options for their non-police crisis response teams to respond to situations that may involve weapons or violence. These are situations that would otherwise be scenarios that default to a police response. These programs are aware of the risks of police responses to potentially escalate situations that could otherwise be deescalated with non-police involved responses and are trying to find ways to reduce those types of risks.

The types of harm and concerns for safety that should be assessed are not only for crisis response team staff, but also for the individual(s) in crisis and surrounding bystanders or community members. SAMHSA’s best practices on behavioral health crisis response underscores that effective crisis care is rooted in ensuring safety for all staff and consumers, including timely crisis intervention, risk management, and overall minimizing need for physical intervention and re-traumatization of the person in crisis. 8 When call center
staff deem a call safe and appropriate for the crisis response team, they will assign the call to the crisis response team. There may be multiple calls and situations happening concurrently, in which case the call center staff

7 White Bird Clinic. (n.d.). What is CAHOOTS?. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from https://whitebirdclinic.org/what-is-cahoots/
8 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2020). Crisis Services – Meeting Needs, Saving Lives.
https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/SAMHSA_Digital_Download/PE P20-08-01-001%20PDF.pdf (page 32)

Crisis Response Models Report | 13

prioritize the calls based on pre-established criteria, such as acuity and risk of harm.

Crisis Response Teams Increase Community Safety
New York City’s Behavioral Health Emergency Assistance Response Division (B-HEARD) program is being piloted in a region that receives the city’s highest number of mental health emergency calls.
9 In the first month of implementation, the program
demonstrated:
● Increased rates of people accepting care from the B-
HEARD team compared to traditional 911 response teams.
● The proportion of people transported by the crisis response team to the hospital for more care was far smaller than the proportion transported with their traditional 911 response. ● An anticipated increase of 911 operators routing mental health emergency calls to the B-HEARD team.

“A smarter approach to public health and public safety. A smarter use of resources. And the evidence — from Denver to New York — shows that responding with care works.”
- U.S. Representative Jamaal Bowman, D-NY

Hours of Operation
Because a mental health crisis can happen at any time, many programs have adopted a 24-hour model that supports the community seven days a week; of the 40 programs that RDA reviewed, 12 have adopted a 24/7 model. Some programs that are in their early phases of implementation have launched with initially limited hours but have plans to expand to 24/7 coverage once they are able to hire more staff for crisis response teams. If a program uses 911 as a point of access for the crisis response team, then there may be a community perception or expectation that the crisis response team also operates 24/7 the same way that 911 operates 24/7.

Other programs with more restricted resources often have limited hours; some offer services during business hours (9am to 5pm, Monday through Friday) while others offer services after-hours. Using historical data to prioritize coverage during times with highest call volumes can help a program adapt to local needs. For example, Mental Health First Oakland currently responds to calls Friday through Sunday from 7pm to 7am

9 Shivaram, D. (2021, July 23). Mental Health Response Teams Yield Better Outcomes Than Police In NYC, Data Shows. National Public Radio (NPR). https://www.npr.org/2021/07/23/1019704823/police-mental-health-crisis- calls-new-york-city#:~:text=Hourly%20News-
,New%20York%20City%20Mental%20Health%20Response%20%20Teams%2 0Show%20Better%20Results,were%20admitted%20to%20the%20hospital.

Crisis Response Models Report | 14

because they have found that those times are when mental health services are unavailable but need is high.

Types of Calls
Some crisis response programs only respond to specific call types, such as calls pertaining to mental health, behavioral health, domestic violence, substance use, or homelessness. A fraction of programs only respond to acute mental health situations, such as suicidal behavior, or conversely only non-acute mental health calls, such as welfare checks. And, some crisis response programs respond to any non-emergency, non-violent calls, which may or may not include mental health calls. Every program is unique in the calls that they are currently responding to as well as how agencies coordinate for different types of calls. Additionally, given that many programs are actively learning and adapting their models, what and how they respond to calls is evolving.

The most common types of calls that programs are responding to are calls regarding trespassing, welfare checks, suicidal ideation, mental health distress, and social disorder. Several programs mentioned that their main call type - trespassing - is to move an unwanted person, usually someone that is unsheltered and sitting outside the caller’s home or business. While programs provide this service, many advocate for increased public education around interacting with unhoused residents and neighbors without the need to call for a third-party response.

The programs in New York City, Chicago, and Portland shared with RDA that they are keeping their scopes of services small for their current pilot implementations. At a later time, they will learn from the types of calls receive and determinations made in order to determine how they will expand their program to respond to more situations (e.g., including serving more types of crises, more types of spaces like private residences, etc.).

In order to demonstrate the variety of incidents that different programs respond to, below are highlights regarding the types of calls that some of the programs that RDA interviewed respond to:
• New York City’s B-HEARD program is currently responding to calls regarding suicidal ideation with no weapons, mental health crisis, and calls signaling a combination of physical health and mental health issues. For calls where weapons are involved or are related to a crime, NYPD is the initial responder. The B-HEARD program provides transport and linkage to shelters, where the shelters then provide follow-up services.
• Chicago’s Crisis Response Pilot is determining how they will address “low-level crimes” and crimes related to homelessness, especially if the root cause of the crime is an unmet behavioral health and/or housing need. The program does not have an official protocol or decision tree yet for determining which calls it will respond to. But,

Crisis Response Models Report | 15

its emphasis is on responding to mental health crisis and mental health needs.
• The Portland Street Response program is currently only responding to calls regarding crises that are happening outdoors or public settings (e.g., storefronts), not in private residences. The majority of their calls are related to substance use issues, co-occurring mental health and substance use issues, and welfare checks. The program cannot respond to suicide calls because of a Department of Justice (DOJ) contract that the City of Portland has that would require the Portland Street Response Program to appear before a judge and renegotiate that contract that the city currently has; this process would take at least two years to happen.
• Denver’s STAR program currently responds primarily to calls where individuals have schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, and/or express suicidal thoughts but have no immediate plans to act upon them. The STAR program also conducts many Welfare checks. The program is currently primarily dealing with issues related to homelessness because its pilot rolled out in Denver’s downtown corridor where there is a high number of unsheltered individuals.

Services Provided Before, During, and
After a Crisis
The reviewed programs offer a variety of services before, during, and after a mental health crisis. Regarding services provided before crises occur, some programs view their role as supporting individuals prior to crisis, including proactive outreach and building relationships in the community with individuals. Portland’s Street Response team contracts with street ambassadors with lived experience (via a separate contract with a local CBO) that do direct outreach to communities; street ambassadors work to explain the team’s services and ultimately increase trust. Portland’s Street Response team also works with nursing students who provide outreach and medical services to nearby encampments. Mental Health First has a strong cohort of repeat callers who request accompaniment through issues they are facing that the team will go into the field to provide – these services can help them avoid escalating into a crisis. Denver’s STAR program initiates outreach with local homeless populations to ensure they have medicines and supplies. These proactive efforts are examples of crisis response teams supporting potential individuals before they are in crisis, and thus also promoting their overall health and well-being.

During a crisis response, most programs offer various crisis stabilization services, including de-escalation, welfare checks, conflict resolution and mediation, counseling, short-term case management, safety planning, assessment, transport (to hospitals, sobering sites, solution centers, etc.), and 5150 evaluations. To engage the individual in crisis, staff will provide supplies to help meet basic needs with items such as snacks, water, and clothing. If there is a medical professional on the team, they can provide

Crisis Response Models Report | 16

medical services including medical assessments, first aid, wound care, substance use treatment (i.e., medicated-assisted treatment), medication assistance and administration, and medical clearance for transport to a crisis stabilization unit (CSU).

After a crisis, the teams may provide linkage to follow-up care. Some crisis response teams do short-term case management themselves, but most refer (and sometimes transport) individuals to other providers for long-term care. Referrals can be a commonly provided service of a crisis response program. For example, 41% of Denver STAR’s services are for information and referrals.10 Many programs have relationships with local community- based organizations for providing referrals and linkages, while some programs have a specific protocol for referring individuals to a peer navigation program or centralized care coordination services.

10 Alvarez, Alayna. (2021, July 21). Denver’s pilot from police is gaining popularity nationwide. Axios. https://www.yahoo.com/now/denver-pivot- police-gaining-popularity-122044701.html

Crisis Response Models Report | 17

Term Definition
Transport
Placing an individual in a vehicle and driving them
to or from a designated mental health service or
any other place.
5150
5150 is the number of the section of the Welfare
and Institutions Code which allows an adult who is
experiencing a mental health crisis to be
involuntarily detained for a 72-hour psychiatric
hospitalization when evaluated to be a danger to
others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled.

Peer Worker
A mental health peer worker utilizes learning from
their own recovery experiences to support other
people to navigate their recovery journeys.

Medication-
Assisted
Treatment (MAT)
MAT is the use of medications, in combination with
counseling and behavioral therapies, to provide a
whole-patient approach to the treatment of SUDs.

Narcan
Narcan (Naloxone) is a nasal spray used for the
treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose
emergencies.

Crisis Stabilization
Unit
A mental health voluntary facility that provides a
short-term stay for individuals needing additional
stabilization services following a behavioral health
crisis.

Sobering Center
A facility that provides a safe, supportive
environment for publicly intoxicated individuals to
become sober.

Staffing Crisis Teams
Most teams include a combination of a medical professional (e.g., an EMT or nurse), a mental health clinician (e.g., a psychologist or social worker), and a peer. Having a variety of staff on a team allows the program to respond to a diverse array of calls, meet most needs that a client might have, and gives the client the ability to engage with whomever they feel most comfortable.

The reviewed programs staffed their crisis teams with a variety of medical professionals. There was consensus among interviewed programs that crisis response team EMTs, paramedics, nurse practitioners, or psychiatric nurse practitioner clinicians should have at least three to five years of experience in similar settings, as well as having comprehensive de- escalation and trauma-informed care training and skills. Austin’s Extended Mobile Crisis Outreach Team (EMCOT) program cited that a paramedic's ability to address a client's more acute physical health and substance use

Crisis Response Models Report | 18

needs is a beneficial diversion away from an EMS or police response.11 However, in many cities, the skills and expertise of paramedics are not heavily utilized, as many mental and behavioral health calls do not require a high level of medical care. However, a medical professional can be an important addition to the team, especially for services like providing first aid, wound care, the administration of single-dose medication, medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for substance use issues, and 5150 transports. Considerations for which medical professionals should be staffed on a crisis team depends on the types of services the model intends to provide, the historical data on the types of calls or service needs, the local rules for which services can be provided by specific professions, and the overall program budget.

All programs had a mental health provider on their crisis response teams.

There is variability in the level of formal education, training, and licensure of the type of mental health provider in each program. Some programs have licensed, masters-level therapists and clinicians (e.g., ASW, LCSW), while other programs utilize unlicensed mental health providers.

Considering if a program wants or needs to be able to bill Medicaid or other insurance payors, the ability to place a 5150 hold, as well as the direct costs of providers with differing levels of education and training are examples of considerations and decision points that programs have when determining what type of professional they want to provide mental health services.

Across the programs reviewed and interviewed by RDA, there is variability in the current presence of peer support specialists on teams. By definition, peer workers are “those who have been successful in the recovery process who help others experiencing similar situations.”12 Studies demonstrate that by helping others engage with the recovery process through understanding, respect and mutual empowerment, peers increase the likelihood of a successful recovery. While they do not replace the role of therapists and clinicians, evidence from the literature and testimonials given to RDA leave no doubt about their value added on a crisis response team. Peer support specialists are able to connect with clients in crisis in ways that are potentially very different from how mental health clinicians and medical providers are trained to provide their specific types of services.

Although 21 of the 40 reviewed programs were classified as alternative models for mental health crisis response, it is important to note that co- responder programs, which were 11 of the 40 reviewed programs, include a police officer on the response team. A co-responder program will often

11 Expanded Mobile Crisis Outreach Team. (n.d.). Integral Care Crisis Services. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from
https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=302634 12 Who Are Peer Workers?. (2020, April 16). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Bringing Recovery Supports to Scale Technical Assistance Center Strategy (BRSS TACS). https://www.samhsa.gov/brss-tacs/recovery-support-tools/peers

Crisis Response Models Report | 19

be used for higher acuity calls that involve the risk of violence by the person in crisis or the risk that the person in crisis has a weapon. As co- responders, police may arrive on site before the rest of the crisis team does. Other models treat the police officer as a back-up personnel, allowing the crisis team to evaluate the level of risk or danger of the situation and then, if de-escalation tactics are unsuccessful, call the police for support.

Team structures vary depending on funding, local salary structures for different types of providers, program design, and program administration.

For example, 24-hour programs require more teams and staffing while programs with limited hours will likely have fewer shift rotations and therefore fewer teams. San Francisco’s Street Crisis Response Team has six teams with three members per team; shifts are 12 hours long with two teams assigned to each shift. Overlap between the shifts has improved coordination between the teams. Programs with unionized staff (e.g., EMTs, paramedics) require regimented 8-, 10-, or 12-hour shifts, which also influences a team’s capacity and scheduling.

Training
Training requirements vary based on the staffing structure and services provided by a crisis response program as well as the specific needs of the local community. Across the board, programs train their staff in crisis intervention topics such as de-escalation, mental health intervention, substance use management, and situational awareness. Many teams are trained together as a cohort to build relationships and trust between staff.

Most teams are trained for around 40 hours in the classroom and then supervised in the field. In co-responder teams, police officers often receive 40 hours of Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Training.

Specialized staff also receive specific training relevant to their role.

Dispatch staff typically receive separate training focused on risk assessment and triage. In programs with clinicians embedded within the call center, the clinicians often provide training to other dispatch staff on mental health topics. Interviewed programs also recommended the crisis response team's dispatch team learn to assess call risk level by building an intake/eligibility tool, as well as through risk assessment and motivational interviewing. For both Denver’s STAR and Portland’s Street Response programs, dispatch staff were trained by and then shadowed Eugene’s CAHOOTS dispatch team, leveraging the decades of experience of CAHOOTS’ established alternative crisis response model.

Specific de-escalation and crisis intervention training in which programs participate include key strategies to mitigate risk in the field, learning effective radio communication, and motivational interviewing skills. Some interviewed programs shared that substance use training should be attended by all crisis response staff, not just clinicians; for example, Narcan administration, tourniquet application, and harm reduction training are critical training skills for all team members when supporting a client during a substance use emergency.

Crisis Response Models Report | 20

Training on implicit bias was also regarded as essential among interviewed programs. Many interviewed programs agreed that receiving training in team-building and communication strategies, trauma-informed care, cultural competency, and racial equity advances the intention and principles of their alternate response program.

Equipment: Uniforms, Vehicles, and
Supplies
Most teams arrive either in plain clothes or a T-shirt with a logo.

Interviewed programs attested that casual clothing helps crisis response teams appear approachable and creates a sense of comfort for the person in crisis. In contrast, programs worried that formalizing their uniforms could trigger negative past experiences that community members have had with institutions (e.g., police, psychiatric hospitals, prisons) and, therefore, escalate someone in crisis. However, EMTs or police in a co- responder team do wear their usual uniform so that they are easily identifiable as first responders.

The types of vehicles and equipment needed for each model vary based on the scope of services provided, types of calls to which the team responds, and the team’s staffing structure. The majority of programs have a van or fleet of vans with the program logo on it and are stocked with necessary supplies. Some programs use their vehicles for on-site service delivery, while others use them only for transporting a client to an alternate location. Programs situated within fire departments often have EMTs or paramedics on-staff, so those teams ride in ambulances or vans with transport capabilities. Co-responder programs often use police vehicles, either marked or unmarked.

There are several considerations for how the design of the vehicle increases accessibility and safety for clients, as well as supports the security of providers. Vans should be accessible to wheelchairs so that crisis response teams can provide services within the interior of the van (to ensure client privacy) and in the event of a needed transport. Also, vans equipped with lights allow them to park on sidewalks and increase traffic safety. Several interviewed programs mentioned using Eugene’s CAHOOTS program’s van specifications. One component of this design is a plexiglass barrier between the van’s front and back seats, which protects both the driver and anyone riding in the back in the case of an accident; additionally, the barrier keeps clients in the back of the vehicle and protects the driver from any disruption that could decrease safety during the transport. However, some cities are moving away from including the plexiglass barrier between the front and back seats in their vans due to the stigma and lack of trust it communicates to the client.

Many vehicles and teams are equipped with various technologies, including radios with connection to dispatch, cell phones, and data- enabled tablets for mobile data entry. Denver’s STAR program has access to the local 911 dispatch queue to understand what calls are being

Crisis Response Models Report | 21

assessed and which could potentially use the program’s response. The STAR program teams also have direct access to an electronic health record (EHR) system where they can look-up an individual’s health history or communicate directly with a client’s psychiatrist or case manager and thus provide tailored, high quality of care in real-time.

If crisis response teams provide medical services, they often carry items such as personal protective equipment, wound care supplies, a stethoscope, blood pressure armband, oxygen, and intravenous bags.

Teams also often carry engagement items to initiate client interactions and meet basic needs, such as food, water, clothing, socks, cigarettes, “mercy beers,” tampons, condoms, and hygiene packs. When it is able to go into the field again, the Mental Health First model intends to use an RV instead of a van, so they can invite clients into the RV for more privacy and then supply them with a variety of supplies for their basic needs (e.g., clothing).

Overall, when deciding the types of uniforms, vehicles, and equipment to obtain, programs considered what would be recognizable, establish expertise, support the service delivery, build trust with those whom they serve, and not trigger or further harm individuals in crisis.

Transport
The ways that programs transport clients to a subsequent location varies in many ways, including when the transport is allowed, who is doing the transport, where clients are transported, and who is affected by the transport decision.

While some programs have the capability to transport clients themselves, others call a third party to do the transport. This depends on whether staff are licensed to do involuntary transports, whether the vehicle is able to transport clients, and whether it is deemed safe to provide transport at that time. Oftentimes, programs will only conduct voluntary transports, and they may pre-establish specific locations or allow the client’s location of choice. If clients do not want to be transported to another location, some programs will end the interaction. Because Denver’s STAR team does not use an ambulance, they can refuse someone’s requested transport to a hospital if a lower level of care is appropriate, such as a sobering center. Some programs conduct involuntary holds, either done by program staff or by calling for police backup. Waiting for police can undermine the level of care provided, a delay which poses a threat to the client’s safety and well-being. Portland’s Street Response program experiences delays of up to an hour when requesting police for involuntary holds; for this reason, the team hopes to have the ability to do 5150 transports themselves, and in a trauma-informed way that gives individuals a sense of control over the situation. Whether a crisis response team can transport clients, initiate involuntary holds, and/or call police for back-up in these situations are all considerations which implicate the continued involvement of law enforcement in crisis response.

Crisis Response Models Report | 22

In the transport process, clients may be transported to short- or long-term service providers as well as the client’s location of choice. Some short- term programs include a crisis stabilization facility, detox center, sobering center, homeless shelter, primary care provider, psychiatric facilities, diversion and connection center, hospital, and urgent care. Long-term programs include residential rehabilitation and direct admission to inpatient units of psychiatric emergency departments. Building relationships at these destinations and with providers is key to successful warm handoffs and ensuring clients in crisis receive the appropriate care.

For example, challenges can arise when bringing someone to an emergency room if the hospital is not fully aware of what the crisis response program is, which makes it more difficult to advocate for the client to receive services.

There are many things to consider about client and provider safety when transporting a client. Some programs do not give rides home and only transport the person to a public place. Others have restrictions on when they will transport a client to a private residence. For example, Denver’s STAR team will not take a person home if they are intoxicated and if someone else is in the home because they do not want to put the other person in potential harm. Instead, when responding to an intoxicated individual, the STAR team transports them to a sobering center, detox facility, or similar location of choice. In Portland, first responders and crisis response providers use a risk assessment tool that helps them determine if ambulance transport needs to be arranged. Portland’s risk assessment tool asks providers to determine if the individual has received sedation medication in the last six hours, had a Code Gray in the last 6 hours, had a history of violence and/or aggression, had a history of AWOL, or are showing resistance to hospitalization; if the answer is yes to any of these five questions, then they will arrange for ambulance transport for the individual in crisis.

Follow-up Care & Service Linkage
Follow-up care and linkage to services are handled in a variety of ways.

Some programs include referrals to internal, non-crisis response program staff as a service provided directly by the crisis response team. When community health workers and peer support specialists are staffed on crisis response teams, they often lead the referral and navigation support role. After responding to a crisis, Portland’s Street Response team (an LCSW and paramedic) call a community health worker if the client wants linkages or additional follow-up supports. While referrals and linkages are important to client outcomes and prevention, this kind of follow-up care can be challenging for many programs to do because it can be difficult to find individuals in the community, particularly if they are not stably housed or do not have a working phone. Portland’s Street Response team often goes to encampments to provide follow-up care, which is a program element that is also effective as proactive outreach into local communities.

Crisis Response Models Report | 23

Other programs refer individuals to other external teams or organizations not affiliated with the crisis response team whose primary role is to provide follow-up care to individuals who served by the crisis response team.

Olympia’s Crisis Response Unit specifically identifies repeat clients for a referral to a peer navigation program for linkage to care. Additionally, many programs have relationships with community-based organizations and refer clients there for follow-up services. Newer programs that have yet to fully launch stated this was a focus of their program design, as well.

For example, San Francisco’s Street Crisis Response Team partners with a centralized Office of Care Coordination within the San Francisco Department of Public Health that provides clients with linkages to other services; the Street Crisis Response Team essentially embeds this handoff in their own processes.

And, there are some programs that do not include follow-up care within the scope of their services. For example, Eugene’s CAHOOTS program has a narrower focus on crisis stabilization and short-term care; they do not provide referrals or linkage to longer-term services for their clients.

Program Administration
Across the crisis response models that RDA researched and interviewed, there was variability in how they are each administered. As each program is constructed around their local agency structures, resources, needs, and challenges, how their programs are administered are also just as adaptive.

Administrative Structure
The administrative structure and placement of crisis response programs varies significantly. Some programs are administered and delivered by the city/county government, some programs are run in collaboration between a city/county government and community-based organizations (CBO), while others are entirely operated by CBOs.

The administration and structure of a crisis response program may be affected by the geographic and/or population size of the local region and what stage of implementation the program is in. For instance, consistent and guaranteed funding helps sustain programs for the long- term, so developing a program within the local municipal structure may be an advantage over contracting the crisis response program to a CBO.

Some programs found that staff retention was higher for government positions, due to their generally higher wages and increased benefits compared to what CBOs generally offer. Additionally, the use of the existing 911 and dispatch infrastructure may be streamlined for crisis response programs administered by city/county governments because they can be situated within existing emergency response agencies and use existing interagency data sharing and communication processes

Crisis Response Models Report | 24

more easily. Finally, programs that are situated within a local health system -- such as Departments of Public Health, Behavioral Health, or public hospitals -- may have existing protocols and processes with which to collaborate with CBOs for referral assistance, case management, resourcing, and follow-up service provision.

On the other hand, programs that are primarily administered and staffed through CBOs reported a sense of flexibility and spontaneity in their program design, expansion, and evolution, especially for early-stage pilots that intend to change and grow over time. These programs shared that they experienced reduced bureaucratic barriers that were conducive to community engagement and program redesign. Additionally, most programs that included peer support specialists in their crisis response program had these roles sourced by CBOs – these peer support specialists were either fully integrated into crisis response teams or were referred to by crisis response teams to provide linkage and follow-up services.

Though there is variety in what entity administers crisis response programs, who sources or contracts the crisis responders, and where funds are generated, all programs require cross-system coordination for designing the program and implementing the dispatch, training, funding, and program evaluation/monitoring activities.

Staffing and sourcing a crisis response program entirely by volunteers can also be helpful in reducing barriers for potential providers to enter this professional field, elevating lived experience of staff, addressing community distrust of the police-involved response system, and building a mental health workforce. However, currently, all-volunteer models face challenges in having consistent and full staffing coverage, which limits a program’s overall service provision and hours of operation.

Financing
Aside from the health benefits of increasing mental health and medical resources in crisis responses, there are financial benefits, too. For example, in Eugene, the CAHOOTS program’s annual budget is $2.1 million. In contrast, the City of Eugene estimates it would cost the Eugene Police Department $8.5 million to serve the volume and type of calls that are directed to CAHOOTS.
13 Several cities are funding crisis response systems through the city’s general fund, which offers a potentially sustainable funding source for the long- term because it demonstrates that city officials are committed to investing in these services with public funds. To generate these funds, Denver added a sales and use tax in 2019 (one-quarter of a percent) to cover mental health services, a portion of which funds the STAR program.

13 White Bird Clinic. (n.d.). What is CAHOOTS?. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from https://whitebirdclinic.org/what-is-cahoots/

Crisis Response Models Report | 25

Some cities have funded crisis response programs by reallocating other city funds. Chicago’s Police Department currently pays the salary of the CIT-officer in Chicago’s crisis response pilot program. Chicago’s crisis response pilot also receives additional funding from Chicago’s Department of Public Health. Austin’s EMCOT program is funded by $11 million reallocated from the Police Department. And Eugene’s CAHOOTS program is fully funded through a contract by the Eugene Police Department.

Federal or state dollars have also been used for some crisis response programs. Alameda County’s Community Assessment and Transport Team (CATT) is funding by California’s Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Innovation funds. Chicago’s current crisis response pilot uses Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funding. New York City and Los Angeles both plan to bill Medicaid as a funding source for their emerging crisis response programs. The national Crisis Now program bills per service and per diem for mobile crisis and crisis stabilization services, which is reimbursed by Medicaid.

Some programs are able to leverage private funds to support their services. In addition to the allocation of city funds, Chicago receives funding from foundations and corporations to fund its crisis response program. The Mental Health First program is entirely supported by donations, grants, and volunteer time.

These financing mechanisms provide varying levels of sustainability and predictability, which may affect the longevity of a program and, therefore, its overall impacts. Ensuring that programs can be continuously funded ensures resources go into direct service provision and program administration, rather than on development, fundraising, or grant management. Staff recruitment and retention is also more successful when there is long-term reliability of positions.

Program Evaluation
Many crisis response programs use data to monitor their ongoing progress and successes, modify and expand program pilots, and measure outcomes and impact. Standardizing data collection practices (i.e., data collection tools, measures, values for measures, aligned electronic sources for data entry, etc.) across participating teams and agencies within and across cities/locales, especially for regional plans, supports effective program evaluation and reporting. Addressing this consideration is best done early in program planning because it affects the protocols developed for triage and dispatch, the equipment that crisis response teams use to record service delivery notes or accessing clients’ EHR records, the way referrals and hand-offs are conducted, whether or how Medicaid billing/financing will be leveraged, and more. Several cities noted that they incorporated data sharing and access into MOUs that outlined the scope of work. The providers in most programs have access to an electronic health record (EHR) system that they are able to enter

Crisis Response Models Report | 26

their contact notes into – having access to a centralized data collection portal like this can greatly aid a program’s evaluation efforts.

Pilot Program Evaluation Highlight: Denver’s Support Team Assisted Response (STAR) Program
Denver planned to evaluate the STAR program after an initial six- month pilot phase. For the evaluation, data was collected from both the 911 CAD database and the Mental Health Center of Denver. Data was kept in separate systems to protect health- related information from the law enforcement database. The program evaluation provided data on incident locations, response time, response dispatch source (i.e., 911, police unit, or STAR- initiated), social demographics of consumers served, services provided, location of client transport/drop-off, and more. The use of two data systems also allowed the program to evaluate what the STAR team identified as the primary issue of concern compared to clinical diagnoses from the health data.
14 As a result of analyzing these data, Denver identified its program successes and impacts and is committed to expanding the funding and scope of the program. This expansion includes purchasing more vans, staffing more teams, expanding the hours of operation, expanding the service area across the City, hiring a supervisor, and investing in program leadership. Additional plans for future evaluation include building a better understanding of populations served and more rigorous data capture, a longitudinal study to understand consumer long-term outcomes, and a cost- benefit analysis to understand the economic impacts of the program.

Once data is collected, a process for analyzing, visualizing, and reviewing data supports the overall effectiveness of program monitoring, thus contributing to changes to a pilot and the overall outcomes achieved by the program. Some programs have developed internal data dashboards to compile and organize their data in real-time, thus allowing them to review their program data on a weekly basis. And, some programs are also planning for an external evaluation to assist them in developing a broader understanding of their program’s impacts for their clients and in the larger community.

14 Denver STAR Program. (2021, January 8). STAR Program Evaluation. https://www.denverperfect10.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/STAR_Pilot_6_Month_Evaluation_FINAL- REPORT.pdf

Crisis Response Models Report | 27

Examples of Metrics that Cities Collect,
Review, and Publish Data On
• Call volume
• Time of calls received
• Service areas
• Response times
• Speed of deployment
• Determinations and dispositions of dispatch
(including specific coding for
violence/weapons/emergency)
• Which teams are deployed across all
emergency response
• Actual level of service needed compared to the
initial determination at the point of dispatch
• Number of involuntary holds that are placed
• Number of transports that are conducted
• Type of referrals made
• Priority needs of clients served (housing, mental
health)
• Frequency of police involvement

Making data about crisis response programs publicly available is also important for community transparency and public research. For example, New York City is planning to publish B-HEARD program data on a monthly basis. And, Portland has a public data dashboard for its crisis response program that is updated at least once per week.15 Such data transparency allows local constituents and stakeholders to check on the progress of their local crisis response program and whether it is making a difference. Such transparency can also contribute to public research and dissemination efforts about emerging alternate crisis response models.

Coordinating the Crisis Response System
Given the complexity of a crisis response system -- from its administrative structure and financing, the technical integration of dispatch with responders, the coordination of referrals and linkages, to client case management -- coordination is an essential, ongoing element of any program. This coordination requires investing in staff time and skills to participate in coordination efforts, focusing on de-siloing all components of crisis response, and effective leadership and vision. Coordination affects financing decisions and contributes directly to client outcomes; therefore, coordination implicates every aspect of program planning, implementation, and evaluation. Overall, program administration benefits

15 Portland Street Response Data Dashboard. (n.d.). City of Portland, Oregon. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from
https://www.portland.gov/streetresponse/data-dashboard

Crisis Response Models Report | 28

from having coordination done at a high level, ensuring there is a person(s) responsible for holding the program at a birds-eye view.

Coordinating services between the crisis response team and community partners includes ensuring there are open communication channels between various entities at a structural level down to a client case management level. At a structural level, it requires investing in staff time, technology, and protocol development, not just at the initial program launch but on an ongoing basis. Based on the program evaluation and data collection design, system-level coordination can support ongoing data review and inform future decisions made about a program.

For example, the managers of San Francisco’s Street Crisis Response Team participate in interagency meetings to ensure strategic coordination of service delivery across San Francisco’s Department of Public Health, Fire Department, and Office of Care Coordination. Additionally, when Austin’s EMCOT program’s call center staff integrated the call center technology and co-located their crisis response services within the city’s 911 dispatch, the crisis response program had reduced dropped calls, increased communication around safety and risk assessment during triage, more effective handoffs to mental health clinicians for telehealth, and increased deployment of the crisis response team by dispatch.

System-level coordination also has important downstream effects, such as ensuring that first responders (i.e., police, fire, EMS) can call the crisis response team to respond to a situation if they are dispatched first. At a client level, system coordination can support case management, referrals and linkages, and improved client outcomes. For example, Canada’s REACH Edmonton program provides governance support and
coordination to a network of CBO providers, including facilitating a bimonthly meeting for frontline workers to discuss shared clients. The program shared that for its most complex cases, this coordination significantly increased positive client outcomes. The program also found that they were able to better leverage the expertise of peer support specialists by having a specified coordinator leading these meetings and ensuring their voice and participation was valued. Service providers within this network all utilize the same EHR for documenting and sharing client notes, though the program has encountered challenges in data sharing.

Overall, the REACH Edmonton program shared that system-level coordination must be tightly managed but that most program staff and frontline workers do not have the capacity to do so, so having a centralized governance and coordinating body is essential.

Program Planning Process
Planning the large and small details of a crisis response program is an essential part of a successful launch. Although each city will have a different planning process and timeline based on the local community’s needs and administrative designs, some common themes emerged across the crisis response models that RDA reviewed.

Crisis Response Models Report | 29

Planning across city departments typically includes active involvement from emergency medical services, fire, and police as well as leaders from local public health and mental/behavioral health agencies and CBOs.

Many cities stated that having emergency responders involved in the collaborative brainstorming and discussions from the earliest planning stages was essential in garnering buy-in from other city or county departments, including identifying the best resource(s) when responding to mental health needs and crises. Planning also requires engaging other entities; for instance, Portland has to negotiate with the local police union for all services provided by Portland’s Street Response program. Some cities shared that they are aware of beliefs of local police departments and unions about potentially losing funding for police services when new crisis response services are added to the local infrastructure. But, cities found that when they focused the conversation about shared objectives between the crisis response program and the police, police began to see the program as a resource to them as mental health professionals could often better handle mental health crises because of their training and backgrounds. This alignment on shared goals and values underpins the reason that the Eugene Police Department funds the city’s non-police crisis response program, CAHOOTS. Developing a collective and shared narrative around community health and well-being while reducing harm, trauma, and unnecessary use of force, is essential in promoting any crisis response program.

Program planning allows cities to identify elements to include in the pilot that will be investigated throughout the pilot stages. For instance, the planning process may include heat mapping the highest call-volume areas of the city or discussing preliminary milestones to support scaling or expansion of a pilot program. As an example, New York City’s B-HEARD model is currently focused on deploying the B-HEARD team using the existing 911 determination process for identifying mental health emergencies; but, in the future, the program will also assess how those determinations are made to improve the determination and dispatch processes. Their sequencing of planning priorities allowed the program to be launched on a shorter timeline while preparing for an iterative evaluation and design process.

In the future, many learnings can be extrapolated from the ways that crisis response programs are being implemented across the United States and internationally. At this point in time, given that many implementations began within the past two years and are still actively evolving and changing, it is premature to pinpoint common themes in how similar and different jurisdictions and communities (e.g., population size, population density, geography, etc.) are unfolding their emerging crisis response programs.

Planning Timeline
While some cities operated co-responder models for years before moving to a non-police model, other cities are launching non-police models for the first time. Some cities engaged in extensive community engagement

Crisis Response Models Report | 30

processes while others launched programs quickly and plan to collect feedback for future iterations of their program.

For instance, Denver had a co-responder model from 2016-2020 and launched the STAR program in 2020 for an initial six-month pilot. The program was launched very quickly in 2020, and then it held community forums to hear from community members for input on the expansion. In Chicago, planning began in the summer of 2019 and the mental health advisory commission developed recommendations in October 2019, then planning and funding continued throughout the summer of 2020, with the program launched in the summer of 2021 (two years after initial program planning began).

New York City’s B-HEARD program was originally announced in November 2020 with an initial launch target of February 2021, though the launch was delayed until June 2021 (eight months later). San Francisco’s Street Crisis Response Team began planning in July 2020 and launched with one team in November 2020 (five months later); the program added a second team and additional hours in January 2021, added four more teams in March 2021, and integrated the local Office of Coordinated Care team for follow-up and linkages in April 2021 (all over a span of four months); the City of San Francisco wanted to move quickly due to its budgeting timeline so it did not conduct much initial community engagement, but rather expected the program design to be an iterative process with future opportunities for community input and evaluation. Additionally, for many pilot crisis response programs, when they are able to scale their services and hire more staff, then they plan to expand their geographical footprints.

Community Engagement
Community engagement is an invaluable element of program design and evaluation that leverages the expertise of the local community members directly impacted by these services. Community engagement activities are conducted to include the perspectives of potential service recipients, existing consumers of the behavioral health and crisis systems, existing coalitions, and/or local community-based service providers in the development and implementation of crisis response programs.

Cities may face barriers in hearing from community members that are the most structurally marginalized, so engaging existing coalitions and networks can support more equitable and targeted outreach. For instance, in Chicago, Sacramento, and Oakland, program planners worked with credible messengers that were connected to networks that the cities were not connected to, such as a teen health council, street outreach teams, homeless advocacy organizations, and disability rights collectives. There was a focus especially on working with mutual aid collectives and other underground groups that do not receive city funding, including voices that may otherwise be neglected in government spaces. This level of outreach and intentionality is essential because, historically, government institutions and other structures have prevented

Crisis Response Models Report | 31

the full and meaningful engagement of people of color, working class and cash-poor people, immigrants and undocumented people, people with disabilities, people who are cognitively diverse, LGBTQ+ people, and other structurally marginalized people. Engaging community members that are most directly impacted by crisis response programs, such as unsheltered people, will lead to feedback that is informed by direct lived experiences with the prior and existing programs in a given community.

Additionally, prioritizing the engagement, participation, and recommendations of community members that are most harmed by existing institutions - such as the disproportionate rates of police violence against people of color
16 - will ensure that systems of inequity are not
reproduced by a crisis response program. Instead, intentional community engagement can support the program to address existing structural inequities.

Community engagement can inform program planning, program implementation, and program evaluation in unique ways. When planning for a crisis response program, community engagement can be used to survey existing needs, collect input on priorities, and engage hard-to- reach consumers. To hear directly from community members, Chicago interviewed 100 people across the city to ask about their service needs and how to implement a co-responder or alternative crisis response model. Denver targeted specific community stakeholder groups when collecting feedback for its program design, including perspectives from residents with lived experience, community activists for reimagining policing, a Latinx clinic, and a needle exchange program.

When implementing a crisis response program, engaging the community can identify opportunities for program improvement in real-time and promote community education about the program’s services and partners. To collect feedback on key components of its model, Portland worked with a local university to send a questionnaire to service recipients. Denver prioritized community education by working with Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) to educate them on appropriate and inappropriate times to call 911 and how to more effectively and compassionately engage with unsheltered neighbors. Denver also worked to build trust with local CBOs to increase their engagement of the STAR crisis response team. Such community engagement can improve program implementation by increasing community awareness of the program, clarifying existing barriers for community members, and modifying service provision processes and priorities on an ongoing basis.

16 Edwards, F., Lee, H., & Esposito, M. (2019). Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race-ethnicity, and sex.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 116(34), 16793-16798.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

Crisis Response Models Report | 32

Lessons Learned
As cities have begun planning, launching, and iterating on a variety of crisis response program models, they shared key lessons learned and recommendations for new cities considering implementing non-police crisis response programs.

Community members are essential
sources of knowledge.

Program representatives that spoke with RDA emphasized the many considerations that programs must make to ensure a program is utilized and accessible to community members. The interviewed programs emphasized the importance of co-creating programs with community members because community members have experienced the existing crisis response options, know where the gaps exist, and may have already implemented or witnessed community-based short-term solutions that should directly inform program design. Cities explained that creating a program or model that does not appeal to the consumer, especially in terms of the involvement and presence of law enforcement, will decrease Community members are
essential sources of knowledge:

Co-creating a crisis response
model with community members
that have directly experienced
the crisis system will make the
program more accessible and
utilized.

Community engagement requires
time: Build the engagement and
planning time into the overall
program development approach
and timeline.

Use a pilot approach: Test,
modify, and expand specific
aspects of each crisis response
model based on program
successes, challenges, and
consumer feedback.

Build trust across the network:

Cities must build trust across city
agencies and local CBOs to
successfully launch and
implement a crisis response
program.

The 911 dispatch system is
complex: Successful
implementation of a crisis
response program requires
sufficient planning, time/resources
investment, and buy-in for revising
911 call determination and
dispatch processes.

Look to the future: While
alternative models are currently
focused on crisis response, future
models could also support a
population’s holistic health
outcomes and redefine what
“safety” means in a community.

Crisis Response Models Report | 33

the reach and impact of the program. Community members must trust the program if they are going to call and engage in services. For example, because they understood that a significant barrier was that the general public was not confident that they could call 911 to engage a non-police response to a mental health or related crisis, the San Francisco’s Street Crisis Response Teams have done significant outreach at community events and presentations at CBOs to build relationships and trust.

Community engagement requires time.

Learning from the community requires time, so plans for community engagement should be part of any new program’s overall timeline and approach. For example, after their initial implementation began, Denver’s STAR teams learned that there is a need to expand their program with multilingual teams, which they have since been effective in making progress towards achieving this. It has been a part of the STAR program’s process to prioritize program needs as they arise while planning for expansion.

Use a pilot approach.

Cities also recommended using a pilot approach so that the model can evolve and expand over time. For example, Chicago piloted two crisis response teams with a CIT-officer and piloted two teams without a CIT- officer to determine the role and efficacy of the CIT-officer in a crisis response. New York City designed their pilot to focus on one zone (a geographic subsection of a borough) before broadening the pilot to more of the city. A pilot approach allows a city to learn from implementation successes and challenges, hear from service recipients, and generate buy-in from potentially hesitant stakeholders.

Build trust across the network.

Cities elevated that building trust across city departments and with CBOs was an essential component of their processes. Cities recognize the different cultures and priorities across city departments and agencies as well as CBOs and volunteers. Within a local government, framing this work as a health response helps to align all partners on their shared values.

Moreover, emphasizing to the local police departments that taking a responsibility off their plate is a benefit to them, which may help them to see the crisis response teams as assets and resources to them.

Additionally, while bringing onboard internal (i.e., city departments and agencies) stakeholders to the table, it is important to ensure that they each have the appropriate degree of weight in decision making for the program. For example, New York City emphasized that law enforcement should not have an imbalance in controlling the conversation or

Crisis Response Models Report | 34

decisions. Programs also shared examples of opportunities to build trust across staff members: San Francisco’s Street Crisis Response Team used all- team debriefs to strengthen communication and establish processes; and Canada’s REACH Edmonton used data on their program and outcomes to promote accountability between providers. Ultimately, building and sustaining trust across a network of crisis response teams, first responders, and law enforcement agencies is a type of role that the central coordinating governance structure of a crisis response system should aim to lead and support.

The 911 dispatch system is complex.

The 911 dispatch component of a crisis response model is complex and requires effective collaboration for successful implementation. New York City felt that the dispatch and deployment components of its B-HEARD program took the most time to design well (e.g., diagramming calls, finding existing data), even though the 911 data infrastructure already existed. Similarly, Los Angeles’ Department of Mental Health found the call diversion process and decision-making to be the most challenging aspect to align across departments. By being aware of this hurdle from the beginning, a new program can allocate sufficient time and resources as well as identify strategic personnel to support the development of this important component of any crisis response program.

Look to the future.

Finally, cities offered that they are only in their first steps of a longer process of designing alternative models of care in their communities.

Planning for a program’s next steps can make the initial pilots even more successful and support the transition to future iterations. For instance, Portland’s Street Response program is primarily focused on low-acuity crises, though there is a need for a non-police response that can respond to higher acuity calls, including incidences with weapons, in order to achieve Portland’s aim of reducing police violence. Mental Health First emphasized that an armed officer does not necessarily provide security and safety to bystanders, providers, or consumers, and so alternative crisis response models are countering a larger system of socialization around notions of safety and the role of 911 in a community. Additionally, these models are operating within larger mental health response systems that must work together to ensure fewer community members are going into crisis in the first place. Programs should always be considering how alternative models of care can support individuals from entering into crises, too. Denver’s STAR program shared that they have numerous opportunities for prevention efforts, such as proactive response after encampment sweeps, checking in with consumers in high visibility areas even if there is not a call there, and proactively connecting people to services. By keeping an open mind for what a more holistic crisis response system could look like in their future, cities can plan for their present day,

Crisis Response Models Report | 35

early-stage pilot programs to be a part of their evolving and innovative models of care.

Crisis Response Models Report | 36

Appendices

Appendix A. SAMHSA’s National Guidelines for
Behavioral Health Crisis Care - Best Practice
Toolkit Executive Summary17

The National Guidelines for Crisis Care – A Best Practice Toolkit advances national guidelines in crisis care within a toolkit that supports program design, development, implementation and continuous quality improvement efforts. It is intended to help mental health authorities, agency administrators, service providers, state and local leaders think through and develop the structure of crisis systems. The toolkit includes distinct sections for:
ü Defining national guidelines in crisis care;
ü Implementing care that aligns with national guidelines; and ü Evaluating alignment of systems to national guidelines.

Given the ever-expanding inclusion of the term “crisis” by entities describing service offerings that do not truly function as no-wrong-door safety net services, we start by defining what crisis services are and what they are not. Crisis services are for anyone, anywhere and anytime. Crisis services include (1) crisis lines accepting all calls and dispatching support based on the assessed need of the caller, (2) mobile crisis teams dispatched to wherever the need is in the community (not hospital emergency departments) and (3) crisis receiving and stabilization facilities that serve everyone that comes through their doors from all referral sources. These services are for anyone, anywhere and anytime.

With non-existent or inadequate crisis care, costs escalate due to an overdependence on restrictive , longer-term hospital stays, hospital readmissions, overuse of law enforcement and human tragedies that result from a lack of access to care. Extremely valuable psychiatric inpatient assets are over- burdened with referrals that might be best-supported with less intrusive, less expensive services and supports. In too many communities, the “crisis system” has been unofficially handed over to law enforcement; sometimes with devastating outcomes. The current approach to crisis care is patchwork and

17 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2020). National Guidelines for Behavioral Health Crisis Care – Best Practice Toolkit Executive Summary. https://www.samhsa.gov/find-help/implementing-behavioral-health-crisis-care & https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/national-guidelines-for-behavioral-health-crisis- services-executive-summary-02242020.pdf

Crisis Response Models Report | 37

delivers minimal treatment for some people while others, often those who have not been engaged in care, fall through the cracks; resulting in multiple hospital readmissions, life in the criminal justice system, homelessness, early death and even suicide.

A comprehensive and integrated crisis network is the first line of defense in preventing tragedies of public and patient safety, civil rights, extraordinary and unacceptable loss of lives, and the waste of resources. There is a better way.

Effective crisis care that saves lives and dollars requires a systemic approach.

This toolkit will delineate how to estimate the crisis system resource needs of a community, the number of individuals who can be served within the system, the cost of crisis services, the workforce demands of implementing crisis care and the community-changing impact that can be seen when services are delivered in a manner that aligns with this Best Practice Toolkit. Readers will also learn how this approach harnesses data and technology, draws on the expertise of those with lived experience, and incorporates evidence-based suicide prevention practices.

The following represent the National Guidelines for Crisis Care essential elements within a no- wrong-door integrated crisis system:

1. Regional Crisis Call Center: Regional 24/7 clinically staffed hub/crisis call center that provides crisis intervention capabilities (telephonic, text and chat). Such a service should meet National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (NSPL) standards for risk assessment and engagement of individuals at imminent risk of suicide and offer quality coordination of crisis care in real-time;

2. Crisis Mobile Team Response: Mobile crisis teams available to reach any person in the service area in his or her home, workplace, or any other community-based location of the individual in crisis in a timely manner; and

3. Crisis Receiving and Stabilization Facilities: Crisis stabilization facilities providing short-term (under 24 hours) observation and crisis stabilization services to all referrals in a home-like, non-hospital environment.

In addition to the essential structural or programmatic elements of a crisis system, the following list of essential qualities must be “baked into” comprehensive crisis systems:

1. Addressing recovery needs, significant use of peers, and trauma-informed care;

2. “Suicide safer” care;

3. Safety and security for staff and those in crisis; and Core Services and Best
Practices

Crisis Response Models Report | 38

4. Law enforcement and emergency medical services collaboration.

Regional, 24/7, clinically staffed call hub/crisis call centers provide telephonic crisis intervention services to all callers, meet National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (NSPL) operational standards regarding suicide risk assessment and engagement and offer quality coordination of crisis care in real-time. Ideally, these programs will also offer text and chat options to better engage entire communities in care. Mental health, substance use and suicide prevention lines must be equipped to take all calls with expertise in delivering telephonic intervention services, triaging the call to assess for additional needs and coordinating connections to additional support based on the assessment of the team and the preferences of the caller.

Minimum Expectations to Operate a Regional Crisis Call Service

1. Operate every moment of every day (24/7/365);

2. Be staffed with clinicians overseeing clinical triage and other trained team members to respond to all calls received;

3. Answer every call or coordinate overflow coverage with a resource that also meets all of the minimum crisis call center expectations defined in this toolkit;

4. Assess risk of suicide in a manner that meets NSPL standards and danger to others within each call;

5. Coordinate connections to crisis mobile team services in the region; and

6. Connect individuals to facility-based care through warm hand-offs and coordination of transportation as needed.

Best Practices to Operate Regional Crisis Call Center
To fully align with best practice guidelines, centers must meet the minimum expectations and:

1. Incorporate Caller ID functioning;

2. Implement GPS-enabled technology in collaboration with partner crisis mobile teams to more efficiently dispatch care to those in need;

3. Utilize real-time regional bed registry technology to support efficient connection to needed resources; and

4. Schedule outpatient follow-up appointments in a manner synonymous with a warm handoff to support connection to ongoing care following a crisis episode.

To align with National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (NSPL) operational standards, centers must:

1. Practice active engagement with callers and make efforts to establish sufficient rapport so as to promote the caller’s collaboration in securing his/her own safety;
Regional Crisis Call Hub Services – Someone To Talk To

Crisis Response Models Report | 39

2. Use the least invasive intervention and consider involuntary emergency interventions as a last resort, except for in circumstances as described below;

3. Initiate life-saving services for attempts in progress – in accordance with guidelines that do not require the individual’s consent to initiate medically necessary rescue services;

4. Initiate active rescue to secure the immediate safety of the individual at risk if the caller remains unwilling and/or unable to take action to prevent his/her suicide and remains at imminent risk;

5. Practice active engagement with persons calling on behalf of someone else (“third-party callers”) towards determining the least invasive, most collaborative actions to best ensure the safety of the person at risk;

6. Have supervisory staff available during all hours of operations for timely consultation in determining the most appropriate intervention for any individual who may be at imminent risk of suicide; and

7. Maintain caller ID or other method of identifying the caller’s location that is readily accessible to staff.

True regional crisis call center hub services that offer air traffic control-type functioning are essential to the success of a crisis system. Cracks within a system of care widen when individuals experience interminable delays in access to services which are often based on an absence of:

1. Real-time coordination of crisis and outgoing services; and

2. Linked, flexible services specific to crisis response; namely mobile crisis teams and crisis stabilization facilities.

Mobile crisis team services offering community-based intervention to individuals in need wherever they are; including at home, work, or anywhere else in the community where the person is experiencing a crisis. For safety and optimal engagement, two person teams should be put in place to support emergency department and justice system diversion. EMS services should be aware and partner as warranted.

Minimum Expectations to Operate a Mobile Crisis Team Services

1. Include a licensed and/or credentialed clinician capable to assessing the needs of individuals within the region of operation;

2. Respond where the person is (home, work, park, etc.) and not restrict services to select locations within the region or particular days/times; and

3. Connect to facility-based care as needed through warm hand-offs and coordinating transportation when and only if situations warrants transition to other locations.

Best Practices to Operate Mobile Crisis Team Services
To fully align with best practice guidelines, teams must meet the minimum expectations and:

Mobile Crisis Team Services – Someone To Respond

Crisis Response Models Report | 40

1. Incorporate peers within the mobile crisis team;

2. Respond without law enforcement accompaniment unless special circumstances warrant inclusion in order to support true justice system diversion;

3. Implement real-time GPS technology in partnership with the region’s crisis call center hub to support efficient connection to needed resources and tracking of engagement; and

4. Schedule outpatient follow-up appointments in a manner synonymous with a warm handoff in order to support connection to ongoing care.

Essential functions of mobile crisis services include:
• Triage/screening, including explicit screening for suicidality; • Assessment;
• De-escalation/resolution;
• Peer support;
• Coordination with medical and behavioral health services; and • Crisis planning and follow-up.

Crisis receiving and stabilization services offer the community a no-wrong-door access to mental health and substance use care; operating much like a hospital emergency department that accepts all walk-ins, ambulance, fire and police drop-offs. The need to say yes to mental health crisis referrals, including working with persons of varying ages (as allowed by facility license) and clinical conditions (such as serious emotional disturbance, serious mental illness, intellectual and developmental disabilities), regardless of acuity, informs program staffing, physical space, structure and use of chairs or recliners in lieu of beds that offer far less capacity or flexibility within a given space. It is important to fund these facility-based programs so they can deliver on the commitment of never rejecting a first responder or walk-in referral in order to realize actual emergency department and justice system diversion. If an individual’s condition is assessed to require medical attention in a hospital or referral to a dedicated withdrawal management (i.e., referred to more commonly and historically as detoxification) program, it is the responsibility of the crisis receiving and stabilization facility to make those arrangements and not shift that responsibility to the initial referral source (family, first responder or mobile team). Law enforcement is not expected to do the triage or assessment for the crisis system and it is important that those lines never become blurred.

Minimum Expectations to Operate a Crisis Receiving and Stabilization Service

1. Accept all referrals;

2. Not require medical clearance prior to admission but rather assessment and support for medical stability while in the program;

3. Design their services to address mental health and substance use crisis issues;

4. Employ the capacity to assess physical health needs and deliver care for most minor physical health challenges with an identified pathway in Crisis Receiving and Stabilization Services – A Place to Go

Crisis Response Models Report | 41

order to transfer the individual to more medically staffed services if needed;

5. Be staffed at all times (24/7/365) with a multidisciplinary team capable of meeting the needs of individuals experiencing all levels of crisis in the community; including:
a. Psychiatrists or psychiatric nurse practitioners (telehealth may be used) b. Nurses
c. Licensed and/or credentialed clinicians capable of completing assessments in the region; and
d. Peers with lived experience similar to the experience of the population served.

6. Offer walk-in and first responder drop-off options;

7. Be structured in a manner that offers capacity to accept all referrals, understanding that facility capacity limitations may result in occasional exceptions when full, with a no rejection policy for first responders;

8. Screen for suicide risk and complete comprehensive suicide risk assessments and planning when clinically indicated; and

9. Screen for violence risk and complete more comprehensive violence risk assessments and planning when clinically indicated.

Best Practices to Operate Crisis Receiving and Stabilization Services To fully align with best practice guidelines, centers must meet the minimum expectations and:

1. Function as a 24 hour or less crisis receiving and stabilization facility;

2. Offer a dedicated first responder drop-off area;

3. Incorporate some form of intensive support beds into a partner program (could be within the services’ own program or within another provider) to support flow for individuals who need additional support;

4. Include beds within the real-time regional bed registry system operated by the crisis call center hub to support efficient connection to needed resources; and

5. Coordinate connection to ongoing care.

The Role of the Psychiatrist/Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner

Psychiatrists and Psychiatric Nurse Practitioners serve as clinical leaders of the multi-disciplinary crisis team. Essential functions include ensuring clinical soundness of crisis services through evaluation of need, continued monitoring of care and crisis service discharge planning.

Best practice crisis care incorporates a set of core principles that must be systematically “baked in” to excellent crisis systems in addition to the core structural elements that are defined as essential for modern crisis systems.

These essential principles and practices are:

1. Addressing Recovery Needs,
Essential Principles for Modern Crisis Care Systems