Berkeley City Council
May 7, 2024

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
29 Road Safety & Collisions
Leveraging detailed collision data and community insights, our department has strategically enhanced traffic safety through targeted initiatives and enforcement. As we move forward, our partnership with Vision Zero promises to further deepen our dedication to efficient and effective traffic safety solutions.

Collision Data
In 2023, there were a total of 873 collisions. They included 514 injury and 359 non- injury collisions. Total collisions increased by 23, or 2.6% from 2022. Non-injury collisions increased by 3.6% and fatal collisions decreased to 0. Injury collisions decreased by 6.2% and DUI collisions increased by 3.7%.

Collisions 2019  2020  2021  2022  2023
Fatal collisions  4  2  7  2  0
Injury collisions   520  316  431  548  514
Non-injury collisions  405  271  351  346  359
Total 929  589  789  896 873
The most common causes of injury collisions (the primary collision factor or PCF) were 22350 VC, 21800-21804 VC, 21950(a)VC, and 22107 VC. Bicyclists (107) and pedestrians (97) accounted for 39.7% of the injury collisions. Bicyclists were found at fault in 60 of the collisions and pedestrians in 22 of the collisions. A closer examination of the 60 at fault injury collisions involving a bicycle revealed 19 involved a solo bicyclist falling or hitting an object.

In 2023, 81 collisions (26 injury /
55 non-injury) involved a DUI
driver (an increase from 53 in
2022) which resulted in 39
injured people.

The three intersections which accounted for the highest number of collisions were University Ave/ Acton St, Ashby Ave / San Pablo Ave, and Ashby Ave / Shattuck Ave. The top twelve intersections where collisions occurred were:

2023 was the first year with no fatal collisions since 2011.

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
30 High Collision Intersections, 2023
Total
Collisions
Injury
Collisions
# of People
Injured
Suspected
Serious
Injury*
University Ave / Acton St 11 9 14 2
Ashby Ave / San Pablo Ave 11 7 11 0
Ashby Ave / Shattuck Ave 11 4 5 0
Ashby Ave / College Ave 10 6 7 1
University Ave / San Pablo Ave 9 4 8 1
University Ave / MLK Jr Way 9 5 5 0
Ashby Ave / MLK Jr Way 8 7 12 4
San Pablo Ave / Gilman St 8 7 10 0
Shattuck Ave / Channing Way 7 4 4 0
Shattuck Ave / University Ave 7 4 4 0
Mlk Jr Way / Blake St 6 6 9 0
Sacramento St / Alcatraz Ave 6 5 9 0
*Suspected serious injury is any injury other than a fatality that results in significant injury as defined in the CHP Collision Investigation Manual (CHP, 2017, p. 5-5)

As previously stated, bicycles were involved in 107 of the injury collisions and pedestrians were involved in 97. Of
the 97 injury collisions involving a pedestrian, 22 found the pedestrian to be at fault, 74 found the driver of a vehicle to be at fault and 1 found a bicyclist to be at fault. Of the 107 injury collisions involving a bicyclist, 60 found the bicyclist at fault, 34 found the driver of a vehicle at fault, 2 found a pedestrian at fault and the remainder were either unable to

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
31 determine fault or a person other than a driver, caused the collision. The biggest factor for this is an occupant in a parked vehicle opening a car door before it is safe/ not yielding to bicyclist in violation of 22517 VC (PCF for 10 bicycle injury collisions in Berkeley in 2023.) Department Initiatives
What We’ve Done
In 2022, BPD reprioritized traffic enforcement efforts around a three-prong approach that focuses on primary collision factors, community member reports and observations reported to the BPD and community caretaking. Community caretaking functions consider safety violations that aren’t always noted as the primary collision factor but can be a significant contributing factor in serious collisions. BPD will continue to collect and analyze collision data to understand and guide needs and shape future resource allocation decisions.

Primary Collision Factors
Automated Security Checks – Calls for service are automatically generated based on collision data, and time and location of occurrence to focus officer discretionary enforcement time on collision prone locations.

Community Reports
Community members are able to submit traffic safety concerns via the Transparency Hub. The submission is triaged and added to the traffic unit’s enforcement requests. After launching this feature in April 2023, the traffic unit received 53 traffic concern submissions.

Community Caretaking
BPD Traffic Unit uses OTS funds to hold DUI checkpoints and DUI saturation patrols. The checkpoints are set up at strategic locations based on the DUI collision and arrest data. DUI checkpoints and saturation patrols use highly trained officers to identify and apprehend impaired drivers and educate the motoring public.

BPD Traffic Bureau just completed a full year of offering a free presentation to senior drivers focusing on the importance of roadway safety for older drivers. The unit has been using education funds from the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant to teach the program called, “Drive Safer, Drive Longer”. This material was developed by the Training, Research and Education for Driving Safety (TREDS) Program at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine. The classes are held once a quarter at the north and south Berkeley Senior Centers and is designed to increase awareness of the dangers older drivers encounter and to offer strategies to keep them safe and mobile.

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
32 In 2023, BPD applied for and
was awarded grant funding that
supports our efforts to reduce
traffic collisions and impaired
driving in Berkeley. Grant
sources include the Office of
Traffic Safety (Selective Traffic
Enforcement Program / STEP
Grant) and the California
Highway Patrol Cannabis Tax
Fund Grant to provide
additional enforcement,
education and traffic safety
programs. The funding allows us
to conduct DUI checkpoints, DUI saturation patrols and provide enforcement in locations identified as high collision areas targeting dangerous driving behavior. Grant funding allows officers to attend training to become proficient in field sobriety testing to detect both alcohol and drug impairment. In partnership with OTS and other law enforcement agencies throughout the state BPD participates in national campaigns such as pedestrian safety month, winter DUI mobilization, distracted driving awareness, bicycle safety, motorcycle safety, walk to school day and click it or ticket enforcement.

How We’re Doing
Moving Violations and Primary Collision Factors

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
33 The tables above outline the moving violations associated with our vehicle stops as well as the primary collision factors for all stops. The violations related to this year’s stop data correlate closely with primary collision factors as well as other serious traffic safety violations geared toward community caretaking.

Transparency Hub Survey Responses
After a community member submits a traffic safety concern via the Transparency Hub and enforcement or education is conducted at the location by the traffic unit, the submission is updated by traffic unit staff indicating the concern had been addressed. In 2023, the traffic bureau conducted 10 traffic safety interventions in response to community concern submissions.

What’s Next
In 2024, BPD will continue to use Office of Traffic Safety grant funding to support traffic safety measures to enhance our enforcement and education efforts. Through grant funding, we intend to increase the number of Drive Safer, Drive Longer classes for aging drivers, increase the number of DUI checkpoints, and continue to use the Traffic Safety Transparency Hub and collision data to guide our traffic enforcement strategies. As we look for other ways to improve our strategies, we are committed to deepening our Vision Zero collaboration with key stakeholders to identify high-risk locations, analyze the causes and contributing factors of collisions, and develop meaningful interventions. Our continued partnership with Vision Zero stakeholders will allow BPD leadership to identify strategies that inform decision making around the way and areas we prioritize traffic safety, guided by our three-pronged approach for traffic enforcement.

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
34 Accountability: Stops & Use of Force
Our department's thorough review of stop data and use of force incidents underscores our commitment to moving forward efforts supporting Fair and Impartial Policing. Performance metrics and tests for bias help ensure our practices don't perpetuate societal inequities. With ongoing enhancements in our Early Intervention System (for more, see the “Audits & Oversight” section below), we are steadfast in our mission to deliver public safety equitably to our community.

Stop Data Report
In October 2020, the Berkeley Police Department began tracking and ultimately supplying the State of California with our stop data pursuant to the Racial Identity Profiling Act (RIPA). BPD began this data collection a full two and a half years before agencies our size were required to comply with RIPA. Berkeley began this process early as part of the department’s efforts to better capture, understand and share the data associated with our stops.

During 2023, BPD averaged 442 total stops including 305 vehicle stops, 129 pedestrian stops, and 7 bicycle stops per month for a yearly count of 5,306 total stops, 3,665 vehicle stops, 1,554 pedestrian stops, and 87 bicycle stops.

69.08% of all stops were officer-initiated, primarily focusing on traffic violations, while the remaining stops were in response to calls for service. This data, along with the breakdown of reasons for the stops, is depicted in the following graph.

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
35 Yields
880 stops resulted in at least 1 arrest, 2,100 stops resulted in a citation and 1,661 resulted in a warning. 471 stops resulted in no
enforcement action.

In 2023 BPD’s search rate for all stops
was 14% and had an overall
contraband yield rate of 42%. Those
searches resulted in 82 seizures of one or more weapons, including 15 recoveries of one or more firearms. The yield rate for all discretionary searches (searches not incident to arrest, a search warrant, vehicle inventory for towing, or exigent circumstances/emergency) was 48%.

Tests for Bias
BPD is deeply committed to ensuring fairness and impartiality in all aspects of law enforcement.

To uphold these values, we rigorously examine our practices for any potential biases, employing a series of analytical methods to evaluate the objectivity of our policing. This section details our approach to testing for bias. From analyzing at-fault collision demographics to employing methods like yield rate analysis and the veil of darkness test, our approach is multifaceted and data-driven, aiming to foster a culture of transparency, accountability, and equitable policing.

At the core of our analytical approach is an emphasis on discretionary decision making.

Res
earch in this field posits that moments of discretion are when implicit bias is most likely to manifest itself. For that reason, in the analyses below we focus on stops where officers were not responding to a call for service nor relying on additional information (for example, a description of a wanted vehicle) when making the decision to stop. This filtering allows us to key in on moments of maximum discretion where we would most clearly see the effects of implicit bias if such bias were to play a role in officer decision making.

According to data published by the RIPA board in
2024, Berkeley’s yield rate was higher than 92% of
all agencies in California in 2022.

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
36 At-Fault Collision Demographics
A key component of this approach is the comparison of at-fault collision demographics with the demographics of individuals stopped for moving violations. This comparison helps us assess whether traffic stops are being conducted based on objective, race-neutral criteria. This test is particularly important because moving violations made up 81% of all discretionary stops in 2023.

Collision data gives us representative sample of who is driving in Berkeley. This information is useful because it gives us a baseline of the population that officers encounter when they make a stop. Looking at drivers who were determined to be the at-fault party in a collision further refines that baseline to give us a sample of who is driving dangerously in Berkeley. Because we expect our traffic enforcement to focus on dangerous drivers, if our traffic enforcement is unbiased, we would expect a close alignment between the demographics of those involved in at-fault collisions and those stopped for moving violations. Close alignment of those demographics would indicate that stops are influenced by driving behavior rather than implicit biases.

An analysis of 2023 data indicates a close alignment between these two demographic groups.

This is the finding we would expect if officers are using race-neutral factors when making a discretionary stop for a moving violation.

Yield Rate Analysis
Another method of determining whether officer discretion is influenced by implicit racial bias is to measure whether the officer’s decision to search is subject to a lower threshold of suspicion for Black and Brown people as compared to for White people. Often called yield rate analysis, the method assumes that race-neutral indicators observable by an officer will accurately predict the probability that a search will uncover contraband. The logic follows that a search triggered by a given level of suspicion based on race-neutral factors will ‘yield’ contraband at the same rate across racial groups. Conversely, a higher yield rate for searches of White people

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
37 as compared to searches of Black people would indicate that officers are deciding to search White people when they have a higher confidence of finding contraband.

The nearly equivalent search yield rates between Black and White individuals are in line with what we would expect to see if searches conducted by officers were based on factors that do not involve race. A regression analysis conducted by the RIPA board in 2024, which examined data from 2022, found that race— specifically being Black or Hispanic as opposed to White— did not have a statistically significant effect on the likelihood of a Berkeley PD search yielding contraband. This is the result we would expect to see from search decisions being carried out without bias.

Veil of Darkness
The "veil of darkness" analysis is a test of implicit bias at the decision to stop. The analysis looks at the proportion of stops that are of a racial group when it is light outside versus when it is dark outside. If Black people are stopped more often in the light than in the dark, it could indicate that the visibility of race is playing a role in the decision to stop. The test takes advantage of daylight savings time and seasonal changes in day length by looking at times of the day (say, 6:30pm) where for part of the year it is dark outside and part of the year it is light out. Those times can be called the “inter-twilight period.” In that way the test can control for any changes in the distribution of who is on the street throughout the day (as opposed to just doing day vs. night) while observing the difference in stop patterns when race is more visible or less visible to an officer.

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
38 The graph below is a visual representation of this comparison. The test relies on the assumption that race is more apparent to the officer in the light than in the dark, and to the extent that the assumption is violated by the presence of streetlights or racially correlated characteristics of the car or neighborhood, the validity of the test is undermined. Nevertheless, as long as the assumption holds on average, the test can indicate the presence of the effect; that is, a result concluding a statistically significant result would be evidence of the presence of bias, while a null result would not necessarily prove the absence of bias.

The close alignment of demographic groups for discretionary stops in the dark and in the light during the “inter-twilight period” seen above is what we would expect to see if those stops were being made based on race-neutral factors.

Use of Force Report
Berkeley Police Department takes pride in our ability to accomplish our work with minimal reliance on force through approaches that include de-escalation techniques, as well as an awareness of mental health crisis issues and appropriate responses. The department reinforces these skills and strategies through regular training.

In February 2021, BPD transitioned to a new Use of Force Policy that had several substantial changes, that included a de-escalation requirement and an expanded use of force reporting standard. Under this policy, reportable force is delineated into the following four categories:

Level 1 – Involves grabs, control holds, the use of leverage, or body weight with no injury or complaint of pain.

Level 2 – Applies when an officer points or deploys a firearm while interacting with someone. It also applies to a Level 1 force that involves more than momentary discomfort but does not have an injury or complaint of pain.

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
39 Level 3 – Parallels our old Use of Force reporting standard and involves the use of a weapon, subject injury, or complaint of pain. This category also applies to specific circumstances when an officer does not activate their body-worn camera.

Level 4 – Applies when an officer uses a firearm or when there is an in-custody death.

The department use of force policy requires officers to report uses of force to their sergeant, who documents these incidents in a formal report. A lieutenant and captain review each report, including associated body worn camera (BWC) footage, before forwarding it to Internal Affairs.

In a given incident, more than one technique or type of force may be used to bring a resistant or combative individual into custody, and more than one officer may use force during the incident.

In 2023 there were 346 incidents that involved 1,214 uses of force. 68 % of all uses were Level 1 uses of force, and 28% were level two. These two categories accounted for 96% of all uses.

While the department has consistently evaluated individual use of force incidents, our expanded data collection and analysis tools allow us to understand and evaluate our use of force trends and share them with the community.

Of the 49,703 non-officer-initiated calls for service that BPD received in 2023, 0.54% (268 incidents) resulted in a use of force incident, and 0.06% (29) resulted in a use of force that produced more than a minor complaint of pain or where a weapon was used (Level 3 and 4).

77.46% of our use of force incidents occurred when officers responded to calls for service from the community, and trends show that calls for service account for a larger percentage of cases where force was used this year than in previous years: 77.46% versus 75.85% in 2022 and

68.5% in 2021.

The chart below illustrates that while carrying out arrests, the likelihood of use of force incidents occurring during arrests is relatively similar across racial groups. Specifically, the use

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
40 of force was involved in 7% of arrests for Asian subjects, 13% for African American subjects, 11% for Hispanic subjects, and 12% for White subjects. These closely aligned rates are what we would expect if the decision to use of force is being determined by factors other than race.

Utilizing the number of arrested subjects as a baseline for comparing use of force rates is a valuable approach because it reflects the most common scenario in which force is applied. By evaluating use of force as a percentage of arrests, we can more accurately assess the frequency and circumstances in which force is used. This method helps to isolate the act of arrest as a variable and allows for a direct comparison of use of force incidents relative to that variable across different racial groups.

The close percentages across racial groups is what we would expect to observe if use of force is more closely associated with the dynamics of the arrest situation itself rather than the race of the individuals involved.

The department also tracks use of force complaints. While our use of force cases are always reviewed by a Lieutenant and Captain, those associated with a personnel complaint are also subject to an Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) investigation. The results of the investigation (including BWC footage) are given to a Board of Review that evaluates the case and makes a recommendation to the Chief.

In 2023 the department received a total of 12 complaints associated with use of force incidents.

To date, 7 of those investigations have been completed while 5 are still being evaluated.

Additionally, 6 out of those 12 cases were also independently assessed by the Office of the Director of Police Accountability and Police Accountability Board. Of the 7 completed cases reviewed by the department or the ODPA/PAB, 0 resulted in sustained findings of misconduct.

The department will continue to collect, evaluate, and assess our use of force data and use it to inform our policies and training with a focus on achieving positive outcomes.

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
41 Audits & Oversight
In 2023, the Berkeley Police Department significantly
advanced towards fulfilling oversight directives,
completing key reports, audits, and policy reviews, while actively engaging in training and collaborative efforts to ensure fair and impartial policing.

In 2023 we completed a num ber of reports and audits
including:
• The 2022 Annual Complaint Statistics from the
I
nternal Affairs Bureau
• The 2022 Police Equipment and Community
Safety Ordinance Annual Report
• The 2022 Police Department Annual Report
• Biannual Automated License Plate Reader audits
• Quarterly Early warning system audits
• Quarterly Fair and Impartial Policing updates
• City Auditor open audit updates
• Contracted for a department-wide staffing and
resources assessment with Citygate consulting
The department also actively participated in a number
of subcommittees and collaborative conversations with
the PAB including reviews of the policies for Body Worn Cameras, Off Duty Officer Conduct, Early Intervention
System, and Departmental budget development.

Our personnel also completed annual refresher training
to satisfy our policies and state requirements for
continuing education.

The work mentioned here is just a portion of the 2023
efforts within the department, which also included
contributions to the city's Gun Violence Intervention & Prevention program and the assessment of 911
dispatch services, alongside collaborations with Health, Housing, and Community Services on reimagining public
safety projects. Much of this administrative work falls to sergeants and lieutenants, who are also responsible
for the supervision and leadership of their teams.

One of the duties of the Police
Accountability Board (PAB) is to
recognize officers who demonstrate
exceptional service. An illustrative
example of this is the commendation
awarded to Officers Gasper and
Ludovico for their skilled and
empathetic handling of a critical
incident on April 6th.

Facing a situation where a person in
crisis threatened to jump from a
third-story window, the
commendation highlights,
“Both [Ofc. Gasper] and Ofc.

Ludovico know many of the people
encountered in the west area of
Berkeley and have established
working relationships with many of
those people which has allowed
them to gain both trust and
compliance in critical incidents. April
6th was one of those days where
that trust mattered the most.”
Their ability to deescalate the
situation and secure medical and
mental health support for the
individual underscores the
importance of community trust and
engagement in policing.

This act of recognition by the PAB
not only celebrates the officers'
dedication but also emphasizes the
board's commitment to
acknowledging the positive impact of
law enforcement personnel who
vividly illustrate BPD’s commitment
to service.

MOMENTS OF IMPACT

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
42 Below are updates on our progress towards completing the recent City Auditor report recommendations and our quarterly update on our implementation of the Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group recommendations.

City Auditor Reports
There were three open audits in 2023. Working with Auditor Wong and her staff, two have been fully completed. The remaining open audit contains 12 recommendations. Of these, 10 are complete leaving only 2 open recommendations. Both of these items are related to staffing and involve our in-progress work with an outside consultant (Citygate). Both are actively being worked on;
• 911 Dispatchers: Understaffing Leads to Excessive Overtime and Low Morale (Complete) • Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response (Complete) • Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities (Open/In Progress)
The Department will be submitting our next audit update to City Council in May 2024 regarding the two remaining open audit items. We look forward to continuing to work with Auditor Wong’s office to accomplish all of the recommendations in this budget related audit.

Fair and Impartial Policing Recommendations
BPD has worked hard to fully implement the Fair and Impartial Policing (FIP) Working Group recommendations, and efforts in this area are ongoing and live well beyond the specific recommendations of Council. A prime example of this is the analysis presented in the “Accountability” section above, where we track key measures of fair and impartial policing outcome. The FIP Working Group recommendations have provided invaluable guidelines as we enhance our policies and protocols to ensure the highest standards of policing and are deeply aligned with our departmental values. The department will continue ensuring our personnel, policies and actions support fair, impartial and equitable treatment of all those we serve. The department is also committed to maintaining transparency and accountability in our reporting on these efforts to the community and Council. To ensure this, we will continue providing information both via our Transparency Hub as well as our annual department report.

FIP Working Group Recommendations Progress Report: March 2024 We have made significant progress in implementing the recommendations set forth for the department, with actions taken in nearly all areas specified. The final piece, an extensive staffing assessment conducted by Citygate Associates, is underway and its completion will mark the fulfillment of the last recommendation.

To date, implementation of the recommendations has led to the amendment of departmental policies and the establishment of new protocols. Some major accomplishments included a departmental policy focusing traffic stops on safety and preventing collisions, using evidence-

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
43 based models and strong data analysis to guide enforcement actions, and our current work to strengthen and expand our Early Intervention System
The additional FIP training funds allocated as part of the reimagining process have allowed us to continue to move this important work forward. We have created a training focus on courses strengthening responses that are Constitutional, Humane, Impartial, Neighborhood and Community Oriented and DEI-Centered. We refer to this as “KIND” training.

We are also bringing Active Bystander for Law Enforcement (ABLE) training to our agency. ABLE is a nationally recognized program with the aim of creating a police culture in which officers routinely intervene and accept interventions from their peers as necessary to: prevent misconduct, avoid police mistakes, and promote officer health and wellness. ABLE guides agencies and communities on the concrete measures that must be in place to create and sustain a culture of peer intervention leading to the benefit of the community and department.

The department was honored to receive letters of support and partnership for this program from community-based organizations in our city such as Dorothy Day House and the Center for Food, Faith and Justice
With this progress, we're turning our attention to further enhancing our practices. Central to this is the development of our Early Intervention System (EIS). We recognize the power of an EIS to promote transparency, proactive intervention, and a supportive environment for officer development. We have taken pride in having an EIS protocol since 2004, reflecting our long- held commitment to accountability. In 2023, guided by the recommendations of the FIP Working Group, we updated our policy, significantly broadening the scope and depth of our audits to include the incorporation of RIPA-mandated stop data. Also in 2023, after collaboration with the Police Accountability Board, the department added audits of body-worn camera footage to our quarterly audit procedure.

To accelerate the expansion of our EIS, we've recently released an RFP for design support in building a cutting-edge, real-time system. This system will give us a comprehensive overview of officer and team performance, helping us identify potential areas where proactive support would be beneficial.

Our EIS work has benefited from ongoing collaboration with the Police Accountability Board (PAB), and we understand they are preparing a comprehensive report on the subject. We look forward to continuing our engagement with the PAB on EIS implementation and improvement.

The Berkeley Police Department remains committed to equitable and unbiased policing and we are proud to have implemented almost all of the FIP recommendations. A Special Order (policy) has been released to ensure that current and future members of the Berkeley Police Department carry forward and build upon this important foundational work initiated by the FIP Working Group. Once the final recommendation of the referral is completed, the department will continue efforts related to fair and impartial policing and provide annual updates and progress in this report.

2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report
44

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin
Subject: Waterside Workshops Emergency Recovery Grant

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the budget process $82,000 to Waterside Workshops to support youth enrichment and climate resilience programs following revenue losses due to construction and street closures on Bolivar Drive.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$82,000 in General Fund impact.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Supporting youth enrichment and climate resilience programs at Waterside Workshops 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.

Waterside Workshops is a youth enrichment nonprofit based in West Berkeley that provides various cycling and workforce development initiatives with an emphasis on climate resilience and ecological sustainability. Due to a major construction project at 600 Addison, street closures on Bolivar Drive beginning in August of 2021, including no access at all for 3+ weeks in July-August of 2023and closure of the Waterside Cafe program have drastically reduced revenue and negatively impacted various important programs. Bolivar Drive remains partially closed while a new water main is installed under the road and is projected to negatively impact access to the bike shop, boat rentals and cafe through at least June of 2024.

On a cash basis, Waterside Workshops saw a net operating deficit as high as $141,618.78 in the first quarter of 2023. Despite periodic fluctuations, the organization’s net operating income only reached $23,009.62 in 2023, with roughly $1.2 million in expenses. The situation has grown more dire in 2024, with a net operating loss of $32,784.96 reported in January of 2024. By contrast, Waterside Workshops realized a net operating income of $49,250.34 in 2018, which represents a healthy fiscal situation in a typical year.

These revenue shortfalls have severely impacted the following programs:

Waterside Workshops CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024

● Waterside Cafe, a cafe and barista training program that generates critical revenue for the organization. Bolivar Drive closure has forced this program to discontinue for the time being.
● Street Level Cycles, a full service retail bike shop that also serves as a bicycle education, repair, and reuse program.
● Community Open Shop, in which community members can use Waterside Workshop’s tools, purchase components, and fix their bikes on Saturdays and Sundays.
● Berkeley Boathouse, a youth internship and boat rental program. In this program, youth work alongside skilled instructors learning carpentry and traditional wooden boat building. When weather permits, interns take Waterside Workshops’ fleet of boats paddling and sailing in Aquatic Park and the San Francisco Bay. Youth interns and staff also provide boat rentals to the general public and help conduct field trips for groups of youth from partner organizations.

Street Level Cycles and Berkeley Boathouse are approaching their seasonally high sales months and most active programming months of April through August. Waterside Workshops had to reduce its workforce which diminished its capacity to employ disadvantaged Berkeley youth ages 16-24 by 37% in order to balance its 2024 budget.

Waterside Workshops’ programs, including summer camps, enroll more than 300 youth each year at the Aquatic Park. This year, the organization is at risk of having to reduce the number of youth enrolled in these programs due to staffing reductions. This is a direct result of a year of ongoing construction.

Waterside Workshops would use the funds from the city to employ staff and youth to fully staff programs and restart the cafe, directly contributing to productive employment and youth services in the city.

BACKGROUND
Established in 2007, Waterside Workshops is a youth enrichment nonprofit based in West Berkeley that provides education and workforce development initiatives to address the gradual loss of woodworking and machine shop classes in public schools throughout the Bay Area. Currently, Waterside Workshops provides internships and workforce training programs through three programs: Street Level Cycles, Berkeley Boathouse, and Waterside Cafe.

According to Waterside Workshops’ latest data, on an annual basis the organization has provided 77 young people with paid internships and job training, 254 refurbished bikes to youth and adults, and access to its free DIY bicycle repair shop to an estimated 1,360 community members.1
1 https://watersideworkshops.org/about/

Waterside Workshops CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Berkeley’s most recent greenhouse gas inventories have identified roughly 60% of community-wide greenhouse gas emissions coming from the transportation sector.2 Accordingly, the City’s Climate Action Plan identifies “shift[ing] trips to walking, biking, and shared electric modes” as a key strategy for eliminating carbon emissions.3 By providing free space for bicycle repair, free refurbished bicycles, and workforce development for youth in the community, Waterside Workshops is a key partner for the City’s goals for a Just Transition away from a fossil fuel-based economy in a way that reduces automobile dependence while increasing opportunities for historically marginalized communities.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120
Attachments:
1: Waterside Workshops Budget vs. Actuals: 2023 Budget - FY23 P&L 2: Waterside Workshops Profit and Loss Statement: January 2024 3: Waterside Workshops Profit and Loss Statement: January - December 2018 2 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-02- 08%20Item%2017%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions%20Inventory.pdf 3 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023%20Climate%20Action%20Plan%20and%20Res ilience%20Staff%20Update%20to%20Council_2023-12-12.pdf

Waterside Workshops
Budget vs. Actuals: 2023 Budget - FY23 P&L
January - December 2023
Cash Basis Wednesday, March 13, 2024 09:21 AM GMT-07:00 1/2 JAN - MAR, 2023 APR - JUN, 2023 JUL - SEP, 2023 OCT - DEC, 2023 TOTAL

ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET Income
Contributed Income $0.00 $0.00
Donations 15,810.03 12,000.00 12,810.59 7,000.00 20,884.95 3,000.00 32,119.53 48,000.00 $81,625.10 $70,000.00 Grants $0.00 $0.00
Foundations 56,600.00 56,600.00 142,400.00 197,100.00 112,800.00 34,750.00 209,167.65 152,500.00 $520,967.65 $440,950.00 Government 8,683.51 8,683.00 185,639.97 205,583.00 20,267.86 25,000.00 22,084.16 50,000.00 $236,675.50 $289,266.00 Total Grants 65,283.51 65,283.00 328,039.97 402,683.00 133,067.86 59,750.00 231,251.81 202,500.00 $757,643.15 $730,216.00 Special Events 0.00 0.00 15,239.33 10,000.00 10,200.00 15,000.00 $25,439.33 $25,000.00 Total Contributed Income 81,093.54 77,283.00 340,850.56 409,683.00 169,192.14 72,750.00 273,571.34 265,500.00 $864,707.58 $825,216.00 Discount Income 0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Program Income $0.00 $0.00
Bike Repairs 6,351.25 8,000.00 13,351.00 11,500.00 8,970.50 12,000.00 7,219.00 8,500.00 $35,891.75 $40,000.00 Boatshop Rentals 315.00 400.00 245.00 900.00 35.00 900.00 575.00 800.00 $1,170.00 $3,000.00 Program Fees 2,540.00 $2,540.00 $0.00
Workshop Fees 2,350.00 3,000.00 1,725.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 1,000.00 $4,075.00 $10,000.00 Total Program Income 9,016.25 11,400.00 15,321.00 15,400.00 11,545.50 15,900.00 7,794.00 10,300.00 $43,676.75 $53,000.00 Sales $0.00 $0.00
Bicycle Sales 60,548.13 65,000.00 99,236.04 105,000.00 104,391.16 120,000.00 81,671.19 70,000.00 $345,846.52 $360,000.00 Boatshop Sales 275.00 700.00 140.00 1,300.00 1,500.00 360.00 1,500.00 $775.00 $5,000.00 Cafe 150.38 450.00 50.00 550.00 600.00 95.87 400.00 $296.25 $2,000.00 Total Sales 60,973.51 66,150.00 99,426.04 106,850.00 104,391.16 122,100.00 82,127.06 71,900.00 $346,917.77 $367,000.00 Sales of Product Income 0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Income $151,083.30 $154,833.00 $455,597.60 $531,933.00 $285,128.80 $210,750.00 $363,492.40 $347,700.00 $1,255,302.10 $1,245,216.00 GROSS PROFIT $151,083.30 $154,833.00 $455,597.60 $531,933.00 $285,128.80 $210,750.00 $363,492.40 $347,700.00 $1,255,302.10 $1,245,216.00 Expenses
Building Renovations $0.00 $0.00
Furniture and Equipment 160.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.07 $160.89 $54.07 Supplies 0.00 311.31 $311.31 $0.00
Total Building Renovations 160.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 311.31 54.07 $472.20 $54.07 Fundraising $0.00 $0.00
Event Expense 0.00 701.79 0.00 10,086.11 5,000.00 5,240.38 5,000.00 $16,028.28 $10,000.00 Printing - Fundraising 526.51 178.61 $705.12 $0.00
Salaries - Fundraising 17,953.50 17,850.00 16,006.44 17,100.00 20,454.69 17,100.00 19,801.72 17,100.00 $74,216.35 $69,150.00 Website 221.87 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 $221.87 $240.00
Total Fundraising 18,175.37 17,910.00 16,708.23 17,160.00 31,067.31 22,160.00 25,220.71 22,160.00 $91,171.62 $79,390.00 General and Administrative $0.00 $0.00
403(b) Plan -1,561.00 1,561.00 -37.50 1,025.00 $987.50 $0.00 Administrative Salaries 17,998.75 17,850.00 16,006.44 17,112.00 22,510.08 17,112.00 17,369.98 17,112.00 $73,885.25 $69,186.00 Advertising 844.57 60.00 493.85 60.00 233.00 60.00 72.00 60.00 $1,643.42 $240.00 Automotive 206.54 25.00 448.09 767.00 370.26 178.61 35.00 36.00 $1,059.89 $1,006.61 Bank Charges 10.00 37.00 $47.00 $0.00
Commuter Check 779.64 -696.00 1,344.64 -522.00 $906.28 $0.00 Filing fees/licenses 740.00 120.00 0.00 0.00 259.00 $120.00 $999.00 Insurance - Auto 1,765.95 1,800.00 1,787.87 1,800.00 1,800.00 -686.00 1,800.00 $2,867.82 $7,200.00 Insurance - Gen Liablilty 275.00 20,023.86 12,000.00 0.00 0.00 $20,023.86 $12,275.00 Insurance - Watercraft 0.00 0.00 5,391.00 4,000.00 0.00 $5,391.00 $4,000.00 Insurance - Workers Comp 1,836.72 1,500.00 1,836.72 1,500.00 1,224.60 1,500.00 1,451.41 1,500.00 $6,349.45 $6,000.00 Meals and Entertainment 437.99 244.98 673.66 562.33 416.00 1,109.45 974.82 1,088.33 $2,502.47 $3,005.09 Merchant Fees 1,248.00 1,150.00 0.00 -112.10 0.00 393.00 0.00 $1,528.90 $1,150.00 Miscellaneous Expense 100.00 $100.00 $0.00
Office Expense 422.94 505.45 396.99 174.15 410.95 38.94 143.38 103.01 $1,374.26 $821.55 Other Business Expenses 365.00 $365.00 $0.00
Payroll taxes 17,773.83 16,218.00 14,244.55 16,218.00 18,645.96 16,218.00 16,147.61 16,218.00 $66,811.95 $64,872.00 Postage and delivery 227.80 64.43 353.00 $645.23 $0.00
Professional Development 302.00 320.00 350.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 $852.00 $320.00 Professional fees 1,793.20 1,257.60 916.50 928.00 $4,895.30 $0.00 Rent 2,163.84 2,240.00 363.84 360.00 609.32 360.00 105.89 360.00 $3,242.89 $3,320.00 Security 812.79 800.00 560.49 500.00 564.93 500.00 752.46 1,000.00 $2,690.67 $2,800.00 Supplies 1,790.15 1,800.00 2,351.18 1,800.00 5,013.45 1,800.00 1,093.38 1,800.00 $10,248.16 $7,200.00 Telephone 263.66 150.00 289.29 150.00 365.00 150.00 243.92 150.00 $1,161.87 $600.00 Travel and Mileage 864.23 900.00 600.81 900.00 306.71 900.00 220.23 900.00 $1,991.98 $3,600.00 Utilities 1,999.06 2,100.00 1,832.59 2,100.00 1,766.49 2,100.00 1,758.13 2,100.00 $7,356.27 $8,400.00 Total General and Administrative 51,742.86 48,678.43 64,730.63 56,003.48 60,678.72 47,827.00 41,896.21 44,486.34 $219,048.42 $196,995.25 Insurance 1,247.20 $1,247.20 $0.00
Program Expenses $0.00 $0.00

Waterside Workshops
Budget vs. Actuals: 2023 Budget - FY23 P&L
January - December 2023
Cash Basis Wednesday, March 13, 2024 09:21 AM GMT-07:00 2/2 JAN - MAR, 2023 APR - JUN, 2023 JUL - SEP, 2023 OCT - DEC, 2023 TOTAL

ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET Health Insurance 11,819.82 12,200.00 13,132.80 12,600.00 15,981.08 12,600.00 13,710.99 12,600.00 $54,644.69 $50,000.00 Outside Contractors 250.00 150.00 27,150.00 27,100.00 150.00 150.00 600.00 150.00 $28,150.00 $27,550.00 Parts and Materials 32,402.45 58,000.00 76,695.90 55,000.00 19,922.40 22,000.00 11,766.43 15,000.00 $140,787.18 $150,000.00 Payroll - Program 149,351.52 145,500.00 131,784.44 145,500.00 155,462.23 145,500.00 138,691.91 145,500.00 $575,290.10 $582,000.00 Boating payroll 3,793.80 4,500.00 4,223.90 4,500.00 5,334.31 4,500.00 5,650.76 4,500.00 $19,002.77 $18,000.00 Youth Job Training Wages 16,804.46 15,000.00 12,692.02 15,000.00 18,207.35 15,000.00 13,478.71 15,000.00 $61,182.54 $60,000.00 Total Payroll - Program 169,949.78 165,000.00 148,700.36 165,000.00 179,003.89 165,000.00 157,821.38 165,000.00 $655,475.41 $660,000.00 Sales tax expense 6,010.56 9,000.00 9,465.46 9,000.00 9,366.94 9,000.00 9,859.96 9,000.00 $34,702.92 $36,000.00 Tools 33.17 $33.17 $0.00
Youth Expenses $0.00 $0.00
Therapy Services and Medical 700.00 420.00 600.00 600.00 1,300.00 600.00 $2,000.00 $2,220.00 Youth Trips 1,490.35 362.00 351.92 2,355.40 $4,559.67 $0.00 Total Youth Expenses 2,190.35 420.00 362.00 600.00 351.92 600.00 3,655.40 600.00 $6,559.67 $2,220.00 Total Program Expenses 222,622.96 244,770.00 275,506.52 269,300.00 224,776.23 209,350.00 197,447.33 202,350.00 $920,353.04 $925,770.00 Total Expenses $292,702.08 $311,358.43 $356,945.38 $342,463.48 $316,522.26 $279,337.00 $266,122.76 $269,050.41 $1,232,292.48 $1,202,209.32 NET OPERATING INCOME $ -141,618.78 $ -156,525.43 $98,652.22 $189,469.52 $ -31,393.46 $ -68,587.00 $97,369.64 $78,649.59 $23,009.62 $43,006.68 NET INCOME $ -141,618.78 $ -156,525.43 $98,652.22 $189,469.52 $ -31,393.46 $ -68,587.00 $97,369.64 $78,649.59 $23,009.62 $43,006.68

Waterside Workshops
Profit and Loss
January 2024
Cash Basis Wednesday, March 13, 2024 09:25 AM GMT-07:00 1/2 TOTAL
JAN 2024 JAN 2023 (PY)
Income
Contributed Income
Donations 15,472.01 13,785.29
Grants
Foundations 25,000.00
Government 17,961.96
Total Grants 17,961.96 25,000.00
Total Contributed Income 33,433.97 38,785.29
Program Income
Bike Repairs 1,820.00 2,085.00
Workshop Fees 1,350.00
Total Program Income 1,820.00 3,435.00
Sales
Bicycle Sales 8,727.49 19,459.84
Cafe 53.00
Total Sales 8,727.49 19,512.84
Total Income $43,981.46 $61,733.13
GROSS PROFIT $43,981.46 $61,733.13
Expenses
Fundraising
Salaries - Fundraising 3,461.54 5,163.50
Website 143.76 719.64
Total Fundraising 3,605.30 5,883.14
General and Administrative
403(b) Plan -875.00 0.00
Administrative Salaries 3,461.54 5,163.50
Advertising 114.57
Commuter Check -174.00
Insurance - Auto 1,177.30
Insurance - Workers Comp 612.24
Meals and Entertainment 159.39
Office Expense 11.99 252.98
Payroll taxes 5,313.37 5,316.67
Postage and delivery 72.50
Professional fees 216.00 642.70
Rent 485.12 1,921.28
Security 584.88 312.63
Supplies 811.96 354.54
Telephone 72.99 107.22

Waterside Workshops
Profit and Loss
January 2024
Cash Basis Wednesday, March 13, 2024 09:25 AM GMT-07:00 2/2 TOTAL
JAN 2024 JAN 2023 (PY)
Utilities 814.18 951.19
Total General and Administrative 10,795.53 17,086.21
Insurance 623.60
Program Expenses
Health Insurance 4,265.16 4,399.89
Outside Contractors 260.00 150.00
Parts and Materials 4,577.51 2,720.99
Payroll - Program 43,254.43 46,983.18
Boating payroll 1,819.35
Youth Job Training Wages 2,466.22 2,947.07
Total Payroll - Program 47,540.00 49,930.25
Sales tax expense 5,099.32 1,939.09
Total Program Expenses 61,741.99 59,140.22
Total Expenses $76,766.42 $82,109.57
NET OPERATING INCOME $ -32,784.96 $ -20,376.44
NET INCOME $ -32,784.96 $ -20,376.44

Waterside Workshops
Profit and Loss
January - December 2018
Cash Basis Wednesday, March 13, 2024 09:18 AM GMT-07:00 1/2 TOTAL
Income
Contributed Income
Donations 57,006.53
Grants
Foundations 362,366.00
Government 12,500.00
Total Grants 374,866.00
Total Contributed Income 431,872.53
Program Income
Bike Rentals 3,510.00
Bike Repairs 9,908.23
Boatshop Commision 360.00
Boatshop Rentals 4,615.00
Boatshop Repairs 600.00
Workshop Fees 5,045.00
Total Program Income 24,038.23
Sales
Bicycle Sales 247,308.44
Boatshop Sales 390.00
Cafe 12,895.72
Total Sales 260,594.16
Total Income $716,504.92
GROSS PROFIT $716,504.92
Expenses
Building Renovations 6,976.70
Furniture and Equipment 1,273.97
Total Building Renovations 8,250.67
Fundraising 312.48
Salaries - Fundraising 41,470.82
Website 75.00
Total Fundraising 41,858.30
General and Administrative
Administrative Salaries 38,435.48
Advertising 500.00
Automotive 2,043.99
Commuter Check 106.00
Filing fees/licenses 179.80
Insurance - Auto 2,618.52
Insurance - Gen Liablilty 14,134.96
Insurance - Workers Comp 8,440.00
Meals and Entertainment 1,313.17

Waterside Workshops
Profit and Loss
January - December 2018
Cash Basis Wednesday, March 13, 2024 09:18 AM GMT-07:00 2/2 TOTAL
Merchant Fees 7,344.48
Miscellaneous Expense 120.00
Office Expense 483.60
Payroll taxes 36,026.68
Postage and delivery 166.64
Professional fees 1,574.55
Promotion and Outreach 254.99
Rent 1,200.00
Security 2,875.80
Supplies 2,871.33
Telephone 2,846.18
Travel and Mileage 253.30
Utilities 5,913.15
Total General and Administrative 129,702.62
Program Expenses
Equip repairs and maintenance 32.16
Health Insurance 22,781.40
Outside Contractors 3,553.75
Parts and Materials 75,938.36
Payroll - Program 332,505.11
Sales tax expense 21,182.00
Tools 1,046.70
Youth Expenses 2,531.32
Therapy Services and Medical 16,360.00
Youth Housing and Edu 5,019.56
Youth Trips 6,492.63
Total Youth Expenses 30,403.51
Total Program Expenses 487,442.99
Total Expenses $667,254.58
NET OPERATING INCOME $49,250.34
NET INCOME $49,250.34

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin (Author), Councilmember Wengraf (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Humbert (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Relationship Nondiscrimination Ordinance

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending the Berkeley Municipal Code to include non-discrimination protections based on family and relationship structure.

SUMMARY
This ordinance aims to extend legal protections to a diverse array of family configurations and relationship structures, including polyamorous relationships, multi- parent families, step-families, and other non-nuclear family structures. It is a significant step towards recognizing and safeguarding the rights and dignity of all residents, reflecting the city's commitment to inclusivity and equality.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In today's diverse society, a significant portion of households diverge from the traditional nuclear family model. Research indicates that only a minority of American households fit this normative structure, showcasing a variety of configurations including multi- partner/multi-parent families, step-families, and multi-generational households.

Concurrently, consensual non-monogamy (CNM) is practiced by an estimated 5% of American adults.1
Despite this prevalence, diverse family and relationship structures lack explicit protection under current laws, leading to widespread stigma and discrimination. Nearly two-thirds of non-monogamous individuals report experiencing discrimination in critical areas such as housing, healthcare, and business services, underscoring the urgent need for legal recognition and protection.2 Single parents and people who identify as asexual and/or aromantic also face legal difficulties and discrimination in many aspects of public life.3
1 Scoats, R., & Campbell, C. (2022). What do we know about consensual non-monogamy?. Current Opinion in Psychology, 101468. Retrieved Feb. 13, 2024 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001890 2 Sheff, E. A. (2017). Polyamory at Work. Psychology Today. Retrieved April 27, 2023, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201710/polyamory-at-work 3 European Database of Asylum Law. (2018). Netherlands: Council of State rules that asexual applicants do not fall under the exception for LGBTI people in the application of the “safe country of origin” concept.

EDAL. Retrieved April 27, 2023 from:

Relationship Structure Nondiscrimination Ordinance CONSENT CALENDAR May 7, 2024

The proposed ordinance in Berkeley, aiming to prohibit discrimination based on family and relationship structure, addresses this gap. By acknowledging the complexity of modern relationships and the inherent dignity of all family structures, this ordinance seeks to foster a more inclusive and empathetic community. It is a necessary step towards ensuring that all residents can live authentically without fear of discrimination, reflecting Berkeley's longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion.

Establishing anti-discrimination protections based on family and relationship structure is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.

BACKGROUND
A group of citizens of Berkeley originally drafted a proposal for additional language to Chapter 13.31 of Berkeley’s Municipal Code in 2017. The City Council approved an item with the proposed language introduced by Councilmember Linda Maio and cosponsored by Councilmember Ben Bartlett on the December 19, 2017 Consent Calendar (see Attachment 2). However, this language was never formally adopted as an ordinance.

This revised and expanded ordinance includes protections for both 'family structure' and 'relationship structure,' reflecting a comprehensive approach to safeguarding the rights of all citizens regardless of their familial or relational configurations.

Review of Existing Laws
The Berkeley Municipal Code, as it currently stands, enumerates various protected categories under its nondiscrimination ordinances, safeguarding individuals from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and disability, among others.4 However, it lacks specific mention of "family and relationship structure" as protected categories. This omission leaves individuals who do not conform to traditional nuclear family models or who are part of non- monogamous relationships vulnerable to various forms of discrimination and bias.

In addressing this gap, the proposed ordinances draw upon the foundational principles of equity and inclusivity that guide the City of Berkeley's approach to civil rights. By proposing the inclusion of "family and relationship structure" within the ambit of protected categories, these ordinances seek to extend these protections to encompass the full spectrum of family and relationship dynamics present within the community. https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/netherlands-council-state-rules-asexual-applicants-do-not- fall-under-exception-lgbti-people
4 e.g. BMC 13.20.030, 13.28.020, 13.09.020

Relationship Structure Nondiscrimination Ordinance CONSENT CALENDAR May 7, 2024

Alternative Actions Considered
In considering how best to protect diverse families and relationships from discrimination, the option of revising the Berkeley Municipal Code to explicitly include "family and relationship structure" as protected categories was identified as the most effective and direct approach. This decision was made in light of the fact that there are no existing legal remedies or alternative measures within the city's current legal framework that adequately address the discrimination experienced by individuals in non-traditional family configurations or non-monogamous relationships.

Other alternatives, such as relying on broader state or federal anti-discrimination laws, were deemed insufficient due to their lack of specificity regarding the unique challenges faced by these groups. Similarly, the development of separate programs or policies outside the legal framework was considered less effective, as they would not provide the same level of enforceable protections against discrimination.

Therefore, the proposed ordinances represent a necessary and appropriate step towards ensuring that all residents, regardless of their family or relationship structure, are afforded equal protection under the law. This action underscores Berkeley's commitment to inclusivity and civil rights, ensuring that the city's legal protections evolve to reflect the diversity of its community.

Consultation/Outreach Overview and Results
These draft ordinances were informed by extensive consultation and collaboration with key stakeholders dedicated to advancing the rights and acceptance of non- monogamous families and relationships, including:
● The Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition (PLAC): This multi-disciplinary coalition of academic and legal professionals, including notable figures such as Alexander Chen, Founding Director of the Harvard Law School LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic; Diana Adams, Esq., founder of the Chosen Family Law Center; and Heath Schechinger, M.Ed., Ph.D., Co-Founder of PLAC and Executive Director of the Modern Family Institute. Their collective expertise in legal support, policy advocacy, and academic research on diverse family and relationship forms significantly contributed to the bill's development.
● OPEN (Organization for Polyamory and Ethical Non-monogamy): A California- based nonprofit, OPEN brought to the table its advocacy experience and extensive network, including Berkeley residents who are active in advocating for non-monogamous relationship protections. OPEN's involvement highlights the grassroots support for the ordinance and the organization's role in representing the community's voice.

Relationship Structure Nondiscrimination Ordinance CONSENT CALENDAR May 7, 2024

● PolyActive: This Berkeley-based grassroots advocacy group played a pivotal role in the advocacy for the initial 2017 bill and continued to support the current efforts. Their local insight and community mobilization efforts underscored the immediate need for legal protections within Berkeley.
● The Berkeley City Attorney’s office was consulted to ensure the proposed ordinances align with existing legal frameworks and municipal code requirements, facilitating a legally sound approach to extending protections based on family and relationship structure.

These consultations resulted in a robust and inclusive legislative proposal, reflecting a collaborative effort among legal experts, community advocates, and local government representatives. This process underscores the collective commitment to fostering a more inclusive society through meaningful legal change.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Berkeley's commitment to inclusivity, equity, and justice demands that we recognize and protect all forms of family and relationships. The proposed ordinance responds to the evolving nature of our community by prohibiting discrimination based on family and relationship structure, ensuring that every resident, regardless of how they define family, is afforded equal rights and protections.

The initiative to safeguard diverse family and relationship structures is not new to Berkeley. In 2017, efforts began with Consent Item 27, aiming to address these very issues. Today's proposed ordinance, developed with the City Attorney's Office, builds on that work, offering broader protections that reflect our community's values.

Adopting this ordinance will make Berkeley a leader on the West Coast in recognizing the rights of non-traditional families and relationships, aligning with our city's long- standing commitment to human rights. It is a clear statement of our community’s dedication to fostering an inclusive and equitable society for all residents.

IMPLEMENTATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND ENFORCEMENT
This ordinance provides a comprehensive framework for enforcement, ensuring that any person aggrieved by violations of its provisions has the right to seek civil action. It empowers individuals, the City Attorney, and the district attorney to take legal action against any entity that contravenes the ordinance, thereby safeguarding the interests of protected classes. Additionally, it stipulates that violators are liable for damages and legal costs, reinforcing the ordinance’s deterrent effect against discrimination based on family or relationship structure. The ordinance also outlines a limitation period for actions, ensuring timely justice, and specifies its applicability in alignment with broader state and federal legal standards. Set to be effective from January 1, 2025, this

Relationship Structure Nondiscrimination Ordinance CONSENT CALENDAR May 7, 2024

ordinance represents a significant step towards inclusive and equitable treatment for all Berkeley residents, regardless of their family or relationship structure.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
This ordinance is not expected to require additional Full-Time Employees (FTEs) for its implementation. The enforcement mechanism leverages current city attorney and district attorney resources without necessitating new personnel or additional General Fund impacts.

OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION
The primary outcome of implementing this ordinance is to provide legal protections for diverse families and relationships in Berkeley, ensuring they are not subject to discrimination based on their family or relationship structure. While the city may not actively monitor the number of civil suits brought forward under these protections, advocacy organizations such as the Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition (PLAC) and OPEN (Organization for Polyamory and Ethical Non-monogamy) are committed to tracking and evaluating the impact of these measures. By collaborating with these organizations and remaining attuned to community feedback, the city can assess the effectiveness of the ordinance in safeguarding the rights of its residents and identify any areas for improvement in enforcement or outreach efforts.

CONTACT PERSON
Terry Taplin, Councilmember, District 2, 510-981-7120
Attachments:
1: Ordinance
2: Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Relationship Structure (12/19/2017)

ORDINANCE NO. ####-N.S.

ADDING CHAPTER 13.22 TO THE BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT

DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF FAMILY OR RELATIONSHIP STRUCTURE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code 13.22 is hereby added to read as follows:

Chapter 13.22

DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF FAMILY OR RELATIONSHIP STRUCTURE

PROHIBITED

13.22.010 Purpose
It is the policy of the City to eliminate all forms of discrimination within the City, particularly discrimination against individuals who are a part of families or relationships that fall outside the nuclear family norm. These include single parents, multi-partner/multi-parent families and relationships, multi-generational households, consensually non-monogamous relationships, and asexual and aromantic relationships. It is the intent of the City to eliminate discrimination against individuals in such family or relationship structures in housing, public accommodations, educational institutions, and business establishments.

13.22.020 Findings
The City Council of the City of Berkeley finds and determines as follows:

A. Diverse family structures, including relationship structures involving more than two adults engaged in a loving and consensual relationship, are becoming increasingly common.

B. The perpetuation of nuclear definitions of “family" excludes a significant segment of the Berkeley population, such as multi-partner/multi-parent families and relationships, single parents, multi-generational households, consensually non-monogamous relationships, and consensual intimate relationships, including asexual and aromantic relationships. Individuals should not face discrimination on the basis of whom they share their homes, their hearts, and their lives.

C. People in interpersonal relationships between two or more adult individuals that involve romantic, physical, and/or emotional intimacy face discrimination in many aspects of public life due to prejudicial misunderstandings related to the validity and moral fitness of such relationships.

D. Single parents and people who identify as asexual and/or aromantic also face discrimination in many aspects of public life.

13.22.030 Definitions
As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection:

A. “Family or relationship structure” means the actual or perceived involvement or uninvolvement of an individual in an “intimate personal relationship” or relationships, as defined

in BMC Section 13.22.030(B). “Family or relationship structure” includes an individual’s actual or perceived affinity, or lack thereof, for any given type of intimate personal relationship, regardless of whether the individual is currently in any intimate personal relationship(s).

B. “Intimate personal relationship” means any interpersonal relationship between two or more adult individuals that involves romantic, physical, and/or emotional intimacy, irrespective of the marital status of these individuals as defined in Part 11053 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. “Intimate personal relationship” includes, but is not limited to, multi-partner/multi- parent families and relationships, and multi-generational households.

C. “Business establishment” means any entity, however organized, which furnishes goods or services to the general public. An otherwise qualifying establishment which has membership requirements is considered to furnish services to the general public if its membership requirements: (a) consist only of payment of fees; (b) consist of requirements under which a substantial portion of the residents of this City could qualify; or (c) consist of an otherwise unlawful business practice.

D. "Individual" means the same as the term "person."
E. "Person" means any natural person, firm, corporation, partnership or other organization, association or group of persons however organized.

13.22.040 Unlawful Activities
A. In General. It shall be unlawful for any person or agent or employee thereof to discriminate against an individual on the basis of that individual’s family or relationship structure, with respect to any of the following activities:

1. Housing. Any real estate transaction including but not limited to the rental thereof and/or any related terms, conditions, advertisements, communications, insurance, maintenance, rehabilitation, repairs, improvements, use or availability of facilities, or financing including loans and guarantees;

2. Business Establishments. The use or availability of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations from any business establishment, and/or any related terms, conditions, advertisements or communications;

4. Educational Institutions. Admission and the use or availability of any services, programs and facilities, and/or any related terms, conditions, advertisements or communications;

5. City Facilities and Services. The use or availability of any municipal service or facility.

6. City Supported Services and Facilities. The use or availability of any service or facility wholly or partially funded or otherwise supported by the City.

B. Exceptions.

1. Housing. Nothing in this chapter shall be (a) construed to apply to the rental or leasing of any housing unit in which the owner or any member of the owner’s family occupies the same living unit in common with the prospective tenant; (b) deemed to permit any rental

or occupancy of any dwelling unit or commercial space otherwise prohibited by law; or (c) override any just cause for eviction set forth in the rental stabilization ordinance.

2. Education. It shall not be an unlawful discriminatory practice for a religious or denominational educational institution to limit admission to applicants of the same religion.

C. Pretext. It shall be unlawful to do any of the actions mentioned in subsections (A)(1) through (A)(6) for any reason that would not have been asserted but for an individual’s family or relationship structure.

13.22.050 Enforcement
A. Any aggrieved person may enforce the provisions of this chapter by means of a civil action.

B. Any person who commits, or proposes to commit, an action in violation of this chapter may be enjoined therefrom by a court of competent jurisdiction.

C. Action for injunction under this subsection may be brought by any aggrieved person, by the City Attorney, by the district attorney, or by any person or entity which will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the protected class.

13.23.060 Liability for costs and damages
Any person who violates the provisions of this chapter shall be liable to each person injured by such violation for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as determined by the court, plus damages equaling three times the amount of actual damages or a minimum of one thousand dollars.

13.23.070 Limitation on action
Actions under this chapter must be filed within one year of the alleged discriminatory acts.

13.23.080 Waiver
The provisions of this Chapter do not apply where their application would violate or be inconsistent with state or federal laws, rules, or regulations.

13.23.090 Effective date
The effective date of this ordinance shall be January 1, 2025.

Section 2. Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this Ordinance. The Council of the City of Berkeley hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any other portion of this Ordinance or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

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

COUNCILMEMBER LINDA MAIO CONSENT CALENDAR
City of Berkeley December 19, 2017
[email protected] · 510.981.7110 · cityofberkeley.info/lindamaio TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Linda Maio
SUBJECT: Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Relationship Structure RECOMMENDATION:

That the Council refer the proposed language to the City Manager requesting that the City amend Chapter 13.31 as proposed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of relationship structure in regard to Employment, Real Estate Transactions, Business Practices, City Facilities and Services or Education on the Basis of Relationship Structure.

BACKGROUND:

A group of citizens of Berkeley drafted the proposed additional language to Chapter

13.31 of Berkeley’s Municipal Code with a great deal of care and thoroughness. The existing laws within the City of Berkeley presently protect people against discrimination on the basis of a large number of characteristics. Local laws currently prohibit discrimination not only the basis of ethnicity, religion, and age, but also on the basis of sexual orientation. However, the current local laws do not specifically provide protection from discrimination for polyamorous people or others involved in consensually non- monogamous relationships. This proposed addition to the existing legal code seeks to remedy this situation by extending all the protections currently provided against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to polyamorous people. It is proposed that this be accomplished by adding a new chapter to the existing City of Berkeley law code.

The addition to Chapter 13.31 would prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, business practices, city facilities and services, or education on the basis of relationship structure. This would apply to the City of Berkeley as well as private entities. The prohibitions on discrimination in business practices and education would not apply to religious institutions.

The addition would define “relationship structure” as “the number of consenting adults involved in an intimate relationship and/or the number of intimate personal relationships in which each consenting adult is simultaneously involved.” “Relationship structure” would also include an individual’s “disposition” or desire for a certain relationship structure, regardless of whether that person is in that type of relationship, or any relationship. The addition would also prohibit advertising that expresses the intent to discriminate, or practice of discriminating, on the basis of relationship structure.

The addition would give any person whose rights under the measure are violated the right to sue for compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, plus not less than $200 or more than $400 in addition. Individuals, may also seek injunctions on behalf of themselves or others to prevent or remedy violations of the measure. The District Attorney may also seek injunctions to prevent or remedy violations of the measure.

See attachment for proposed language.

ATTACHMENTS
BMC Chapter 13.31 Proposed language.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No environmental sustainability impact.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Staff time.

CONTACT
Councilmember Linda Maio, District 1, 510-981-7110

DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RELATIONSHIP STRUCTURE
Section 13.31.010: Policy.

It is the policy of the City to eliminate discrimination based on relationship structure within the City.

Section 13.31.020: Finding--Definitions.

A. Findings. Discrimination based on relationship structure poses a substantial threat to the health, safety and general welfare of this community. Such discrimination deprives the City of the fullest utilization of its capacities for development and advancement.

Further, existing state and federal restraints on arbitrary discrimination are not adequate to meet the particular problems of discrimination based on relationship structure in this community, so that it is necessary and proper to enact local regulations adapted to the circumstances which exist in this City.

B. Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection:

1. "Business establishment" means any entity, however organized, which furnishes goods or services to the general public. An otherwise qualifying establishment which has membership requirements is considered to furnish services to the general public if its membership requirements: (a) consist only of payment of fees; (b) consist of requirements under which a substantial portion of the residents of this City could qualify; or (c) consist of an otherwise unlawful business practice.

2. "Individual" means the same as the term "person." Wherever this chapter refers to the relationship structure of any individual, or the relationship structure of any group, the phrase shall mean the relationship structure of any member of the group.

3. "Person" means any natural person, firm, corporation, partnership or other organization, association or group of persons however organized.

4. “Relationship structure” refers to the number of consenting adults involved in an intimate personal relationship and/or the number of intimate personal relationships in which each consenting adult is simultaneously involved. It also includes an individual’s disposition or desire for a certain relationship structure, regardless of whether the individual is currently in that type of, or in any, relationship.

5. Discrimination on the basis of relationship structure shall include both discrimination based on actual knowledge of relationship structure and

discrimination based on supposition or assumption of relationship structure or desired structure.

Section 13.31.030: Employment.

A. Unlawful Employment Practices.

1. Employers--Discrimination. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of such individual's relationship structure.

2. Employers--Segregation. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to limit, segregate or classify employees or applicants for employment in any manner which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or adversely affect his or her employment status on the basis of such individual's relationship structure.

3. Employment Agencies. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual on the basis of such individual's relationship structure.

4. Labor Organizations. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization to fail or refuse to include in its membership or to otherwise discriminate against any individual; or to limit, segregate or classify its membership; or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive such individual of employment opportunities, or otherwise adversely affect her or his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment on the basis of such individual's relationship structure.

5. Job Training. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, an employment agency or a labor organization to discriminate against any individual in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including any on-the-job training program on the basis of such individual's relationship structure.

6. Advertising. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, employment agency or a labor organization to print, publish, advertise or disseminate in any way, any notice or advertisement with respect to employment, membership in, or any classification or referral for employment or training by any such organization, which expresses an intent to discriminate based on relationship structure.

B. Pretext. It shall be unlawful to do any of the acts mentioned in subdivisions (A)(1) through (A)(6) of this section for any reason that would not have been asserted but for the relationship structure of any individual. Bona Fide Occupational Qualification not Prohibited--Affirmative Defense.

1. Bona Fide Occupational Qualification. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to prohibit selection or rejection based upon a bona fide occupational qualification.

2. Affirmative Defense. In any action brought under Section 13.31.090 of this chapter (enforcement), if a party asserts that an otherwise unlawful discriminatory practice is justified as a bona fide occupational qualification, that party shall have the burden of proving: (a) that the job requires a bona fide occupational qualification of a certain relationship structure based on business necessity; and (b) that there exists no less discriminatory means of satisfying the occupational qualification.

3. Exceptions. It shall not be unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to observe the conditions of a bona fide seniority system or a bona fide employee benefit system, provided such systems or plans are not a pretext to evade the purposes of this chapter; provided, further, that no such system shall provide an excuse for failure to hire any individual because of relationship structure.

C. Notices.

1. Requirements. Every employer with fifteen or more employees, every labor organization with fifteen or more members, and every employment agency shall post and keep posted in conspicuous places upon its premises where notices to employees, applicants for employment and members are customarily posted, the following notice: "Discrimination on the basis of relationship structure is prohibited by law. Berkeley Municipal Code, Sections 13.31.010-13.31.100."

2. Alternate Compliance. Notwithstanding the above, the provisions of this subsection may be complied with by adding the words "relationship structure" to all notices required by federal or state law, and indicating on the notice that discrimination on the basis of relationship structure is prohibited by the Berkeley Municipal Code, Sections 13.31.010 through 13.31.100.

3. Penalty for Noncompliance. Willful violations of this subsection shall be punishable by a fine of not more than fifty dollars for each offense. This is the exclusive penalty for violations of this subsection, except that individuals and organizations may also seek relief as described in Section 13.31.080 Section 13.31.040: Housing and other real estate transactions.

A. Unlawful Real Estate Practices.

1. Transactions. Generally, it shall be an unlawful real estate practice for any person to interrupt, terminate or fail or refuse to initiate or conduct any transaction in real property, including but not limited to the rental thereof; to require different and less favorable terms for such transaction; to include in the terms or conditions of a transaction in real property any clause, condition or restriction; or falsely to represent that an interest in real property is not available for transaction, on the basis of any individual's relationship structure.

2. Credit and Insurance. It shall be an unlawful real estate practice for any person to refuse to lend money, guarantee the loan, accept a deed of trust or mortgage, or otherwise refuse to make available funds for the purchase, acquisition, construction, alteration, rehabilitation, repair or maintenance of real property; or impose different and less favorable conditions on such financing; or refuse to provide title or other insurance relating to the ownership or use of any interest in real property, on the basis of any individual's relationship structure.

3. Tenant's Services. It shall be an unlawful real estate practice for any person to refuse or restrict facilities, services, repairs or improvements for any tenant or lessee on the basis of any individual's relationship structure.

4. Advertising. It shall be an unlawful real estate practice for any person to make, print, publish, advertise or disseminate in any way, any notice, statement or advertisement with respect to a transaction or proposed transaction in real property, or with respect to financing related to any such transaction, which expressed an intent to discriminate based on relationship structure or any other prohibited basis.

B. Pretext. It shall be unlawful to do any of the actions mentioned in subdivisions (A)(1) through (A)(4) for any reason that would not have been asserted but for the relationship structure of any individual.

C. Exceptions.

1. Owner Occupied Dwellings. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply to the rental or leasing of any housing unit in which the owner or lessor resides within the living unit and it is necessary for the owner or lessor to use either a bathroom or kitchen facility in common with the prospective tenant(s).

2. Effect on Other Laws. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to permit any rental or occupancy of any dwelling unit or commercial space otherwise prohibited by law.

Section 13.31.050: Business establishments.

A. Unlawful Business Practice.

1. Business Practices Generally. It shall be an unlawful business practice for any person to deny any individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of any business establishment based on such individual's relationship structure.

2. Advertising. It shall be an unlawful business practice for any person to make, print, publish, advertise or disseminate in any way any notice, statement or advertisement with respect to any business establishment which expresses the establishment’s intent to or practice of discriminating based on relationship structure or any other prohibited basis.

B. Pretext. It shall be unlawful to do any of the acts mentioned in subdivisions (A)(1) or (A)(2) of this section for any reason that would not have been asserted but for the relationship structure of any individual.

Section: 13.31.060: City facilities and services.

A. Unlawful Service Practices.

1. City Facilities. It shall be an unlawful service practice for any person to deny any individual the full and equal enjoyment of, or to place different terms and conditions on the availability of, the use of any City facility on the basis of such individual's relationship structure.

2. City Services. It shall be an unlawful service practice for any person to deny any individual the full and actual enjoyment of, or to impose different terms or conditions on the availability of, any City service on the basis of such individual's relationship structure.

a. Supported Facilities and Services. It shall be an unlawful service practice for any person to deny any individual the full and equal enjoyment of, or to impose different terms and conditions upon the availability of, any service, program or facility wholly or partially funded or otherwise supported by the City on the basis of such individual's relationship structure. This subsection shall not apply to any facility, service or program which does not receive any assistance from the City or which is not provided to the public generally.
b. Advertising. It shall be an unlawful service practice for any person to make, print, publish, advertise or disseminate in any way any notice, statement or advertisement with respect to any service or facility provided by either the City or an organization described in (A)(2a) of this section which expresses the City’s or organizations intent to or practice of discriminating based on relationship structure or on any other prohibited basis.

B. Pretext. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to do any of the acts mentioned in subdivisions (A)(1) through (A)(2) for any reason which would not have been asserted but for the relationship structure of any individual.

Section 13.31.070: Educational institutions.

A. Unlawful Educational Practices.

1. Admission. It shall be an unlawful educational practice for any person to deny admission, or to impose different and less favorable terms or conditions on admission, on the basis of an individual's relationship structure.

2. Services. It shall be an unlawful educational practice for any person to deny any individual the full and equal enjoyment of, or to impose different terms or conditions upon the availability of, any service or program offered by an educational institution on the basis of such individual's relationship structure.

3. Facilities. It shall be an unlawful educational practice for any person to deny any individual the full and equal enjoyment of, or to impose different and less favorable terms or conditions upon the access to any facility owned or operated by an educational institution on the basis of such individual's relationship structure.

4. Advertising. It shall be an unlawful educational practice for any person to make, print, publish, advertise or disseminate in any way any notice, statement or advertisement with respect to an educational institution which expresses the educational institution’s intent to or practice of discriminating based on relationship structure or on any other prohibited basis.

B. Pretext. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to do any of the acts mentioned in subdivisions (A)(1) through (A)(4) of this section for any reason which would not have been asserted but for the relationship structure of any individual.

C. Exception. It shall not be an unlawful discriminatory practice for a religious or denominational institution to limit admission, or give other preferences to applicants of the same religion.

Section 13.31.080: Liability.

Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter or who aids in the violation of any provisions of this chapter shall be liable for, and the court must award to the individual whose rights are violated, actual damages, costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and not less than two hundred dollars but not more than four hundred dollars in addition thereto. In addition, the court may award punitive damages in a proper case.

Section 13.31.090: Enforcement.

A. Any aggrieved person may enforce the provisions of this chapter by means of a civil action.

B. Any person who commits, or proposes to commit, an action in violation of this chapter may be enjoined therefrom by any court of competent jurisdiction.

C. Action for injunction under this subsection may be brought by any aggrieved person, by the district attorney, or by any person or entity who has standing and who will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the protected class.

Section 13.31.100: Limitation on action.

Actions under this chapter must be filed within one year of the alleged discriminatory act(s).

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin
Subject: Budget Referral: Berkeley Junior Jackets Capacity-Building Grant

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 biennial budget process $300,000 to provide Young Lives Matter Foundation, Inc. with funding for two years of operating costs for the Berkeley Junior Jackets Football and Cheer youth sports program, and to develop longer-term strategic planning, sustainability and growth plans for the organization.

Direct the City Manager to evaluate organizational capacity and strategic planning supported by this funding on a rolling basis, developing and tracking Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) consistent with Reimagining Public Safety and Gun Violence Prevention program implementation, including but not limited to: program participation, violence prevention training, and staff retention.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$150,000 in annual General Fund impact.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Berkeley Junior Jackets youth sports programs remain entirely volunteer-run, relying on personal donations from the community and participating families, and City support for field rental expenses. According to the Young Lives Matter Foundation, the households participating in Berkeley Junior Jackets programs–many of whom are on opposite sides of local gang rivalries–agree to peace because of their involvement with the youth in these programs.

Lorenzo Grayson, in his role as President of the Young Lives Matter Foundation, has requested funding from the City of Berkeley to support Berkeley Jr. Jackets Football and Cheer (BJJ) in the amount of $150,000 per year. The organization’s mission is to support underserved youth with life skills, culturally attuned relationships, conflict resolution skills, and leadership development to promote prosocial engagement and positive youth development. The program has five football teams and two cheerleading squads, serving 150 African-American youth per year. Program participants include community members who are at highest risk for involvement with ongoing violence.

Budget Referral: Berkeley Junior Jackets Capacity-Building CONSENT CALENDAR

$150,000 would enable the organization to:
● Compensate coaches with stipends.
● Bring in additional training and support for coaches, such as the Positive Coaching Alliance.
● Offer enrollment at low or zero cost to all participating youth and families ● Cover the cost of team annual banquet and awards dinner; offer a coaches’ dinner, and quarterly staff retreats.
● Begin to develop longer term sustainability and growth plans for the organization.

BACKGROUND
The Berkeley City Council approved a $6,000 allocation for Berkeley Junior Jackets in November 2022, and a $7,000 allocation in late 2023 to defray the full rental costs for the season’s games and practices, in addition to equipment and uniforms.

Since 2017, the nonprofit Young Lives Matter Foundation has operated the Berkeley Junior Jackets athletics program to build community through leadership, wellness, academic, and sports programming for Berkeley’s young people. As an all-volunteer organization, Junior Jackets is doing invaluable work for Berkeley’s families and children with intensely limited resources, and is continuously fundraising to maintain operations. Their programs are of particular importance to the Black families that call South and West Berkeley home, as well as those displaced from Berkeley. The Berkeley Jr Jackets mission of encouraging positive life choices while dealing with academic achievement, personal nutrition, social acceptance, domestic violence, homelessness, and bullying is critically important for Berkeley’s lower-income neighborhoods that have experienced increases in violent crime and property crimes.

Nonprofit community-based services such as Berkeley Jr Jackets need active support from local government so that they can pursue their mission at full capacity. Supporting community-based organizations and services that have already built trusting bonds with local residents has been consistently raised as a key strategy for implementing a successful Gun Violence Prevention program, colloquially known as Ceasefire, in Berkeley and jurisdictions across the nation. While this item proposes a one-time allocation, the organization’s central role in community violence prevention calls for evaluation and accountability practices consistent with ongoing program implementation overseen by the City’s Reimagining Public Safety Project Coordinator. Thus, while this presents an additional cost to the City in the short term, the investment would also enable the organization to build internal capacity to seek and retain other funding sources such that it can continue providing vital programming at a sustainable lower cost to taxpayers in the future.

Supporting free youth sports programming and mentorship in the community advances our Strategic Plan’s goal to champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.

Budget Referral: Berkeley Junior Jackets Capacity-Building CONSENT CALENDAR

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120
Attachments:
1: Budget Referral: Berkeley Junior Jackets Facilities Expenses (November 2023)

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
Nov. 14, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin, Councilmember Hahn (co-sponsor), Councilmember Harrison (co-sponsor)
Subject: Budget Referral: Berkeley Junior Jackets Facilities Expenses

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the Annual Appropriations Ordinance #2 process $7,000 to provide Young Lives Matter Foundation, Inc. the necessary funds for the Berkeley Junior Jackets youth sports program’s operating expenses associated with the use of Berkeley Unified School District facilities.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$7,000.

BACKGROUND
Since 2017, the nonprofit Young Lives Matter Foundation has operated the Berkeley Junior Jackets athletics program to build community through leadership, wellness, academic, and sports programming for Berkeley’s young people. As an all-volunteer organization, Junior Jackets is doing invaluable work for Berkeley’s families and children with intensely limited resources, and is continuously fundraising to maintain operations. Their programs are of particular importance to the Black families that call South and West Berkeley home, as well as those displaced from Berkeley. The Berkeley Jr Jackets mission of encouraging positive life choices while dealing with academic achievement, personal nutrition, social acceptance, domestic violence, homelessness, and bullying is of immeasurable importance at a time when violence has escalated in South and West Berkeley. Nonprofit community-based services such as Berkeley Jr Jackets need active support from local government so that they can pursue their mission at full capacity.

The Berkeley City Council approved a $6,000 allocation for Berkeley Junior Jackets in November 2022. A $7,000 allocation would defray the full rental costs for the season’s games and practices, with an additional $200 left over for equipment and uniforms.

Supporting free youth sports programming and mentorship in the community advances our Strategic Plan’s goal to champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

Budget Referral: Berkeley Junior Jackets Facilities CONSENT CALENDAR

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120
Attachments:
1: Berkeley Unified School District Property Management Invoice and Permit: Jacket Stadium (7/19/23)
2: Berkeley Unified School District Property Management Invoice and Permit: Jacket Field and the Wrestling Room (8/22/23)
3: Urgent Item: Budget Referral: Berkeley Junior Jackets (November 2022)

Berkeley Unified School District
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INVOICE and PERMIT
Date: 7/19/23
Permit #24-0003
Invoice # 24-0003
To:Berkeley Jr Jackets
Facility: Jacket Stadium
Date of use: 8/20, 8/26, 9/9, 9/23 & 10/6
Hours of use: 7a-6p
Custodial fees: $546 per game
Rental fees: $396 per game
TOTAL DUE: $4710
Certificate of insurance on file expires .

Payment is due 10 days before the date of use. If payment is not received by due date this permit will be canceled.

Please make cashier’s check or money order payable to: Berkeley Unified School District and refer to your permit number on all correspondence and payments. Send payment to:

Jeff Snow
Facility Manager
C/O Berkeley High School
1980 Allston way
Berkeley, CA 94704
Jeffrey Snow
Berkeley High School Facility Manager
(510) 644-4567

Berkeley Unified School District
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INVOICE and PERMIT
Date: 8/22/23
Permit #24-0007
Invoice # 24-0007
To:Berkeley Jr Jackets Practices
Facility: Jacket Field and the Wrestling Room
Date of use: 8/21-9/1 (5 days a week) 9/4-10/20 (3 days a week) Hours of use: 7:30-9:00p
Custodial fees: 0
Rental fees: $2090
TOTAL DUE: $2090
Certificate of insurance on file expires .

Payment is due 10 days before the date of use. If payment is not received by due date this permit will be canceled.

Please make cashier’s check or money order payable to: Berkeley Unified School District and refer to your permit number on all correspondence and payments. Send payment to:

Jeff Snow
Facility Manager
C/O Berkeley High School
1980 Allston way
Berkeley, CA 94704
Jeffrey Snow
Berkeley High School Facility Manager
(510) 644-4567

URGENT ITEM

AGENDA MATERIAL
Government Code Section 54954.2(b)
Rules of Procedure Chapter III.C.5

THIS ITEM IS NOT YET AGENDIZED AND MAY OR MAY NOT BE

ACCEPTED FOR THE AGENDA AS A LATE ITEM, SUBJECT TO THE
CITY COUNCIL’S DISCRETION ACCORDING TO BROWN ACT RULES
Meeting Date: November 15, 2022
Item Description: Budget Referral: Berkeley Junior Jackets Field Use Expenses This item is submitted pursuant to the provision checked below:

Emergency Situation (54954.2(b)(1) - majority vote required) Determination by a majority vote of the legislative body that an emergency situation exists, as defined in Section 54956.5.

X Immediate Action Required (54954.2(b)(2) - two-thirds vote required) There is a need to take immediate action and the need for action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda for this meeting being posted.

Once the item is added to the agenda (Consent or Action) it must be passed by the standard required vote threshold (majority, two-thirds, or 7/9).

Facts supporting the addition of the item to the agenda under Section 54954.2(b) and Chapter III.C.5 of the Rules of Procedure:

Berkeley Junior Jackets is an all-volunteer non-profit that has led youth sports and education programing alongside the organization Youth Lives Matter since 2017. In recent years, the organization has paid Berkeley Unified School District for the use of the fields at Berkeley High School for many of their games. The costs for using these fields are incredibly burdensome for an organization running without profit. The City of Berkeley must do what it can to support programs like the Jr Jackets, which primarily serves Berkeley’s Black youth, with funding when opportunities such as this one arise.

A budget allocation at this time is necessary in order to allow Jr Jackets to plan for its next year of programming.

CONSENT CALENDAR
November 15, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Terry Taplin
Subject: Budget Referral: Berkeley Junior Jackets Field Use Expenses

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council refers $6000 to the November Annual Appropriations Ordinance to provide Berkeley Junior Jackets’ the necessary funds to cover expenses associated with the use of Berkeley Unified School District facilities in the operation of their youth sports program.

FISCAL IMPACTS
An estimated $6,000 for the use of Berkeley High School’s field during the 2023-2024 school year.

BACKGROUND
Since 2017, Berkeley Junior Jackets has worked in conjunction with Youth Lives Matter to build community through leadership, wellness, academic, and sports programing for Berkeley’s young people. As an all-volunteer agency, Junior Jackets is doing invaluable work for Berkeley’s families and children with intensely limited resources. Their programs are of particular importance to the Black families that call South and West Berkeley home, as well as those displaced from Berkeley. The Berkeley Jr Jackets mission of encouraging positive life choices while dealing with academic achievement, personal nutrition, social acceptance, domestic violence, homelessness, and bullying is of immeasurable importance at a time when violence continues to wreak havoc on West Berkeley communities. Organizations such as Jr Jackets, which runs without profit and is limited in its resources, require active support from local government so that they can pursue their mission at the height of their ability.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
None.

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

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin, Councilmember Humbert (co-sponsor) Subject: Budget Referral: Vision Zero Rapid Response on Bicycle Boulevards

RECOMMENDATION

1. Refer to the City Manager to incorporate the City of Oakland's Neighborhood Bike Route Implementation Guide for all Bicycle Boulevards designated in the City of Berkeley's Bicycle Plan, pursuant to the City's Vision Zero Action Plan, Complete Streets Policy, and other applicable policies and plans; and to prioritize proactive and retroactive implementation of standards on Bicycle Boulevards in response to recent traffic collisions, with consideration for quick-build interventions that can be removed, modified or made permanent to advance Vision Zero Action Plan goals.

2. Refer to the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 biennial budget process $200,000 for a Pilot implementation of Neighborhood Bikeway standards and Complete Streets interventions on Heinz Avenue and the intersection with Seventh Street, and prioritizing implementation on Bicycle Boulevards on High Injury Streets and/or the Equity Priority Area, considering any and all possible interventions to eliminate the risk of severe and fatal collisions such as: centerline hardening, quick-build pedestrian safety zones, curb extensions, raised crosswalks, ADA accessibility improvements at AC Transit bus stops, and protected left-hand turns.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$200,000 in one-time General Fund impact. While the cost of permanent curb bulb-outs has been estimated at $160,0001 in previous budget referrals, $200,000 is requested in recognition of the wide variety of possible interventions, timelines, and costs associated with them, some of which may already be addressed by currently-budgeted allocations.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Rapid Vision Zero implementation on Bicycle Boulevards is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.
1 Budget Referral: George Florence Traffic Calming (Mar. 9, 2021). https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-03- 09%20Item%2016%20Budget%20Referral%20George%20Florence%20-%20Supp%20Taplin.pdf

Vision Zero Rapid Response CONSENT CALENDAR

The City of Berkeley is currently not on track to meet its goal “to eliminate fatal and severe traffic crashes by 2028,” as established under the Vision Zero Action Plan in 2019. Most recently, there were two serious collisions at the intersection of Seventh St and Heinz Ave within one month in 2024: on February 13, resident Adam Moss was struck by a motorist on his e-bike while carrying his toddler;2 on February 28, an unnamed pedestrian was sent to the Intensive Care Unit with critical injuries after being struck by a motorist.3 This intersection is a half-mile from three High Injury Streets identified in the Vision Zero Action Plan (San Pablo Avenue, Ashby Avenue, Sixth Street) and is within the City’s Equity Priority Area.

2 Raguso, E. (2024, Feb. 18). Berkeley father and toddler hit by driver during bike commute Berkeley Scanner. Retrieved Apr. 5, 2024 from https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/2024/02/13/traffic- safety/berkeley-father-toddler-struck-by-driver-bike-commute/ 3 Gecan, A. C. (2024, Feb. 29). Motorist hits pedestrian with car in West Berkeley, sending her to ICU.

Berkeleyside. Retrieved Apr. 5, 2024 from:
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/02/29/seventh-heinz-pedestrian-struck

Vision Zero Rapid Response CONSENT CALENDAR

As illustrated in a February 2024 report by the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission with the chart below, road safety continues to be a critical issue for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists in Berkeley.4 In the first quarter of 2024, Berkeley saw a 20% increase in collision injuries from Q1 2023, according to the Berkeley Police Department.5 4 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting- agendas/DFSC%20Agenda%20Packet%2024-02-08.pdf#page=19
5 https://bpd-transparency-initiative-berkeleypd.hub.arcgis.com/pages/traffic-safety

Vision Zero Rapid Response CONSENT CALENDAR

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley first adopted a Complete Streets Policy in 2012 (Resolution 65,978-N.S.). Complete Streets are defined in the Berkeley Bicycle Plan as “a comprehensive, integrated transportation network with infrastructure and design that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including people walking, people bicycling, persons with disabilities, people driving motor vehicles, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, emergency responders, seniors, youth, and families.”
Adopted in 2017, the Berkeley Bicycle Plan has three overarching goals, the first being Safety First: “Zero bicycle-involved fatalities by 2025 [emphasis added]…Zero bicycle- involved severe injuries by 2035.” The plan established policies to design a Low Stress Bikeway Network “suitable for the ‘Interested but Concerned [potential cyclists],’ to include people [of] all ages and ability levels riding bicycles in Berkeley.” The Bikeway Network policies included direction to “adopt the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide as the primary design guide for citywide bicycle facility design.” NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design

Vision Zero Rapid Response CONSENT CALENDAR

Guide contains best practices for designing Bicycle Boulevards under various conditions, stating: “Bicycle Boulevards use signs, pavement markings, and speed and volume management measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles and create safe, convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterial streets.” In 2017, NACTO expanded the Urban Bikeway Design Guide with Don’t Give Up at the Intersection, providing more detailed guidance for intersections. This publication recommends the following elements for Minor Street Crossings:6

1. Clear Sight Distance
A clear approach sightline gives drivers time to see and yield to people in the crossbike, and gives people on bike or on foot time to see and react to turning cars.

2. Crossbike & Crosswalk Markings
Crossbike and crosswalk markings provide conspicuity to people on bike or on foot.

High-visibility markings provide the formal crosswalk and crossbike.

3. Raised Crossing
Raised crossings improve bicyclists’ visibility and reduce the speed at which vehicles turn by bringing the vehicle crossing up to (or near) the sidewalk level. In addition, the 6 NACTO. (2017). “Minor Street Crossings.” Don’t Give Up at the Intersection. Retrieved from:
https://nacto.org/publication/dont-give-up-at-the-intersection/minor-street-crossings/

Vision Zero Rapid Response CONSENT CALENDAR

raised crossing is a signal to turning cars that through-moving bikes and pedestrians have the right of way.

4. Detectable Warning Surfaces
Detectable warning surfaces alert people who are blind or have low vision that they are entering an intersection.

5. Compact Corners
Small turn radii force turning drivers to slow down. If there is no raised crossing, the corner radius is the primary method to reduce turn speed.

Other types of street crossings, including Designated and Protected Intersections, contain even more design elements to slow motor vehicle traffic and decrease turning radii.

More broadly, NACTO recommends various design principles for “Intersections of Major and Minor Streets” in its Urban Street Design Guide.7 These primarily consist of “gateway” treatments to “limit turning speeds from the major to the minor street” such as curb extensions, raised crosswalks, bollards, and median refuge islands.

Illustration from NACTO Urban Street Design Guide
Vision Zero and Bicycle Plan Developments to Date
The City of Berkeley adopted its Vision Zero Action Plan in 2019, setting the goal of eliminating serious and fatal traffic collisions by 2028. The plan acknowledges that unsafe street design enables unsafe driving behavior, which disproportionately impacts cyclists, pedestrians, and other vulnerable groups including the elderly, young children, people with disabilities, people of color and low-income households. 7 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: Intersections of Major and Minor Streets:
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersections/intersections-of-major-and-minor- streets/

Vision Zero Rapid Response CONSENT CALENDAR

The Vision Zero Action Plan contains the following among its guiding principles, the importance of which cannot be understated: “People make mistakes. We will design our streets so that mistakes do not result in death or severe injury.” To advance this goal, the City Council has periodically and repeatedly advanced policies to strategically align street infrastructure planning and maintenance with Complete Streets designs to eliminate the risk of severe and fatal collisions. Notably, reducing motor vehicle speeds to 20 miles per hour eliminates the majority of this risk, as illustrated below:

Illustration: Institute of Transportation Engineers8
On November 14, 2023, the Berkeley City Council adopted Resolution No. 71,097–N.S. as amended, to approve the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Program: Safety Enhancements and Parallel Bike Improvements Projects, with the additional authorization for the City Manager “to direct staff to implement traffic calming measures on parallel bike routes as consistent as possible with the City of Oakland’s Neighborhood Bike Route (NBR) design standards.” Oakland’s NBR Implementation Guide is consistent with the City of Berkeley and NACTO’s design standards, with the inclusion of speed humps on every block to the extent feasible.

On December 5, 2023, the City Council passed a budget referral to allocate FY 2024 TNC tax revenues, including in part:

3. $325,000 to increase the citywide Traffic Calming Budget on a one-time basis to $400,000 (up from the current $75,000); and

4. $450,000 to citywide to fund:
8 https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/speed-management-for-safety/speed-as-a-safety- problem/

Vision Zero Rapid Response CONSENT CALENDAR

a. tier 1 protected bicycle lanes and crossings identified in the 2017 Bicycle Plan, including but not limited to quick-build projects; and b. priority pedestrian street crossings identified in the 2020 pedestrian plan, including but not limited to quick-build projects; and c. priority quick-build public transit projects under the Street Repair Program; and … to consider establishing an ongoing General Fund policy of allocating 50% of annual TNC Tax revenues to a citywide traffic calming budget and the remaining 50% to tier 1 bike/pedestrian/transit priority projects as specified under 3. [sic] a-c.

In both the Vision Zero Action Plan and the 2020 Pedestrian Plan, Sixth Street is identified as a High Injury Street with a high proportion of severe and fatal collisions.

However, Sixth Street merges into Seventh Street south of Dwight Way via Dwight Crescent. Given the methodology used for identifying High Injury Streets, it is conceivable that the southern portion of Seventh Street would qualify if it were considered as a continuous extension of Sixth Street, as it is often used:
…each street received a cumulative score based on the number and severity of collisions that took place. Street lengths were normalized to ensure that the high-injury analysis captured streets with higher densities of collisions. Then, streets that were more than 1.2 standard deviations away from the normalized mean were identified as a High Injury Street.9
Thus, it is unclear if the December 2023 budget referral is sufficient in scope to provide additional resources for a rapid traffic calming response to the Heinz Avenue Bicycle Boulevard. This budget referral proposes to preclude any uncertainty or hesitation with respect to immediate action on Heinz.

Examples of Quick-Build Projects
The City of Oakland has recently implemented “quick-build” projects–implemented within one year of planning–for street safety improvements.10 AC Transit is currently also partnering with the City of Berkeley for a quick-build transit priority lane project on Durant Avenue.

Below are several examples of quick-build projects implemented in Oakland to prevent fatal traffic collisions. Oakland’s Department of Transportation cautions that the speed of implementation cannot account for the lack of national standards and potentially rising maintenance costs; however, the possibility of permanent improvements in the 9 Berkeley Pedestrian Plan. (2020). Appendix C:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020%20Pedestrian%20Plan%20Appendix%20C%20 %28adopted%29.pdf#page=24
10 Oakland Department of Transportation presentation (2023):
https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-04/1b-OakDOT_Quick_Build_Projects.pdf

Vision Zero Rapid Response CONSENT CALENDAR

long-term can mitigate maintenance costs (e.g. replacing plastic bollards with concrete barriers).
“Painted Safety Zones” with flex posts and paint (curb bulb-outs and median refuge islands)
“Hardened Centerline” with flex posts and speed bumps for left turn hardening In communications with the City Manager’s Office and the District 2 Council Office, Public Works staff has indicated that centerline hardening may be an appropriate response to the recent collisions at Seventh and Heinz.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The City of Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan, adopted in 2009, includes the following recommendation: “Accelerate implementation of the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans

Vision Zero Rapid Response CONSENT CALENDAR

and continue efforts to make walking and cycling safe, healthy, and enjoyable alternatives to driving.”11

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120
Attachments:
1: City of Oakland Neighborhood Bike Route Implementation Guide 2: City of Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan
11 Berkeley Climate Action Plan: https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/adopted- plans/berkeley-climate-action-plan

City of Oakland
Neighborhood Bike Route Implementation Guide
City of Oakland, Department of Transportation (OakDOT)
Safe Streets Division, Bicycle & Pedestrian Program | June 2021

2 OakDOT Neighborhood Bike Route Implementation Guide
Introduction
This Guide provides direction on implementing the City of Oakland’s Bike Plan (2019) recommendations for “neighborhood bike routes” (NBRs) also known as “bicycle boulevards.” The Bike Plan proposes over 75 centerline miles of NBRs (see Figure 1, Neighborhood Bike Route Map, next page) which are defined as:
• Calm local streets where bicyclists have priority but share roadway space with automobiles. • Include shared roadway bicycle markings on pavement and additional traffic calming measures like speed humps or traffic diverters to keep streets comfortable for bicyclists. • Comfortable for bicyclists with wider range of comfort levels.

The Bike Plan outlines four actions for streets to be designated as NBRs:

1. Improving Major Street Crossings;

2. Reducing or Preventing Speeding;

3. Preventing High Car Volumes; and

4. Increasing Pavement Quality.

This Guide describes implementation in the following five subject areas: Scoping & Monitoring, Route Establishment, Traffic Calming, Traffic Control, and Public Notification & Comment.

Some of the proposed NBRs in the Bike Plan are beyond the scope of this document. These include streets with significant AC Transit service and streets that are designated as thoroughfares for motor vehicles (i.e., arterials and collectors). Some collectors are residential streets with modest traffic volumes, and this guide is intended for these streets. However, other collectors and arterials have significantly higher traffic volumes and provide key connections in the street network. This guide does not provide all of the resources necessary for determining the feasibility and desirability of these more ambitious proposals.

For a preliminary assessment of all NBRs, see the screening analysis at https://tinyurl.com/OaklandNBR and accompanying map at https://arcg.is/0LXmbK.

1. Scoping & Monitoring
To evaluate the level of traffic calming required, average daily traffic counts, speeds, and five-year crash data should be consulted. (Note: If 311 data is found to be accessible and helpful, this should be included as well.) If access restrictions or stop sign modifications are proposed, other data will be required (see Sections 2 and 3).

OakDOT sets target traffic speeds and volumes for NBRs based on NACTO’s Contextual Guidance for Selecting All Ages and Abilities Bikeways, March 20141 as follows:
• Speeds less than or equal to 20 mph (95th percentile), less than or equal to 2,000 average vehicles per day, and less than 50 vehicles per hour per direction at peak hour; or • Speeds less than or equal to 25 mph (95th percentile), less than or equal to 1,500 average vehicles per day, and less than 50 vehicles per hour per direction at peak hour. 1 nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/designing-ages-abilities-new/choosing-ages-abilities-bicycle-facility

3 OakDOT Neighborhood Bike Route Implementation Guide
23rd Ave
32nd St
Genoa St
34th Ave
35th Ave
ExcelsiorAve
Brush St
Vicente Wy
Ritchie St
E 34th St
Hamilton St
48th St
4th Ave
Wood St
Mitchell St
Daisy St
48th Ave
MountainB lvd
E 28th St
E St
61st Pl 52nd St
C St
WebsterSt
Wayne Pl
27th St
Fruitvale
Ave
E 30th St
Elmhurst Ave
Peralta St
E12thSt
53rd St
College Ave
13th Ave
BroadwayTer
Arthur St
WayneAve
55th St
Flora St
Ramona Ave
Royal Ann St
38th
Ave
Potomac StLeimert Blvd
Rudsdale St
105th Ave
Beacon St
Gilbert St
88th Ave
16th Ave
LakeshoreAve
T rask St 94th Ave
Tiffin Rd
25th Ave
Bellevue Ave
John St
Apricot St
Fenham St
MorganAve
Durant Ave
54th Ave
CarlstonAv
54th St
Bran donSt
Jones Ave
ShafterAve
CalaverasAve
Snell St
Edes Ave
65th St 61st St
75th Ave
22nd Ave
Moss Ave
E 7th St
10th St
Lawton Ave
26th Ave
Bayo StSunnyhillsRd
Fernwood Dr
SheffieldAve
MacArthur Blvd
Steele St
Maple Ave
78thAve
A St
KingslandAve
24th St
E 21st St
HegenbergerLoop
82nd Ave
63rd St
Colby St
Church St
Lowell St
West St
Fleming Ave
55th Ave
7th Ave
92nd Ave
42nd St
90th Ave
E 31st St
Stanley Ave
59th St
D St
Hillside St
SunnymereAve
21st Ave Humboldt Ave
85th
Ave
69th Ave
E 19th St
Brookdale Ave 108th AveAvenal Ave
E 16th St
Golf Links Rd
26th St
Wisconsin St
11th Ave
Chabot Rd
Olive St
MandanaBlvd
103rdAve
Dover St School St
Plymouth St
62nd Ave
AtholAve
45th St
81stAve
£
[0 1.5 3
Miles
Existing NBR
Proposed NBR
Existing, Other Bikeway T ype
Proposed, Other Bikeway T ype
Oakland Bikeway Network: Existing & Proposed Neighborhood Bike Routes Figure 1: Neighborhood Bike Routes Map

4 OakDOT Neighborhood Bike Route Implementation Guide
Projects implementing NBRs on streets with traffic speeds and volumes above these thresholds should strive to reduce speeds and volumes to below these targets. Existing bike- ways that exceed these targets will be classified as bike routes, not as NBRs.

Some proposed NBRs may need ongoing monitoring if the
existing traffic calming is insufficient to achieve the targets, or if traffic patterns change. If the route is not meeting those targets, additional traffic calming should be considered.

This new monitoring system can be incorporated into
Oakland’s annual counts program.

2. Route Establishment
An NBR includes pavement markings, bike route signs,
traffic calming (typically a minimum of one speed hump/ table/cushion per block as feasible), and consideration of pavement quality.

Mid-Block Bicycle Pavement Markings
Install sharrows per current City standards (Figure 2). (Also see Issues for Further Discussion, page 11.)
Intersection Bicycle Pavement Markings
No markings are needed at unsignalized rectilinear local/ local intersections, where both streets are 40' wide or less.

At other intersections apply the following:

Use chevrons (Figure 3, and see OakDOT Design Detail
RM-10) at:
• Signalized and/or skewed intersections with four
or fewer approaches;
• In large traffic circles;
• Transitions to/from bike lanes; and
• Where one or more streets are wider than 40'.

Use green-backed sharrows (Figure 4) at:
• Offset intersections;
• Intersections where a bikeway turns;
• Complex multi-legged intersections; and
• Across divided roadways.

Figure 2: Oakland sharrow
Figure 3: Intersection chevron markings, 38th
Ave and Brookdale Ave
Figure 4: Green-backed sharrows, Waller St
and Pierce St, San Francisco
Figure 5: 50 ft double centerline

5 OakDOT Neighborhood Bike Route Implementation Guide
Other Pavement Markings
Include speed hump markings, stop stencils (as needed), and centerlines (50 LF) approaching controlled intersections (Figure 5). Avoid the use of edge line stripes and continuous center lines. (Per CA MUTCD Section 3B.01, centerlines are not required on local streets. On urban collectors and arterials, centerlines are required on roads that are at least 20’ wide and have ADTs of 6,000 vehicles per day or greater.) Bicyclist Guide Signs
Install bicycle guide signs per current City standards (Figure 6) 2. In areas with few supported destinations (per City standards) and where an NBR does not connect to other
signed bikeways, guide signs and decision signs may be
sufficient. Where the new NBR does not connect to another signed bikeway, signs can be deferred. Also see Issues for Future Discussion, below.

Pavement Considerations
Projects implementing new NBRs should consider the
pavement quality on the proposed route in determining the feasibility of the project. If resurfacing would be beneficial but is cost-prohibitive, consider spot pavement repairs or paving only the travel lanes and not the parking lanes.

Where possible, work should be coordinated with the City Council-adopted paving prioritization plan.

If the paving plan (or another project) will pave only part of a proposed NBR, the new route should only be implemented in the following situations:
• where the new segment connects to another existing bikeway (example: 45th St, Linden St to Market St);
• where the pavement quality of adjacent segments allows the installation of a longer bikeway; or • if additional resources for paving have been secured for the adjacent segments.

If one of these three criteria is not met, the new NBR should not yet be designated. However, speed humps and/or other traffic calming should be considered.

3. Traffic Calming
All NBRs should include traffic calming with a minimum of one speed hump per block (as feasible).

Additional traffic calming may be necessary to achieve the targeted speeds and volumes specified above.

Volume and Speed Management
Discourage through traffic and reduce motor vehicle volumes and speeds through the implementation of traffic calming measures, such as vertical deflection (speed humps/cushions/tables), traffic circles (Figure 7), islands (Figure 8), and diverters (Figure 9). At minimum, an NBR should include one speed hump per block as feasible.
2 https://tinyurl.com/OakDOTBikeWayfinding
Figure 6: Oakland bike route sign

6 OakDOT Neighborhood Bike Route Implementation Guide
Speed humps may not be feasible on all blocks due to block length, street grade, or conflicts with utilities or driveways 3. Additional speed humps and/or other calming measures should be applied when traffic volumes and/or speeds exceed OakDOT’s guidelines.

Daylighting
Parking may be removed up to 20 feet from the curb return on intersection approaches (standard best practice for all streets).

Traffic Restrictions
Current City policy governing street closures is in City Council Resolution 71056 C.M.S. (1994) “Resolution Adopting Rules and Regulations Governing the Prohibition of Entry To, or Exit From, or Both From City Streets.” To close a street, the following conditions must be met:

1. the street’s functional classification designates it as a local street;

2. where unwarranted through traffic is using the street;

3. 67% or more of residents support the change; and

4. a determination that the health and safety of the residents of the street and of neighboring streets
will not be adversely affected.
3 www.oaklandca.gov/services/apply-for-a-speed-bump
Figure 9: Diverters (left to right, Milvia St, Berkeley; 55th St east of Telegraph Ave, Oakland; Russell St, Berkeley) Figure 7: Traffic circle (Shafter Ave, Oakland)
Figure 8: Island cut-through (Channing St, Berkeley)

7 OakDOT Neighborhood Bike Route Implementation Guide
Access restrictions (Figures 8 and 9) should be considered where the volume of cut-through traffic is incompatible with a street’s designation as an NBR. Access restrictions should be designed to reduce or eliminate through traffic while allowing local access (e.g., right-in/right-out only at collectors and arterials).

Proposals for traffic restrictions require basic study and outreach (per Resolution 71056) and may need an area-wide traffic study to determine where the traffic would be diverted to help communicate the diversion to affected residents, and, potentially, to determine if additional traffic calming is needed to address impacts created by that diversion.

Resolution 71056 does not allow partial or full closures to streets classified as collectors or arterials. Such streets could be reclassified as local streets to allow for access restrictions. This reclassification process is managed by Caltrans, as designated by the Federal Highway Administration to oversee the functional classification of California’s roadways. The request process requires a City Council resolution, concurrence by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and approval by Caltrans.

4. Traffic Control
Through and cross-traffic on NBRs should be controlled to give bicyclists priority and create safe crossings.

Stop Control at Local Streets
Minimize the number of intersections along NBRs where cross traffic does not stop. • Intersections of NBRs and local streets should be either: (1) stop-controlled on the local approaches only (preferred); or (2) all-way stop-controlled. • Intersections of two NBRs should be all-way stop-controlled. • Where stops remain on the NBR, install the
supplemental stop sign placards (Figure 10), “ ALL
WAY” or “CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP”
as applicable.
• When stops are eliminated on an NBR, monitor post-
project traffic volumes and speeds to determine if
changes in stop control should be accompanied by
traffic calming (if not already included).

Prior to the removal of stop signs:
• Review traffic volumes (vehicle, bicyclist, pedestrian) to ensure the volumes are lower than the thresholds that
typically warrant stop signs.
• Conduct a visibility study including sight triangle analysis and approach speed data collection. • If visibility is limited, can obstructions be removed or approach speeds reduced? If not, do not remove stop signs. Existing speed data must show speeds that do not create sight distance triangle limitations prior to stop sign removal. (Speed data should not be inferred based on future installation of traffic calming features.)
• Review crash history to ensure there are no crash trends that would be exacerbated by stop sign removal.

Figure 10: Stop Sign Supplmental Placards

8 OakDOT Neighborhood Bike Route Implementation Guide
Figure 11: Treatments for Uncontrolled Crossings of Arteials and Collectors Bicycle warning sign (Market St/61st St, Oakland)
High-visibility crosswalk (Lowell St/Stanford Ave, Oakland) Median island (source: NACTO Guide)
RRFBs (Broadway/23rd St, Oakland)
Curb extension (Virginia St/Shattuck Ave, Berkeley)
Passive bike detection (Hillegass Ave/Ashby Ave, Berkeley)

9 OakDOT Neighborhood Bike Route Implementation Guide
Uncontrolled Crossings of Collectors and Arterials
Work to eliminate such crossings. Where they cannot be eliminated, install treatments that support bicyclists at uncontrolled crossings of collectors and arterials. Possible treatments (see Figure 11, previous page), from low to high intensity and cost, include:
• Bicycle warning signs;
• “BIKE XING AHEAD” pavement legends;
• High-visibility crosswalks;
• Bikeway markings through the intersection;
• Stop signs;
• Median islands;
• Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) with bicyclist-accessible push button actuation; • Curb extensions;
• Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) with passive bicyclist detection; and • Traffic signals.

Figure 12: Treatments for Offset Intersection Crossings of Arteials and Collectors (source: NACTO Guide) Bike lanes
Bicycle turn pockets
Two-stage turn queue boxes
Two-way cycle track

10 OakDOT Neighborhood Bike Route Implementation Guide
Offset Intersections at Collectors and Arterials
NBRs should avoid shared-lane situations on the major street wherever possible. Possible offset intersection treatments (Figure 12, previous page) may include:
• Bike lanes;
• Bicycle turn pockets;
• Two-stage turn queue boxes;
• Two-way cycle tracks;
• Pedestrian hybrid beacons with passive bicyclist detection; and • Traffic signals.

Treatments are context-sensitive and respond to available width, traffic volumes, and the presence of a center turn lane, bike lanes, and/or a traffic signal.

5. Public Notification and Comment
Residents on and near proposed NBRs should be notified early in the project development process when public comments can be addressed. Typically, the City will send a project mailer to addresses within 400’ of the proposed bikeway describing the project and providing an opportunity to weigh in and, optionally, to provide supporting comments. For NBR projects, an additional notification should be sent to addresses immediately adjacent to the locations of proposed traffic calming. Projects that restrict traffic (e.g., street closures, turn restrictions) may involve a broader process to address neighborhood concerns associated with diverted traffic.

Whether from mailers, surveys, meetings, or other contacts, the City should strive to resolve concerns as feasible within the scope of the project and with the design tools available to OakDOT. Possible solutions include expanding the scope of work to address the concerns of neighbors on nearby streets; or reducing the scope of work to eliminate traffic calming elements proposed in particular locations. General concerns regarding the project’s goals (e.g., slowing traffic) may not lead to changing the project but may entail additional outreach. Conversely, a proposed speed hump may be deleted or relocated, for example, in response to a resident with a physical disability who benefits from a level parking space in front of their home. The purpose of public notification and comment is to achieve the OakDOT Strategic Plan goal on Responsive Trustworthy Government by “providing Oaklanders with an open, accessible and efficient transportation agency.”

11 OakDOT Neighborhood Bike Route Implementation Guide
Issues for Future Discussion
Type of Pavement Marking
These guidelines assume that low stress bike routes are going to be referred to as Neighborhood Bike Routes in maps and communications materials, and thus recommend the use of sharrows per current City standards (Figure 1). However, some favor City of Berkeley style BIKE BLVD pavement markings (Figure 12) which are larger and convey an understandable “brand.” However, BIKE BLVD markings would not be
consistent with the NBR naming. Further, concerns have
been raised that local residents may perceive such markings as a harbinger of unwanted gentrification. Some favor an enlarged sharrow marking. Concerns include the ability of contractors to procure and use custom pavement legends.

Additional Placemaking Signs
To address the following recommendation from the Bike Plan:
“OakDOT will engage communities in a collaborative design process to develop placemaking signage for Neighborhood Bike Routes. The signs will complement bicycle wayfinding signage by depicting neighborhood identities.” (p.121)
Modified Street Name Sign
In addition to placemaking signs, and to complement guide signs, modified street name signs, similar in purpose to those used to mark bike boulevards in Emeryville and
Berkeley (Figure 13) could be considered. The advantage of a modified street name sign is that NBRs would be easier to identify—particularly at intersections. A preliminary estimate indicates that 50 street name signs would be required per centerline mile of NBR. To meet this standard along the 14 centerline miles of existing NBRs, it is estimated that 700 street name signs would need to be replaced or modified. (This estimate is based on Cavour St which is 0.2 miles long, with five intersections, and two street name signs per intersection.) The “Idaho Rule”
When approaching STOP controlled intersections on local streets, most bicyclists yield and do not come to a complete stop. In recognition of this, the state of Idaho passed a law in 1982 allowing bicyclists to treat STOP signs as yield signs. Similar rules have since been adopted in Delaware, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop). Various attempts have been made to pass this law in California, but to date, they have not been successful. With such a law this typical behavior by bicyclists would become legal behavior, thus reducing the impetus for removing STOP signs on NBRs.

A possible disadvantage is that bicyclists could exercise less caution at STOP signs than they do today.

Emergency Response Classification Map
OakDOT should consider partnering with OFD, OPD, and other stakeholders to develop a map of emergency vehicle stations and routes and seek review and vetting when proposing traffic calming on major emergency vehicle routes.

Figure 13: Bicycle boulevard marking
Figure 14: Street name signs

Approved March 10, 2019
by the Berkeley City Council

Thank you to the Task Force and Advisory Committee for helping to shape this plan.

VISION ZERO PROGRAM
Eric Anderson, Vision Zero Program
Coordinator
Beth Thomas, Principal Transportation Planner
Farid Javandel, Transportation Manager

TASK FORCE
Dominika Bednarska, Public Works Department
Kerry Birnbach, City Council Office - District 8
Chief Dave Brannigan, Fire Department
Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Department
Steven Buckley, Planning Department
Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager’s Office
Jim Cunradi, AC Transit
Lori Droste, City Council – District 8
Stefan Elgstrand, City Mayor’s Office
Joe Enke, Public Works Department
Beth Gerstein, City Council Office – District 1
Timothy Green, UC Berkeley Physical and
Environmental Planning
Phillip Harington, Public Works Department
Todd Henry, UC Berkeley Physical and
Environmental Planning
Lisa Hernandez, Health, Housing and Community
Services Department
Lt. Randy Files, Police Department
Jordan Klein, Economic Development
Department
Hamid Mostowfi, Public Works Department
Ryan Murray, Police Department
Nisha Patel, Public Works Department
Alene Pearson, Planning Department
Abe Roman, Fire Department
Lars Skjerping, City Mayor’s Office

ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Gwen M. Allamby, Police Review Commission
Stuart Baker, Telegraph Business Improvement
District
Dave Campbell, Bike East Bay
Eugenie Candau, Commission on Aging
John Caner, Downtown Berkeley Association
Ben Gerhardstein, Walk Bike Berkeley
Barnali Ghosh, Transportation Commission
Shane Krpata, Public Works Commission
Beatriz Leyva-Cutler, Berkeley Unified School
Board
Liza Lutzker, Safe Routes to Schools and Walk
Bike Berkeley
Petra Liljestrand, Berkeley resident
Ethel Murphy, Commission on Aging
Helen Walsh, Commission on Disability
Sara Zimmerman, Safe Routes Partnership

CONSULTANT TEAM
Natalie Chyba, Fehr & Peers
Meghan Mitman, Fehr & Peers
Karina Schneider, Fehr & Peers
Dana Weissman, Fehr & Peers
Katie Miller, Left Lane Advisors

Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 Accountability ................................................................................................................................ 3 Equity ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Priority Actions ............................................................................................................................. 4 Glossary .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Why We Need Vision Zero ..................................................................... 7 Berkeley Needs Vision Zero .................................................................................................... 9 Vision Zero is about the 4% ...................................................................................................... 9 Vision Zero is about mode ........................................................................................................ 9 Vision Zero is about Traffic Violations ................................................................................. 10 Locations of Severe and Fatal Collisions .............................................................................. 12 Map of High-injury Streets ....................................................................................................... 13 Vision and Guiding Principles ................................................................. 15 Taking Action .......................................................................................... 19 The Vision Zero Program ........................................................................................................ 21 Safer Streets for Everyone ....................................................................................................... 21 Safer Streets By Everyone ........................................................................................................ 21

1.1 The Vision Zero Program: Collaboration ..................................................................... 22

1.2 The Vision Zero Program: Capacity ............................................................................... 23

1.3 The Vision Zero Program: Transparency and Equity ................................................. 24

2.1 Safer Streets for Everyone: Project Planning and Development ............................. 25

2.2 Safer Streets for Everyone: Project Design ................................................................... 26

2.3 Safer Streets for Everyone: Project Delivery................................................................ 27

3.1 Safer Streets by Everyone: Public Awareness .............................................................. 28

3.2 Safer Streets by Everyone: Enforcement ....................................................................... 29 Appendices ............................................................................................... 31 Appendix A: Vision Zero Action Plan Timeline & Process Diagram Appendix B: Prioritized Vision Zero Actions Matrix
Appendix C: SWITRS Violation Code Data Tables

ABOUT VISION ZERO
Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. Vision Zero is, first and
foremost, an engineering strategy that aims to design and build our streets to eliminate all severe and fatal traffic injuries. These engineering efforts are supported by
public awareness education and traffic enforcement.

Equity-driven Vision Zero traffic enforcement utilizes the best possible data and is focused on areas of Berkeley
where engineering and education efforts have already
been implemented.

1Vision Zero Action Plan | 1

CAPTURING SITES OF FATAL AND

SEVERE COLLISIONS
All photos in this plan were taken at locations in Berkeley where someone lost their life or sustained a severe injury in a traffic collision. The images demonstrate that there is rarely any way for someone passing by to know a tragedy took place, since things often continue as they did before.

Vision Zero challenges this status quo and strips away the societal acceptance that fatal and severe traffic collisions are a necessary byproduct of mobility. As part of this plan, rapid-response communications and safety project
protocols will be established to help tell victims’ stories and deliver quick-build projects where engineering
countermeasures may effectively improve safety.

Vision Zero Action Plan | 3
Every year, an average of two people die and 21
people are severely injured in Berkeley due to
traffic violence. Vision Zero is about recognizing
that these deaths and severe injuries are
preventable and unacceptable – no one should
lose their life or experience a life-altering injury
while traveling on Berkeley streets, no matter
who they are or how they travel.

We began our commitment to Vision Zero in
2018 through the adoption of a Vision Zero
resolution to end all traffic-related deaths and
severe injuries on City streets by 2028. Since
then, we have established two working groups: a
Task Force, comprised of key City staff, elected
officials, and partner agencies; and an Advisory
Committee, comprised of representatives from
advocacy groups, the public, Berkeley Unified
School District, and City of Berkeley
Commissions. The Task Force and Advisory
Committee have worked together to craft the
Vision, Guiding Principles, and Actions presented
in this plan. To learn more about the process, see
Appendix A: Vision Zero Action Plan
Development.

While every action item introduced in this plan is
fundamental to the success of Vision Zero, the
priority actions presented on the next page are
the near-term focus of Vision Zero in Berkeley,
based on feedback from the Task Force and
Advisory Committee on existing resources, and
staff and community priority. The full list of
actions for the City of Berkeley is introduced
later in this plan, in “Taking Action.”
Throughout the development of this plan, two
key themes were frequently discussed: this plan
must be accountable, and this plan must be
crafted through an equity lens.

ACCOUNTABILITY
This plan takes strategic and pointed actions to
keep Vision Zero front and center in the City of
Berkeley – calling for continuous plan updates to
remain in line with best practices and trends; an
audit conducted by the City Auditor to make
sure Vision Zero has the appropriate level of staff
and resources to be effective; and building
redundancy by integrating Vision Zero actions
into other guiding documents, including the
Berkeley Strategic Plan and departmental
work plans.

EQUITY
This plan is equity-driven, starting with
recognizing that we do not understand the full
magnitude of inequities today due to gaps in key
safety datasets. The plan recommends that we
utilize Berkeley Police Department collision
report data to better understand who are the
victims of traffic collisions; perform a robust
assessment of other key gaps in safety datasets as
part of the first update to this plan; and elevate
community voices to understand the perception
of safety and personal security in our most
vulnerable communities. This plan also includes
actions to create a traffic ticket diversion
program for bicyclists and pedestrians, and calls
for partnerships with community-based
organizations and culturally-relevant and context-
specific outreach and educational campaigns. The
plan emphasizes engineering and education
actions first, supported by equity- and data-driven
traffic enforcement conducted consistent with
the City of Berkeley’s Fair and Impartial
Policing Policy.

4 | | Introduction

PRIORITY ACTIONS
• Establish a standing Vision Zero
Coordinating Committee consisting of
City staff, Commissioners, partner
institutions, members of the community,
advocacy groups, and community-based
organizations who have a role in advancing
Vision Zero action items with quarterly
meetings organized around a predetermined
annual agenda. Seek to establish a funding
source to compensate members of the
community and community-based
organizations to enable their participation.
• Conduct a citywide Vision Zero Action
Plan assessment of existing staffing and
funding capacity to complete Vision Zero
action items.
- Create a staffing matrix of existing
and proposed staff for the delivery of
high-priority Vision Zero action items.

New or realigned staff needs are
anticipated in Public Works safety project
team; Public Works Vision Zero Program
support staff; Public Information Officers
in key Vision Zero departments, including
Police and Health, Housing, and
Community Services; Berkeley Police
Department Vision Zero collision data
analysis; Health, Housing, and Community
Service Vision Zero data analysis and
public awareness programs.
- Establish a milestone staffing and
funding schedule to complete high-
priority Vision Zero action items,
including City and grant funds.
• Proactively build capital-intensive and
quick-build safety projects on all Vision
Zero High-Injury Streets on a schedule to
complete such projects by 2028.

PRIORITIZATION APPROACH
This plan prioritizes engineering, education, and
public awareness before enforcement to achieve
Vision Zero in Berkeley. Each action item is
prioritized based on feedback from the Task Force
and Advisory Committee on existing resources, and
staff and community priority, as well as the potential
transformative impact of each item:
• Existing Resources: Actions are
prioritized that likely already have the
needed resources, both staff and funding, to
deliver.
• Staff Priority: Actions are prioritized that
are of interest and priority to the Task
Force and Vision Zero Program staff.
• Community Priority: Actions are
prioritized that are of interest and priority
to the Advisory Committee.
• Transformative/High Impact: Actions
are prioritized that would have major
positive impacts on safety or City
collaboration, based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineer’s Core Elements of
Vision Zero and ongoing City efforts.

The actions introduced here are the near-term focus
for the City of Berkeley. The full list of actions in
priority order can be reviewed in Appendix B:

Prioritized Actions Matrix.

Vision Zero Action Plan | 5
• Request a Vision Zero Performance Audit
to be performed during the FY21 audit period to
evaluate the implementation of the Action Plan
and make any additional needed
recommendations, including additional and/or
realigned staffing and funding, for effective Vision
Zero Action Plan implementation. Provide
required six-month updates to City Council.
• Establish a Vision Zero Rapid Response
Safety Communication Protocol. Employ a
communication strategy in response to recent
severe and fatal collisions aimed at the human
element of traffic safety, including health and
prevention messaging to the Berkeley community.
• Support statewide traffic safety legislation
allowing automated speed enforcement by local
agencies, designation of speed limits on local
streets based on desired safety outcomes rather
than the existing prevailing speed, and the
reduction of local residential street speed limits
to below 25 MPH, which would allow for 20
MPH speed limit on local residential streets,
consistent with “20 Is Plenty” campaigns. Utilize
existing legislated automated enforcement
strategies, such as red light cameras.
• Establish a Complete Streets Repaving and
Development Project Checklist to ensure
proactive and reactive Vision Zero safety
infrastructure for people of all ages and abilities
are included with each repaving project and in the
conditions of approval for development projects.

With the Vision Zero Coordinating Committee,
consider establishing an equity-driven approach
to prioritizing repaving projects.
• Develop and proactively deliver a Vision
Zero branding, promotional, and
educational campaign to increase awareness
about Vision Zero and the top traffic violations
for severe and fatal injuries in Berkeley, elevating
victims’ stories. Regularly update the campaign to
ensure it is context-specific, accessible, and
culturally relevant. Collaborate with community-
based organizations to distribute material and
promote messages and public events that
normalize active transportation and transit as
healthy and responsible transportation choices.
• Develop a publicly accessible matrix and
map to prioritize and track projects.

Prioritize both new/existing requests/referrals
and delivery of established infrastructure project
lists (e.g., Five Year Repaving Program, BeST Plan,
etc.) according to the Vision Zero High-Injury
Streets map and equity-driven prioritization from
City Council adopted plans such as the Bicycle
Plan and forthcoming Pedestrian Plan.
• Utilize the Berkeley Police Department’s
collision report data on parties involved,
such as housing status or whether parties
involved are disabled, to help address equity gaps
in Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
(SWITRS) collision data. Confirm that Berkeley
Police Department report training emphasizes
consistent use of these collision report data fields
and, if needed, provides training resources for
avoiding transportation mode bias in collision
reporting. When necessary, update the collision
report form to be consistent with emerging
mobility modes.
• Focus traffic enforcement efforts
proportionately on the most significant
traffic violations for severe and fatal
collisions by party at fault. Focus enforcement
efforts on areas of Berkeley where engineering
and education efforts have already been
implemented. Conduct traffic enforcement
consistent with the City of Berkeley’s Fair and
Impartial Policing Policy.

6 | | Introduction

GLOSSARY
Equity
Race, ethnicity, gender, age, socioeconomic
status, or physical or mental ability can no longer
be used to predict access to safe transportation,
and safety and access for all groups are improved.

This definition is adapted from the Government
Alliance on Race & Equity’s Racial Equity Toolkit.

The City of Berkeley is a core member of the
Government Alliance on Race & Equity (GARE).

Severe Injury
A severe injury is based on the reporting police
officer’s visual assessment of a victim at the scene
of the collision. The California Highway Patrol’s
Collision Investigation Manual defines a severe
injury as an injury other than a fatal injury which
results in broken bones, dislocated or distorted
limbs, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness at
or when taken from the collision scene. It does
not include minor lacerations. Some severe
injuries may not be classified as such by the
reporting officer if they are not visible or
otherwise apparent.

Vulnerable Users
Users of the roadway that are more vulnerable
to traffic-related death or injury due to their
demographic, socioeconomic status, physical or
mental ability, or mode of travel. This may
include people of color, people with no or low
income, people with no or limited English
proficiency, people experiencing homelessness,
youth, seniors, people with disabilities, and
people who walk and bike.

City of Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 7

8 | | Why We Need Vision Zero

City of Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 9

BERKELEY NEEDS

VISION ZERO
Every year, on average two people die and
21 people sustain severe injuries on
Berkeley streets due to traffic violence.

This is unacceptable and preventable – no
one should lose their life or suffer a life-
altering injury when traveling in our city.

All statistics presented on this page are
based on data between 2013 and 2017 -
the most recent five years of collision data
available through the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS).

VISION ZERO IS
ABOUT THE 4%
On average, 4% of collisions
on Berkeley streets result in a
fatality or severe injury.

That is 4% too many.

■ Severe and Fatal Collisions
■ Non-Severe and Fatal Collisions

VISION ZERO IS

ABOUT MODE
Collisions disproportionately
impact people riding bicycles and
people walking. The numbers are
stark – collisions involving someone
riding a bicycle or walking make up
almost 80% of collisions that
result in death or severe injury,
despite making up just 40% of
trips in Berkeley.
■ Driving ■ Bicycling ■ Walking ■ Riding Transit
52%
10%
30%
8%
24%
39%
37%

DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN
We know that people of color, people with no or low income, people with no or limited English proficiency, people
experiencing homelessness, youth, seniors, and people with disabilities are over-represented in fatal and severe injury collisions, but we currently have limited data within SWITRS collision reports to understand the magnitude of the
disproportionate burden. This plan addresses those data gaps head-on and establishes strategies to start collecting and utilizing more meaningful data to understand inequities on our streets. We also are not waiting for more data to take an equity-driven approach to Vision Zero. Read more about our proposed strategies in “Taking Action.”
Collision Data: SWITRS five-year injury collision data, 2013-2017 Mode Data: California Household Travel Survey for the City of Berkeley, 2012

ALL TRIPS SEVERE AND FATAL

COLLISIONS
4%
96%

10 | | Why We Need Vision Zero

VISION ZERO IS ABOUT TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS
Every collision involves multiple factors.

The top traffic violations reported during
the years 2013 to 2017 for collisions in
Berkeley that resulted in death or severe
injury were traveling at unsafe speeds,
violation of pedestrian right-of-way
at a crosswalk, failure to yield while
making left or U-turns, failure to stop
at a red light, and failure to stop at a
stop sign. Vision Zero focuses on the
most significant factors associated with
severe and fatal traffic collisions in order
to make the greatest impact.

Safety is also about how we share public
space and how we interact on our streets.

When we consider the primary party at
fault, the top traffic violations for severe
and fatal vehicle-involved collisions in
Berkeley were drivers not yielding at
crosswalks; drivers traveling at
unsafe speeds; drivers failing to yield
to oncoming traffic when making a
left- or U-turn; bicyclists traveling at
unsafe speeds; and drivers not
yielding at stop signs. While party at
fault data is subjective and may not include
the victim’s perspective, it can add to our
understanding of the unsafe behaviors that
result in severe and fatal collisions.

Violation data tables are provided in
Appendix C: SWITRS Violation Code
Data Tables.

■ Traveling at unsafe speeds
■ Violation of pedestrian right-of-
way at crosswalk
■ Failure to yield while making
left- or U-turns
■ Failure to stop at red light
■ Failure to stop at stop sign
■ Other

■ Driver not yielding at crosswalk
■ Driver traveling at unsafe speeds
■ Driver failing to yield while making
left- or U-turns
■ Bicyclist traveling at
unsafe speeds
■ Driver not yielding at a
stop sign
■ Other
46%
4%
5%
6%
18%
21%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%

TOP VIOLATIONS IN SEVERE AND

FATAL COLLISIONS
51%
5%
6%
8%
9%
22%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%

TOP VIOLATIONS BY PARTY AT FAULT

IN SEVERE AND FATAL COLLISIONS
Collision Data: SWITRS five-year injury collision data, 2013-2017

City of Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 11

12 | | Why We Need Vision Zero

LOCATIONS OF SEVERE

AND FATAL COLLISIONS

VISION ZERO IS ABOUT STREETS
This map shows the locations of the 237 traffic-related severe injuries and fatalities that occurred on Berkeley streets between 2008 and 2018.

Although only 37% of streets lie in the Equity Priority Area, 46% of severe and fatal collisions occur there.

PRIORITIZING EQUITY
Lower income residents and people of color are
disproportionately impacted by the risk of traffic injuries and fatalities. The Equity Priority Area considers historic Home Owners’ Loan Corporation “redlining,”
racial/ethnic composition, property value, and cultural centers to guide the City of Berkeley in prioritizing
infrastructure projects that remedy systemic inequity. A full description of the Equity Priority Area methodology can be found in the City of Berkeley Pedestrian Plan.

City of Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 13

MAP OF HIGH-INJURY

STREETS

PRIORITIZING EQUITY
Lower income residents and people of color are
disproportionately impacted by the risk of traffic injuries and fatalities. The Equity Priority Area considers historic Home Owners’ Loan Corporation “redlining,”
racial/ethnic composition, property value, and cultural centers to guide the City of Berkeley in prioritizing
infrastructure projects that remedy systemic inequity. A full description of the Equity Priority Area methodology can be found in the City of Berkeley Pedestrian Plan.

VISION ZERO IS ABOUT STREETS
The High-Injury Streets map represents the
City of Berkeley’s streets with the most
severe injuries and fatalities based on data
between 2008 and 2018.

91% of Berkeley’s severe and fatal
collisions occur on just 16% of
City streets.

14 | | Why We Need Vision Zero

City of Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 15

16 | | Vision and Guiding Principles

City of Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 17
The City of Berkeley is committed to
an equity-focused, data-driven effort
to eliminate traffic deaths and severe
injuries on our city streets by 2028.

1. Safety is our highest priority. Human life
is more important than speed, convenience,
or property. We will evaluate trade-offs and
make both proactive and reactive engineering
decisions about street design based on
this value.

2. Traffic deaths and severe injuries are
preventable and unacceptable. Using a
holistic, data-driven, systems-level approach
to street design, we will treat fatal and severe
collisions as preventable and unacceptable
incidents that can and must be addressed.

3. People make mistakes. We will design
our streets so that mistakes do not result in
death or severe injury.

4. Slower streets are safer streets. We will
design, construct, and operate our streets for
slower speeds with the goal of eliminating all
fatal and severe collisions, and protecting our
most vulnerable street users.

5. We will create safer transportation
options for people who walk, bike, and
take transit. Creating safer and more
comfortable transportation options for
people to walk, bike, and take transit can
make these modes more attractive and
reduce the number of car trips in Berkeley.

Fewer car trips can mean fewer severe and
fatal collisions.

18 | | Vision and Guiding Principles

6. Street safety must be achieved
equitably. We will respond to the
disproportionate burden of traffic deaths and
severe injuries on people of color, people
with no or low income, people with no or
limited English proficiency, people
experiencing homelessness, youth, seniors,
people with disabilities, and people who walk
and bike. Enforcement strategies
recommended as part of this plan will be
designed to minimize racial profiling. Further,
this plan emphasizes engineering and
education actions first, supported by equity-
and data-driven enforcement in an effort to
conduct equitable traffic enforcement
consistent with the City of Berkeley’s Fair
and Impartial Policing Policy.

7. Vision Zero will be accountable,
transparent, and data-driven. Actions will
be data-driven to respond to the causal
factors of deaths and severe injuries on
Berkeley streets. This response will utilize
both proven methods and innovative
strategies. We will perform annual
monitoring, reporting, and evaluation through
an equity lens. We will communicate clearly
what resources are necessary to achieve
Vision Zero, why street design modifications
are proposed, and the basis for prioritizing
competing improvements.

City of Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 19

20 | ○ ○ ○ | Taking Action

City of Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 21
The City of Berkeley’s Vision Zero action items
described on the following pages demonstrate a
comprehensive, integrated approach to get
the City to zero. They rest on three pillars: 1)
The Vision Zero Program, 2) Safer Streets for
Everyone, and 3) Safer Streets by Everyone. This
plan prioritizes engineering, education, and public
awareness before enforcement strategies to
achieve Vision Zero in Berkeley.

THE VISION ZERO

PROGRAM

1.1 Collaboration
Collaborate with City departments, regional and
community partners, and mobility providers to
achieve Vision Zero goals. Continue commitment
from Berkeley elected officials.

1.2 Capacity
Build sustainable funding and staffing to complete
Vision Zero action items, including program
management, data analysis, infrastructure
projects, and education, engagement, and
enforcement.

1.3 Transparency and Equity
Establish a milestone reporting schedule.

Incorporate equity into data collection, analytics,
evaluation, engagement, and reporting.

SAFER STREETS

FOR EVERYONE

2.1 Project Planning and Development
Prioritize high-injury streets and the most
vulnerable street users.

2.2 Project Design
Design for vulnerable users of the transportation
network, including people of all ages and abilities.

2.3 Project Delivery
Deliver Vision Zero traffic safety infrastructure
improvements both reactively and proactively.

SAFER STREETS BY

EVERYONE

3.1 Public Awareness
Create a culture of traffic safety by promoting
awareness through public information programs
and campaigns.

3.2 Enforcement
Transition from a request-based to an equitable
and data-driven enforcement strategy focused on
the most significant safety violations resulting in
fatalities and severe injuries.

ACTION ITEM DEVELOPMENT
These actions represent months of collaboration and
coordination between the Task Force and Advisory
Committee and build on opportunity areas established
through a comprehensive review of best practices and
Berkeley’s current safety efforts.

22 | | Taking Action

1.1 THE VISION ZERO PROGRAM: COLLABORATION
Priority Action
Lead
Department Timeline
✩
Establish a standing Vision Zero Coordinating
Committee consisting of City staff, Commissioners,
partner institutions, members of the community,
advocacy groups, and community-based organizations
who have a role in advancing Vision Zero action items
with quarterly meetings organized around a
predetermined annual agenda. Seek to establish a
funding source to compensate members of the
community and community-based organizations to
enable their participation.

City Manager’s
Office

Incorporate Vision Zero goals and actions into plan
and policy updates of all departments and partner
institutions, including the upcoming City of Berkeley
Zoning Ordinance update and General Plan Update,
UC Berkeley’s Long-Range Development Plan, Berkeley
Unified School District’s Sustainability Plan, the City’s Strategic Plan, Departmental Priority Projects Lists, and departmental and individual staff work plans.

City Manager’s
Office

With the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, Alameda County Transportation
Commission, and Alameda County Department of
Public Health, establish a peer-to-peer Bay Area
Vision Zero Network for information-sharing and
collaboration on countywide and regional initiatives
such as a public health analysis of collision victim
hospital data.

Mayor’s Office

Develop a focused, strategic Vision Zero staff
training plan to send key staff responsible for
implementing the Vision Zero Action Plan, such as
Public Works, Police, Health, Housing, and Community
Services, and City Manager’s Office and elected officials, to Vision Zero-related conferences and trainings.

City Manager’s
Office

City of Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 23

1.2 THE VISION ZERO PROGRAM: CAPACITY
Priority Action
Lead
Department Timeline
✩
Conduct a citywide Vision Zero Action Plan assessment of existing staffing and funding capacity to complete Vision Zero action items. • Create a staffing matrix of existing and proposed staff for the delivery of high-priority Vision Zero action items. New or realigned staff needs are anticipated in the areas listed below:
o Public Works safety project team
o Public Works Vision Zero Program support staff
o Public Information Officers in key Vision Zero
departments including Police and Health, Housing, and
Community Services
o Berkeley Police Department Vision Zero collision
data analysis
o Health, Housing, and Community Services Vision Zero
data analysis and public awareness programs
• Establish a milestone staffing and funding schedule to complete high-priority Vision Zero action items, including City and grant funds.

City
Manager’s
Office; Public
Works

✩
Request a Vision Zero Performance Audit to be conducted during the FY21 audit period to evaluate the implementation of the Action Plan and make any needed recommendations, including additional and/or realigned staffing and funding, for effective Vision Zero Action Plan implementation. Provide required six-month updates to City Council.

Public Works

24 | | Taking Action

1.3 THE VISION ZERO PROGRAM:

TRANSPARENCY AND EQUITY
Priority Action
Lead
Department Timeline
✩
Utilize the Berkeley Police Department’s collision report data on parties involved, such as housing status or whether parties involved are disabled, to help address equity gaps in Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
collision data. Confirm that Berkeley Police Department report training emphasizes consistent use of these collision report data fields and, if needed, provides training resources for avoiding transportation mode bias in collision reporting. When necessary, update the police collision report form to be consistent with emerging mobility modes.

Public Works;
Police

Provide an annual Vision Zero Progress Report, reviewed by the City Auditor, to City Council, City Department Directors, Vision Zero Coordinating Committee, and Transportation
Commission, on progress reducing fatal and severe collisions, including in historically underserved neighborhoods, equity in traffic enforcement, and on meeting the funding, staffing, and Vision Zero program delivery schedules. Include an updated Vision Zero High-Injury Streets map. Utilize Berkeley Police Department collision data to supplement the Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System dataset to avoid lag in data availability.

Public Works

Complete a full update of the Vision Zero Action Plan
every three years to ensure continued relevancy of the Action Plan by integrating advancements in best practices and
technologies. The first update will include an equity evaluation to identify gaps in safety and collision datasets and develop milestones to address inequities, as well as identify strategies to include hospital data provided by Alameda County Department of Public Health, linked to emergency medical services data and police reports, in Vision Zero analyses and maps.

Public Works

Maintain an understanding of the Berkeley community’s
perception of safety and personal security. Focus direct public engagement to residents of Berkeley’s historically underserved neighborhoods and other vulnerable users.

Health, Housing,
and Community
Services

City of Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 25

2.1 SAFER STREETS FOR EVERYONE:

PROJECT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Priority Action
Lead
Department Timeline
✩
Develop a publicly accessible matrix and map to prioritize and track projects. Prioritize both new/existing requests/referrals and delivery of established infrastructure project lists (e.g., Five Year Repaving Program, BeST Plan, etc.) according to the Vision Zero High- Injury Streets map and equity-driven prioritization from City Council adopted plans such as the Bicycle Plan and forthcoming
Pedestrian Plan.

City
Manager’s
Office

✩
Establish a Complete Streets Repaving and Development Project Checklist to ensure proactive and reactive Vision Zero safety infrastructure for people of all ages and abilities are included with each repaving project and in the conditions of approval for development projects. With the Vision Zero Coordinating Committee, consider establishing an equity-driven approach to prioritizing repaving projects.

Public Works

Establish a Vision Zero Rapid Response Safety Project Protocol that utilizes data from the renamed Fatal Accident Investigation Team (FAIT), to identify quick-build projects if engineering countermeasures may effectively improve safety. The protocol should outline a path forward for Public Works staff to be a part of the immediate on-the- ground response to an investigation of severe and fatal collisions.

Public Works;
Police

Conduct before and after studies of a sample of Vision Zero quick- build projects to evaluate countermeasure effectiveness where existing understanding is insufficient.

Public Works

Undertake a Standards of Coverage/Response Time Study to provide a data-driven understanding of how safety improvements impact emergency response times.

Fire

Establish a pre-approved toolbox of traffic safety infrastructure design treatment improvements with the Vision Zero Coordinating Committee to streamline the implementation of projects.

Public Works

26 | | Taking Action

2.2 SAFER STREETS FOR EVERYONE:

PROJECT DESIGN
Priority Action
Lead
Department Timeline

Establish Vision Zero Design Guidelines that consolidate policies and design guidelines from Council-adopted plans such as the Pedestrian Plan, Bicycle Plan, and Complete Streets Policy to guide Berkeley’s street design, traffic, and parking procedures in order to prioritize safety and reduce the incidence of severe and fatal collisions.

Ensure revisions and updates are reviewed by the Vision Zero Coordinating Committee to maintain accessibility for people of all ages and abilities.

Public Works

Develop Curbside Management Guidelines and incorporate them into the Vision Zero Guidelines to ensure Berkeley addresses safety concerns at the curb due to existing and emerging mobility options.

Public Works
Update the Berkeley Municipal Code to be consistent with the Vision Zero Design Guidelines.

Public Works

Refine the existing traffic calming toolbox to include design guidelines for all street types, utilizing Council-adopted plans where applicable. Ensure the traffic calming toolbox is reviewed by the Vision Zero Coordinating Committee to streamline the implementation of projects.

Public Works

City of Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 27

2.3 SAFER STREETS FOR EVERYONE:

PROJECT DELIVERY
Priority Action
Lead
Department Timeline
✩
Proactively build capital-intensive and quick-build safety projects on all Vision Zero High-Injury Streets on a schedule to complete such projects by 2028.

Public Works

Reactively build newly identified quick-build projects at locations with recent severe and fatal collisions if engineering countermeasures may effectively improve safety, based on Rapid Response Safety Project Protocol.

Public Works

Continue to deliver traffic calming projects. Utilize the traffic calming toolbox and evaluate requests based on an equity- and data-driven approach to implementation for both residential and Vision Zero High-Injury Streets. Increase public awareness of the traffic calming program.

Public Works

28 | | Taking Action

3.1 SAFER STREETS BY EVERYONE:

PUBLIC AWARENESS
Priority Action
Lead
Department Timeline
✩
Develop and proactively deliver a Vision Zero branding, promotional, and educational campaign to increase
awareness about Vision Zero and the top traffic violations for severe and fatal injuries in Berkeley, elevating victims’ stories.

Regularly update the campaign to ensure it is context-specific, accessible, and culturally relevant. Collaborate with
community-based organizations to distribute material and promote messages and public events that normalize active transportation and transit as healthy and responsible
transportation choices.

Health, Housing,
and Community
Services

✩
Establish a Vision Zero Rapid Response Safety
Communication Protocol. Employ a communication strategy in response to recent severe and fatal collisions aimed at the human element of traffic safety, including health and prevention messaging to the Berkeley community.

Public Works

Partner with UC Berkeley, Berkeley City College, and
Berkeley Unified School District to distribute targeted Vision Zero messaging for students.

Public Works

Integrate Vision Zero traffic safety awareness and
education into training for City employees who drive City vehicles or drive while on City business, including Police, Fire, Public Works, and all City departments and divisions.

City Manager’s
Office

City of Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 29

3.2 SAFER STREETS BY EVERYONE: ENFORCEMENT
Priority Action
Lead
Department Timeline
✩
Focus traffic enforcement efforts proportionately on the most significant traffic violations for severe and fatal collisions by party at fault. Focus enforcement efforts on areas of Berkeley where engineering and education efforts have already been implemented.

Conduct traffic enforcement consistent with the City of Berkeley’s Fair and Impartial Policing Policy.

Police
✩
Support state-wide traffic safety legislation allowing automated speed enforcement by local agencies, designation of speed limits on local streets based on desired safety outcomes rather than the existing prevailing speed, and the reduction of local residential street speed limits to below 25 MPH, which would allow for 20 MPH speed limit on local residential streets, consistent with “20 Is Plenty” campaigns.

Utilize existing legislated automated enforcement strategies, such as red light cameras.

City
Manager’s
Office

Rename the Fatal Accident Investigation Team to replace the word “accident” with “collision” and include reference to near-fatal and major collisions, to acknowledge that most collisions are preventable, and to be in line with Vision Zero philosophies.

Police

Continue and regularly update a collision data-driven
enforcement strategy focusing on collision reports from the renamed Fatal Accident Investigation Team (FAIT) to supplement collision data from SWITRS. Focus on areas of Berkeley where engineering and education efforts have already been implemented. Conduct traffic enforcement consistent with the City of Berkeley’s Fair and Impartial Policing policy.

Police
Seek opportunities to educate before issuing citations during traffic enforcement.

Police

Develop a traffic ticket diversion program for bicycle and pedestrian traffic tickets to promote access to bicycle and pedestrian safety courses and programs.

Police

30 | | Taking Action

City of Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 31

32 | Appendices

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
» Core
Opportunity Areas
APPENDIX A:

VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN TIMELINE & PROCESS DIAGRAM

MEETING SCHEDULEDETAILS & DELIVERABLES
» Prioritized Actions Matrix
» Action Plan
» Guiding Principles
Development
» Action Items

CORE OPPORTUNITY
AREAS

ACTION ITEMS PRIORITIZED

ACTIONS MATRIX

ACTION PLAN

JANUARY
Kick-Off Meeting
MAY
Meeting
AUGUST
Meeting

AUGUST/SEPTEMBER
Meeting

NOVEMBER
Meeting
WINTER
City Council
» Adoption of
the Vision Zero
Action Plan
A best practices review and
benchmarking assessment
summarized as core opportunity
areas for Berkeley Vision Zero.

The best practices review
focused on systemic safety
strategies from other U.S. cities,
while the benchmarking
assessment provided an under-
standing of baseline safety
conditions and practices in the
City of Berkeley.

A list of actions to
address the identified
safety needs, as
documented in the Core
Opportunity Areas
memo.

The Vision Zero Action Plan development was facilitated by a series of five Task Force and Advisory Committee meetings to build consensus on areas of focus and priority for Vision Zero in Berkeley. This graphic introduces the timeline and key deliverables reviewed at each meeting.

A matrix of prioritized
Vision Zero actions for the
City of Berkeley, based on
input provided throughout
the Task Force and Advisory
Committee meeting series.

The final summarizing
document, documenting
the significance of Vision
Zero in Berkeley and
introducing the City’s
Vision Zero action items.

An introduction to key
Vision Zero concepts that
resonate in the City of
Berkeley. Meetings included
a group exercise to develop
Guiding Principles for the
Vision Zero Action Plan.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

DEVELOPMENT

34 | Appendices

Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan

Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 35
This matrix documents the action item prioritization for Berkeley’s Vision Zero Action Plan.

The intention of this prioritization is to help the City determine the list of near-term, immediate actions the City should embark on to achieve Vision Zero. The matrix is not intended to be static – it can be used for each Vision Zero Action Plan update to re-evaluate the near-term focus of Vision Zero for the City. The criteria the prioritization utilizes are:
• Transformative/High Impact: Actions are prioritized that would have major positive impacts on safety or City collaboration, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Core Elements of Vision Zero and ongoing City efforts. • Existing Resources: Actions are prioritized that likely already have the needed resources, both staff and funding, to deliver.
• Staff Priority: Actions are prioritized that are of interest and priority to the Task Force.
• Community Priority: Actions are prioritized that are of interest and priority to the Advisory Committee.

These criteria are based on the existing priorities of the City of Berkeley. The criteria are meant to be fluid and re-evaluated with each new Vision Zero Action Plan update. Each action item will receive a point for each criterion it fulfills. The top performing actions should be the near-term focus of Vision Zero efforts.

36 | Appendices

All actions that have a score of 3.5 or greater are considered near-term priorities for the City of Berkeley.

Metric 1 0.5 0
Transformative/
High Impact
Action directly
correlates to an ITE
Vision Zero Core
Element and is an item
the City is not
currently doing
A Core Element, but
lesser transformative
impact because the
City is already
undertaking this effort
Not a Core Element
Existing
Resources
High existing staff
availability (based on
Task Force and Vision
Zero Program staff
feedback)
Medium existing staff
availability
Low existing staff
availability
Staff Priority
High priority item
(based on Task Force
and Vision Zero
Program staff
feedback)
Medium priority item Low priority item
Community
Priority
High priority item
(based on Advisory
Committee feedback)
Medium priority item Low priority item

Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan

Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 37
Pillar Opportunity Area Action
Transformative/
High Impact
Existing
Resources Staff Priority
Community
Priority Score
VZ Program Collaboration Establish a standing Vision Zero Coordinating Committee 1 1 1 1 4 VZ Program Capacity Conduct a citywide Vision Zero Action Plan assessment 1 1 1 1 4 Safe Streets for Everyone Project Delivery Proactively build capital-intensive and quick-build safety projects 1 0.5 1 1 3.5 VZ Program Capacity Request a Vision Zero Performance Audit 1 1 0.5 1 3.5 Safe Streets by Everyone Public Awareness Establish a Vision Zero Rapid Response Safety Communication Protocol 1 0.5 1 1 3.5 Safe Streets by Everyone Enforcement Support state-wide traffic safety legislation 1 0.5 1 1 3.5 Safe Streets for Everyone Project Planning &
Development Establish a Complete Streets Repaving and Development Project Checklist 1 0.5 1 1 3.5 Safe Streets by Everyone Public Awareness Develop and proactively deliver a Vision Zero branding, promotional, and educational campaign 1 0.5 1 1 3.5
Safe Streets for Everyone Project Planning &
Development Develop a publicly accessible matrix and map to prioritize and track projects 1 0.5 1 1 3.5 VZ Program Transparency & Equity Utilize the Berkeley Police Department’s collision report data on parties involved 1 0.5 1 1 3.5 Safe Streets by Everyone Enforcement Focus traffic enforcement efforts proportionately on the most significant traffic violations for severe and fatal collisions by party at fault. 1 1 1 0.5 3.5 VZ Program Collaboration Incorporate Vision Zero goals and actions into near-term plan and policy updates 1 1 0 1 3 Safe Streets for Everyone Project Delivery Reactively build newly identified quick-build projects 1 0.5 0.5 1 3 Safe Streets for Everyone Project Planning &
Development Establish a Vision Zero Rapid Response Safety Project Protocol 1 0.5 0.5 1 3 Safe Streets for Everyone Project Design Establish Vision Zero Design Guidelines that consolidate policies and design guidelines from Council-adopted plans 0.5 0.5 1 1 3
VZ Program Transparency & Equity Provide an annual Vision Zero Progress Report 0.5 1 0.5 1 3 VZ Program Transparency & Equity Complete a full update of the Vision Zero Action Plan every three years 0.5 1 0.5 1 3 VZ Program Collaboration Develop a focused, strategic Vision Zero staff training plan 0.5 0.5 1 1 3 Safe Streets by Everyone Enforcement Continue and regularly update a collision data-driven enforcement strategy 0.5 0.5 1 1 3 Safe Streets for Everyone Project Planning &
Development Conduct before and after studies 1 0.5 1 0.5 3 Safe Streets by Everyone Enforcement Seek opportunities to educate before issuing citations 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 2.5

38 | Appendices
Pillar Opportunity Area Action
Transformative/
High Impact
Existing
Resources Staff Priority
Community
Priority Score
Safe Streets by Everyone Enforcement Rename the Fatal Accident Investigation Team 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 2.5 VZ Program Transparency & Equity Maintain an understanding of the Berkeley community’s perception of safety and personal security 1 0 0.5 1 2.5
Safe Streets by Everyone Public Awareness Partner with UC Berkeley, Berkeley City College, and Berkeley Unified School District 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 2.5 Safe Streets for Everyone Project Delivery Continue to deliver traffic calming projects 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 Safe Streets by Everyone Public Awareness Integrate Vision Zero traffic safety awareness and education into training for City employees 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 2.5 Safe Streets for Everyone Project Design Update the Berkeley Municipal Code 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 Safe Streets for Everyone Project Planning &
Development Undertake a Standards of Coverage/Response Time Study 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 Safe Streets by Everyone Enforcement Develop a traffic ticket diversion program 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 VZ Program Collaboration
With the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Alameda County Transportation Commission, and Alameda County Department of Public Health, establish a peer-to-peer Bay Area Vision Zero Network
0 1 0 0.5 1.5
Safe Streets for Everyone Project Design Refine the existing traffic calming toolbox 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 1.5 Safe Streets for Everyone Project Planning &
Development Establish a pre-approved toolbox of traffic safety infrastructure design treatments 0 0.5 0 0.5 1 Safe Streets for Everyone Project Design Develop Curbside Management Guidelines 0 0 0.5 0.5 1

Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan

Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 39
Table 1: Cited California Vehicle Code Violation by Party at Fault1 Cited California Vehicle Code Violation
Party Cited as at Fault
Driver Ped
Parked
Vehicle Bicyclist Other
None
Cited Total
Traveling at unsafe speeds 11 12 23
Failure to yield at crosswalk 20 20
Failure to yield to oncoming traffic when
making a left turn or U-turn 7 7
Failure to stop at a red light 3 3 6
Failure to yield at a stop sign 5 5
Opening door in unsafe conditions 3 1 1 5
Failure to signal 2 2 4
Crossing outside crosswalk or legal
crossing 1 3 4
Pedestrian suddenly leaving curb 4 4
Failure to yield to oncoming traffic when
entering or crossing road from property
or alley
2 1 3
Pedestrian had flashing DON'T WALK 3 3
Passing unsafely 2 2
Driving with 0.04% or more alcohol in
blood with a passenger for hire in the
vehicle
2 2
Failure to proceed straight or yield
properly 1 1
Driving on the wrong side of the road 1 1
Driver passes bicyclist unsafely 1 1
Disobeying traffic control device 1 1
Reckless driving causing bodily injury 1 1
Driving under the influence 1 1
Driving under the influence and driving
unlawfully, leading to bodily injury to any
person other than the driver
1 1
Driving a vehicle in an unsafe condition
or not safely loaded 1 1
Bicyclist has same rights and subject to
same rules as motor vehicles
1 1
Driver not yielding to pedestrians during
right turn on red
1 1
Pedestrian crossing between signalized
intersections
1 1
Failure to stop at stop bar 1 1
No violation cited 1 1 4 6 12
Total 67 13 1 24 1 6 112
Notes:

1. SWITRS five-year severe and fatal injury collision data, 2013-2017

40 | Appendices
Table 2: Cited CA Vehicle Code Violations by Parties Involved in Severe and Fatal Collisions1 Violation by Party at Fault for Severe or Fatal Collisions # of Severe
or Fatal
Collisions3
Other Parties Involved2
Cited
Party at
Fault California Vehicle Code Summary Driver Pedestrian Parked
Vehicle Bicyclist Other
Solo
Collisions
Driver Failure to yield at crosswalk 20 1 21 0 0 0 0
Driver Traveling at unsafe speeds 8 3 3 3 1 0 3
Driver Failure to yield to oncoming traffic when making a left turn or U-turn 7 5 0 0 2 0 0
Bicyclist Traveling at unsafe speeds 6 5 0 0 1 0 6
Driver Failure to yield at a stop sign 5 3 0 0 2 0 0
Pedestrian Pedestrian suddenly leaving curb 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 Driver Opening door in unsafe conditions 3 0 0 0 3 0 0
Pedestrian Crossing outside crosswalk or legal crossing 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Pedestrian had flashing DON'T WALK 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 Bicyclist Failure to stop at a red light 3 2 0 0 0 1 0
Driver Failure to stop at a red light 3 1 1 0 1 0 0
Driver Driving with 0.04% or more alcohol in blood with a passenger for hire in the vehicle 2 0 1 0 1 0 0
Driver Failure to signal 2 1 0 0 1 0 0
Driver Failure to yield to oncoming traffic when entering or crossing road from property or alley 2 1 0 0 1 0 0
Bicyclist Failure to signal 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
Driver Passing unsafely 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
Driver Driving under the influence and driving unlawfully, leading to bodily injury to any person other than the driver 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Driver Reckless driving causing bodily injury 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Other Opening door in unsafe conditions 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Parked
Vehicle Opening door in unsafe conditions 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bicyclist Failure to stop at stop bar 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Driver Disobeying traffic control device 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian Pedestrian crossing between signalized intersections 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Driver Crossing outside crosswalk or legal crossing 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan

Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan | 41
Violation by Party at Fault for Severe or Fatal Collisions # of Severe
or Fatal
Collisions3
Other Parties Involved2
Cited
Party at
Fault California Vehicle Code Summary Driver Pedestrian Parked
Vehicle Bicyclist Other
Solo
Collisions
Bicyclist Failure to yield to oncoming traffic when entering or crossing road from property or alley 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Driver Driver passes bicyclist unsafely 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Pedestrian Driver not yielding to pedestrians during right turn on red 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Driver Failure to proceed straight or yield properly 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bicyclist Bicyclist has same rights and subject to same rules as motor vehicles 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Driver Driving a vehicle in an unsafe condition or not safely loaded 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Driver Driving under the influence 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Driver Driving on the wrong side of the road 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 No Violation Cited 7 7 1 0 4 0 5
Total 93 47 30 4 21 1 19
Notes:

1. SWITRS five-year severe and fatal injury collision data, 2013-2017

2. Parties involved will not sum to total number of collisions

3. This number excludes solo collisions. To understand the total number of severe of fatal collisions, sum this column with t he number of solo collisions.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Author), Councilmember Hahn (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Celebración Cultural Sylvia Mendez (Spring Cultural Celebration) by the Sylvia Mendez School PTA: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of funds, including $1,500 from the discretionary council office budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett, to the Sylvia Mendez Elementary School PTA to host a Spring Cultural Celebration event on May 4, 2024, in the courtyard on campus. The funds will be relinquished to the City’s General Fund from the discretionary council office budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett and the discretionary council office budgets of any other City Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

BACKGROUND:

This year, the Berkeley Unified School District’s (BUSD) only Two-Way Immersion school, Sylvia Mendez Elementary (Sylvia Mendez), will host a Cultural Celebration to celebrate the global heritage, various nationalities, and other cultures important to its community. Community members are creating teams to determine the information, tastes, crafts, dress, music, and performances they would like to share at the event.

Last year’s inaugural event was hosted by 10 teams: Eritrea, Mexico, Chile, Cuba, Canada, African American, Croatia, Farm & Garden, Rainbow Families, and Venezuela.

The meal was catered by different local ethnic restaurants and supplemented by some of the teams with homemade foods. In addition, the tables shared cultural music to a community playlist and there was a live act as well. In all, the participants shaped the event, which was well received by the community.

With such great success, the Sylvia Mendez PTA is hosting this second annual event, maintaining the same goal of contextualizing some of our students' cultural influences, backgrounds, and much more. The funds requested are intended to offset some costs associated with the event. Therefore, they should be sent to the Sylvia Mendez PTA organization to distribute accordingly.

This parent-led committee is already funding the majority of the costs of the event and

elebración Cultural Sylvia Mendez CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] has been a reliable resource to offset budget shortfalls. The donations ultimately support the program guidelines laid out by BUSD (on the Sylvia Mendez Elementary website1), which is to “develop long-lasting relationships and cultural appreciation for peers who are often separated by race and language.” This is further defined as the vision of the school on its website2 “to seek to honor and understand families.” Since the pandemic restrictions were lifted in 2022, Sylvia Mendez Elementary has hosted well-attended Spring Events (last year being the first Cultural Celebration).

Scheduled late in the school year, they have proven to be important for the community, particularly in light of the COVID pandemic. Facing heightened challenges (such as construction starting this summer for at least the next two years), fostering relationships by building a greater understanding of families within and development of our community is fundamental in uplifting morale.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

No negative impact.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No General Fund impact; $1,000 is available from the discretionary council office budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett. The cost is as follows: Sylvia Mendez School PTA: Celebración Cultural (Spring Cultural Celebration).

CONTACT PERSON:

Councilmember Ben Bartlett [email protected] James Chang [email protected]
ATTACHMENT:

1. Resolution
1 https://www.berkeleyschools.net/schools/elementary-schools/sylviamendez-elementary/ 2 http://sylviamendezschool.org/en/welcome-eng

elebración Cultural Sylvia Mendez CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A

DONATION TO THE SYLVIA MENDEZ SCHOOL PTA TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR A SPRING CULTURAL CELEBRATION EVENT.

WHEREAS, Councilmember Ben Bartlett has surplus funds in his office expenditure account; and
WHEREAS, Sylvia Mendez School PTA, a California non-profit organization, will receive funds in the amount of $1,000 from Councilmember Ben Bartlett’s office expenditure account; and
WHEREAS, the Sylvia Mendez School PTA supports equitable public education for students, families, and our community through grants and volunteer programs; and WHEREAS, the provisions of such services would fulfill the municipal public purpose of providing students and the youth with opportunities through educational programs and activities to encourage them to learn and embrace cultural diversity; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their office budgets, of an amount to be determined by each Councilmember, shall be granted to Sylvia Mendez School PTA for this purpose of supporting students and the youth in highlighting cultural heritage that forms the community of the student body.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 1 CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7th, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett
Subject: Budget Referral Healthy Black Families Community Engagement - Ashby BART Development and Equitable Black Berkeley RECOMMENDATION:

Refer $60,000 each to the FY2024/25 and FY2025/26 budget process to support a Community Advisory Group to provide thought leadership around implementation of a Black Cultural Zone and Health Equity Zone. This Community Advisory Group will address the ongoing community engagement needs to ensure community input/influence in the development of the Ashby BART station, the reparative framework for the historically Black Community including the Black Equity Zone and Health Equity Zone.

BACKGROUND:

Since 2020, Healthy Black Families (HBF) has worked with the City of Berkeley (COB) on the Right to Return Housing Preference Policy (RRPP) and Equitable Black Berkeley (EBB) initiative as a part of the San Francisco Foundation (SFF) Partnership for the Bay’s Future (PBF) collaborative grant. Grant funding from SFF PBF for these efforts will end May 30, 2024.

HBF’s staff has coordinated community engagement for the RRPP and lead community engagement on behalf of EBB. Through monthly People’s Assemblies and surveys, HBF has engaged the Black Community in a data-driven and thoroughly documented process.

They have participated in BART community and Board meetings to ensure that the community’s vision for a Thriving Black Berkeley, including harm repair, a right to return, extensive affordable housing, impacts on health equity, and opportunities for economic development, are adequately communicated. HBF has, through the data collection process, defined the community’s priorities and brought the community's voice into the transit-oriented development (TOD) decisions during the City of Berkeley’s strategic planning process informing plans for the larger Adeline Corridor Redevelopment, incorporating this voice into a reparative framework to evaluate historic harm done to this community though redlining, predatory lending, and other forms of anti-Black racism.

With this additional funding, Berkeley can continue to move forward their strategy to repair harm done to the South Berkeley community, begin to mitigate the impact of generations of segregation and make the Berkeley community a stronger, thriving and more equitable place for all its residents. As BART moves forward with a TOD plan at the Ashby station, and the of Berkeley executes a larger plan to develop the Adeline Corridor, HBF will work to ensure that the outcomes will be designed and implemented to maximize equity outcomes for the African American community and low-income residents. These would

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 2 be informed by the City of Berkeley Health Equity Study, Alameda County Mortality Report and data provided by the community through the EBB work. Continued funding for these community engagement activities is instrumental for the overall success of this body of equity work.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Total allocation of $120,000 from the General Fund; $60,000 for each of the FY2024/25 and FY2025/26 biennial budget process.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Ben Bartlett [email protected] James Chang [email protected]
Tina R. Posner [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
1 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Author) and Councilmembers Taplin and Bartlett (Co-Sponsors)
Subject: Budget Referral to Fund Small Sites Program to Acquire, Rehabilitate, and Protect Existing Small Scale Housing

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the FY 2025-26 Budget Process:
● An allocation of $8 Million per year (for a two-year total of $16 Million) from existing affordable housing funds to the City of Berkeley Small Sites Program to support the acquisition and rehabilitation of small-scale residential buildings and their conversion to deed-restricted permanently affordable housing.
● $200,000 in FY25 and $150,000 in FY26 (total of $350,000 over two years) “Capacity Building” grants to the Bay Area Community Land Trust to support expanded participation in the City’s Small Sites Program.

SUMMARY STATEMENT
Berkeley, like much of California, is in the midst of a housing affordability crisis. In response, the State of California passed a package of 56 housing bills to mitigate the crisis, requiring cities and counties to streamline the housing approval process and build and preserve affordable units. To meet the City’s affordability goals under the Housing Element and alleviate the burden of high housing costs on low- and middle-income families, Berkeley must continue to build, acquire, and protect affordable units.

One program Berkeley has developed to support the acquisition, rehabilitation, and deed restriction of existing housing is the Small Sites Program, which prevents the displacement of tenants and increases housing stability. The Bay Area Community Land Trust (BACLT) is one of Berkeley’s key partners in carrying out this program, using existing City affordable housing funds – up to a maximum subsidy of $300,000 per unit for buildings of 10-25 units or $375,000 per unit for buildings of 2-9 units – combined with loans and funding from other government and not-for-profit sources, to purchase smaller multi-unit properties and convert them into permanently affordable housing.

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
2 This item requests the allocation of existing affordable housing dollars to cover the City’s portion of funds to acquire one or several small sites per year. BACLT has already identified a list of ten properties it could acquire and convert into permanent affordable housing if the City’s allocation to the Small Sites Program were increased. With a total allocation of $16 million over two years, BACLT can acquire 3-4 smaller properties per year, resulting in a cumulative total of about 48 to 64 affordable housing units made permanently affordable to low- and middle-income families.

In addition, Berkeley has previously granted BACLT capacity-building funds of $200,000 per year to strengthen the organization’s ability to acquire properties, manage their rehabilitation, and identify and fill units as quickly as possible. BACLT operates on a shoestring budget and has been working to add staff with appropriate expertise in a competitive labor market. This item requests a continuation of the City’s current $200,000 capacity building support for FY 25 and a reduced capacity-building grant of $150,000 for FY 26, for a two-year total of $350,000. BACLT has appreciated and relies on these grants while the organization continues to build capacity, and is committed to reducing and eventually ending dependence on grants from the City as the Developer Fees are increased and a larger number of annual projects can be undertaken.

BACKGROUND
Through cycles of boom and bust, the San Francisco Bay Area has grown into one of the largest metropolitan regions in the United States. A convergence of factors including strong economic growth and population booms paired with a lack of housing and strict zoning have led to significant housing, transportation, and environmental challenges. Key among them is the Bay Area Housing Crisis, with about one third of all households considered “rent burdened” – spending more than 30% of their income on rent.1
In Berkeley, some 58% of residents are renters. The average monthly rent for a unit in Berkeley is $2,700 or about 32% higher than the national median.2 Amid soaring costs, many long-term residents have been pushed out. In the last half century, Berkeley has lost close to two thirds of its African American community – many displaced by the rising cost of housing. In Alameda County, where the Median Family Income is $147,000, a 1-bedroom apartment would be considered affordable to a “very low income” two-person household, earning 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) – $35,500, at no more than $887 a month - one third of the average rent in Berkeley. For a household of two earning 80% of AMI, or approximately $120,000, affordable rent for a 1-bedroom apartment would be no more than $2,366 - still lower than the average monthly rent in Berkeley.3
In the wake of mass displacement and increasing pressures on housing, the Berkeley City Council approved Mayor Arreguín’s Small Sites Program (SSP) in 2018 to prevent the 1 Leonard, Christian, and Sriharsha Devulapalli. “Where Is the Bay Area’s Housing Crisis Impacting People the Most? Here’s One Key Stat.” San Francisco Chronicle, 8 Dec. 2023. 2 “Berkeley, CA Rental Market.” Zillow Rental Manager, 9 Apr. 2024. 3 “Alameda County Housing & Community Development Income and Rent Limits.” Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department, 2023.

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
3 displacement of Berkeley residents and preserve permanent affordability in small to mid-sized buildings with 2-25 units. To make the program effective, Council partnered with local community land trusts which specialize in the preservation of units in smaller multi-unit buildings. One of the City’s partners in this effort, the Bay Area Community Land Trust, is a non- profit organization dedicated to developing affordable, sustainable, resident-controlled cooperative housing.

The first project funded by the SSP was the Stuart Street Co-Op Apartments in District 3. A joint venture between the Historic McGee Avenue Baptist Church and BACLT, the building had been vacant and deteriorating for 20 years before undergoing a full rehabilitation and becoming home to eight local families. With a per unit cost of $415,000, or a total cost of $3.3 million, the project cost about 40% less than the construction of new affordable housing in Alameda County, at an average cost of $726,469 per unit.4
In 2023, the Bay Area Community Land Trust renovated and rehabilitated 1685 Solano Avenue, where tenants were facing an illegal Ellis Act eviction, ensuring that the 13-unit building was preserved as permanent affordable housing. The cost to preserve and renovate these 13 units – most of which are spacious units with bay views, high ceilings, full kitchens and two- three- bedrooms, was $7.1 million or $546,154 per unit – about 30% lower than the cost to build new affordable units, often smaller and with fewer amenities, in Berkeley.

Despite numerous challenges during the pandemic years, BACLT completed these 2 highly complex acquisition/rehabilitation projects, bringing 21 high-quality, renovated housing units into the City’s permanent affordable housing portfolio at a total cost of $10.4 million. The success of these projects has been noted by Berkeley renters who frequently contact BACLT asking the Trust to acquire the residential properties they live in.

With these two highly successful projects completed, BACLT has identified 10 properties it could seek to purchase and preserve as soon as Small Sites Program funding becomes available.

Identified properties for potential purchase, rehabilitation and conversion to permanently affordable housing include:
● 2717 Derby Street
● 2627 California Street
● 1902 Virginia Street
● 1809 Tenth Street
● 2035 Ninth Street
● 2032 Parker Street
● 2416 Roosevelt Avenue
4 Bay Area Council Economic Institute.“How Much Does It Cost to Construct One Unit of Below Market Housing in the Bay Area?”, Bay Area Council Economic Institute, Accessed 10 Apr. 2024.

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
4 ● 1915 Delaware Street
● 2479 Virginia Street
● 2431 Oregon Street
Over the next two years, with a total of $16M in affordable housing funds, the Bay Area Community Land Trust estimates it can acquire and preserve around 48 to 64 units of permanent affordable housing.

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND LAWS
The City of Berkeley’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF) was established in 1990. The purpose of the HTF is to support the creation and preservation of affordable housing in Berkeley.

On February 14, 2017, Council referred to the City Manager Mayor Arreguín’s item requesting establishment of a Small Sites Program with a streamlined approval process. The program is intended to support the acquisition and renovation of small, multifamily rental properties of up to 25 units, especially those at risk of Ellis Act evictions, and add long-term affordability restrictions. The City’s Small Sites Program guidelines, approved on October 2, 2018, are based on the requirements for San Francisco’s Small Sites Program, which has been funding similar projects since 2014.

The explicit purpose of the City’s Small Sites Program is to support:

1. Acquisition and renovation of occupied, multifamily rental properties;

2. Conversion of rent controlled properties to restricted affordability; and

3. Potential conversion to limited- or non-equity housing cooperatives (LEHC).

The City’s expedited, over-the-counter Small Sites Program requires the City Council to formally designate Affordable Housing Trust funds into the Small Sites Program before projects can be proposed. City Staff then issues a “NOFA,” informing affordable housing providers of the availability of funds for projects qualifying for the Small Sites Program. Any not-for-profit housing developer can apply for Small Sites Program funds; in practice, only Land Trusts such as BACLT currently have a business model appropriate for the purchase and conversion of existing smaller buildings to permanently affordable housing.

Between 2015 and 2018, the Housing Trust Fund led to the construction of a total of 194 affordable units, including 86 very low income and 17 low income units. In 2018, voters passed Measure O to provide $135 million in bond funds for affordable housing. In 2019, the City awarded $950k in Small Sites Program funds from Measure U1 to the Bay Area Community Land Trust for the renovation and preservation of the 8-unit Stuart Street Apartments, targeted for Berkeley residents making up to 80 percent of Area Median Income. The City also awarded $37 million in local Measure O bond funds to support 6 new-build projects including 430 units. In

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
5 2020, the City executed contracts for $21.5 million in development funds for four additional new- construction affordable housing developments.5

CONSULTATION/OUTREACH OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
Councilmember Hahn has consulted with the Bay Area Community Land Trust and the organization has expressed interest and capacity to acquire and rehabilitate additional properties in the coming years, at an accelerated pace. The Trust has outlined a list of ten properties it is ready to approach for purchase as soon as funding is made available.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Small Sites Program has proven itself to be a valuable solution to help boost the City’s supply of affordable housing. The program has been successful in saving long-term tenants from displacement and preserving permanent affordable housing. When compared to new affordable housing development, acquisition and rehabilitation of existing small scale residential properties results in less expensive per-unit costs and more environmentally friendly outcomes.

IMPLEMENTATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND ENFORCEMENT
Having successfully completed two projects, the Bay Area Community Land Trust has the capacity and expertise to continue administering the Small Sites program and expanding the City’s affordable housing portfolio. Other Land Trusts may also reach out to apply for Small Sites funds when made available. The City has established processes for administering the Small Sites program and monitors compliance with affordable housing, habitability, and other requirements. While the first two projects were time-consuming for City housing staff, lessons learned from the initial two projects and capacity building at BACLT should result in lower per- project/unit investments on the part of City staff going forward.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Rehabilitating existing structures is generally more environmentally friendly than building new from the ground up.6 New construction is material-intensive, creates more waste, requires the transportation of extracted materials, and often demolition, resulting in significantly more greenhouse gas emissions than acquisition and rehabilitation of existing housing. Rehabilitation of existing units brings them to high energy efficiency code standards, reducing ongoing emissions - and costs - from building operations.

FISCAL IMPACTS
$8 million per year for a total of $16 million over 2 years from the General Fund, Housing Trust Fund, or other existing Affordable Housing funds for the Small Sites Program, plus an additional $350,000 in capacity building grant funds. Funding for the Small Sites program already exists in 5 Housing Element Update 2023-2031.” City of Berkeley, 17 Feb. 2023 6 Hanscom, Greg. “This Old House: Why Fixing Up Old Homes Is Greener than Building New Ones.” Grist, 5 Jan. 2012,

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
6 the Affordable Housing Trust Fund or in Measure O Bond funds, Measure P and/or U1 funds, and anticipated Measure M funds.

Measure U1 was a 2016 affordable housing measure that raised the business license tax on landlords in Berkeley and passed with almost 75% of the vote. Generating $4.9 million a year, the measure has since provided funding for projects like the Berkeley Way Apartments and Hope Center and the Maudelle Miller Shirek Community.7
Measure M, the Empty Homes tax, applies to residential properties that are vacant for at least 182 days a year and passed in 2022 with almost 65% of the vote. As a general tax, revenue from Measure M is deposited directly into the General Fund for any municipal services.

However, the Council can also deposit any portion of proceeds generated by Measure M into the Housing Trust Fund. Measure M is expected to bring in between $3.9 and $5.9 million annually, beginning in FY 2025.8

OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION
With $8 million per year, the Bay Area Community Land Trust expects to rehabilitate between 3 and 4 buildings. Once BACLT acquires a property, it will report back to the City Council the cost of acquisition and rehabilitation, as well as the total number of units that will be brought into the City’s affordable housing portfolio.

CONTACT
Councilmember Sophie Hahn, (510) 981-7150
7 “Measure U1 Budget Forecast.” City of Berkeley.
8 “Measure M Vacancy Tax.” City of Berkeley.

Internal

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
1 Sophie Hahn
Councilmember, District 5
City of Berkeley
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA, 94704
(510) 981-7150 | [email protected]
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Author); Councilmembers Humbert, Taplin, and Bartlett (Co-Sponsors)
Subject: Budget Referral to Continue Market Match Program for Low-Income Berkeley Residents in the Event of Statewide Program Cuts

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the FY2025-26 Budget Process up to $360,000 (up to $180,000 per year) to safeguard the Market Match program for two fiscal years, supporting over 10,000 low-income Berkeley residents in accessing fresh local produce from Berkeley Farmers’ Markets.

SUMMARY STATEMENT
Market Match is California’s healthy food incentive program, which matches customers’ federal nutrition assistance benefits at farmers’ markets and other farm-direct sites. Market Match is a public-private partnership to reduce diet-related illnesses among California’s low-income shoppers and stabilize farming communities in some of the nation’s most economically vulnerable farming regions.

Market Match is distributed by over 60 community-based organizations and farmers’ market operators at over 275 sites across the state. Berkeley’s Ecology Center, which helped develop and pioneered the program, manages Market Match statewide.

Market Match has been proposed to be cut from the 2024-2025 State Budget. While advocates at the state level are working hard to restore funding, Berkeley must ensure that local funds are available for low-income Berkeley residents to continue accessing fresh and healthy food in the event the State program is reduced or cut.
10,000 low-income residents in Berkeley access fresh local produce at Berkeley’s Farmers’ Markets through Market Match. If funds are cut, not only will low-income residents lose a critically important benefit, but local vendors and farmers will lose important revenues.

This item refers up to $360,000 over two years to allow for the continuation of the Market Match program in Berkeley, should the statewide program be eliminated from the State budget. Should the statewide program be reduced but not eliminated, a portion of these funds will be made available to ensure Berkeley residents can still access the full benefits. Should the program be fully retained by the State, no funds will be needed from the City of Berkeley. In all cases, the program would be administered for the City of Berkeley through the Ecology Center.

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
2 BACKGROUND
In 2003, the Supplemental Food Assistance Program moved its currency from paper “food stamps” to Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards. As the new electronic system required a point-of-sale device that had electricity and a phone line, which are not typically available at farmers’ markets, this left farmers across the state unable to accept EBT from low-income shoppers, excluding them from the benefit of purchasing directly from California’s leading farming families. It also cut off important sale opportunities for struggling small and mid-sized farmers, many of whom have been innovators and leaders in sustainability, climate resilience, fair treatment of workers, biodiversity, organic certification, and other movements.

The Ecology Center engaged county, state, and federal officials to develop a system in which a single battery-powered cellular point-of-sale device operated by the market management would create an opportunity for CalFresh shoppers to spend their benefits directly with California farmers once again. The Ecology Center provided technical assistance to other markets statewide and advanced state legislation such that today 2/3 of all farmers’ markets in California have this service available to their customers and farmers.

When shoppers use their federal nutrition benefits at farmers’ markets and other farm-direct outlets, Market Match provides matching funds so customers can buy even more fruits and vegetables. For example, a customer who spends $15 of CalFresh benefits at the farmers’ market receives an additional $15 to spend on fresh produce, for a total of $30 to spend at the market. It is a triple-win program addressing health equity, food insecurity, and economic development.

Joining forces with national leaders, the Ecology Center managed to secure federal funding in the Farm Bill through a program called the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), and received matching funds from the federal government to administer this program.

After receiving this funding, the Ecology Center began offering the program in Berkeley directly and subcontracting with other market operators across the state to provide this program under one name, Market Match. During these years, charitable donations and private grant money supplied dollar-for-dollar matching to bring in federal funds and the program grew from a dozen farmers’ markets to nearly 100 statewide.

In 2015, working with Assemblymember Phil Ting, the Ecology Center, and other key partners helped create the California Nutrition Incentive Program (CNIP) in the newly formed Office of Farm to Fork in the State Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). In subsequent efforts, the Ecology Center and its partners successfully advocated for state funding to match and draw down federal funding.

In 2016, $5 million was allocated by the State; in 2018, $10 million and in 2021, $20 million.

During the pandemic, an additional $6 million was made available by the federal government to meet the growing demand.

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
3 By 2023, the program provided $19.4 million or 38.8 million servings of fresh fruit and vegetables to over 574,000 shoppers at 294 markets. And it has only grown in popularity – last year, 9% of shoppers who took advantage of the program were first-timers.1 However, without committed state funds in the next fiscal year, the program will not be able to continue past 2024. The GusNIP competitive grant program application period will be in FY23- 24, and it requires a committed, 100% match of state, local, or private funding.

If the City of Berkeley doesn’t ensure funds are available to subsidize this program at the same level of funding in 2024, 10,000 Berkeley residents who depend on Market Match will have these benefits come to an abrupt end. Not only will this negatively impact low-income residents' access to fresh fruits and vegetables, it will also harm local California farmers who rely on revenue generated from Farmers’ Markets.

For these reasons, the City of Berkeley must act to protect Market Match for its residents.

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND LAWS
CalFresh, known federally as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, provides monthly food benefits to individuals and families with low-income and provides economic benefits to communities. It is the largest farm direct food assistance program in California and provides an essential hunger safety net.

ACTIONS/ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
If the City of Berkeley chooses not to safeguard the Market Match program, some 10,000 Berkeley residents may struggle to access fresh fruits and vegetables at their local farmers’ markets, leading to potentially worse health outcomes for already vulnerable communities.

CONSULTATION/OUTREACH OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
Councilmember Hahn has consulted with the Ecology Center, which has expressed strong support for the continuation of the program.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
In California, CalFresh offers up to $291 per month to residents earning up to $18,921. This is nowhere near enough to support low-income shoppers in purchasing fresh, healthy foods in alignment with the City’s nutrition and healthy environment goals.

Despite overall good health, Berkeley is not yet a city where all people are living long lives and achieving the highest possible level of health. With a poverty rate of 18%, accessing healthy foods remains an equity issue, with some studies indicating that purchasing healthy foods costs 1 “Market Match is a Food Safety Program that Sustains Local Economy.” 2023 Market Match Impact Report, https://marketmatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2023-Market-Match-Statewide- Impact_2024.2.8-3.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar. 2024.

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
4 twice as much as purchasing unhealthy foods.23 A 2013 Harvard study found that on average, a healthy diet costs $1.50 more a day or $550 a year than an unhealthy diet, creating barriers for low-income households.4
This is where programs like Market Match can make a difference and fill the gaps between what families need and what our federal and state social safety nets provide.

IMPLEMENTATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND ENFORCEMENT
The Ecology Center will continue to administer the program as it has in the past. Funding would be provided to the Ecology Center to continue the program in Berkeley only. Should the Market Match program be eliminated entirely by the State, the City would provide $180,000 per year for two years, with most funds being disbursed directly to low-income farmers’ market customers and the remainder covering the Ecology Center’s staffing and administrative costs. Should the State reduce but not eliminate funding for Market Match, the City would backfill direct subsidies to community members.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Market Match encourages the purchase of fresh, sustainable foods directly from local farmers and food artisans. Many of these vendors are organic, regenerative, and most importantly local.

Buying locally not only generates jobs and supports the local economy, but reduces the unnecessary transport of goods thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

FISCAL IMPACTS
Up to $360,000 from the City’s General Fund over the next two years (up to $180,000 per year); only if there are reductions to the program at the State level, or the program is eliminated.

OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION
Consider whether Berkeley residents are taking advantage of the program, the impact to farmers’ market vendors, and the positive impacts on nutrition, health, and wellbeing of low- income community members. If the Ecology Center is successfully administering the program, and residents and farmers continue to benefit, the City should – upon conclusion of this two- year period and if the State does not restore funding – consider expanding the program for another two-year period.

CONTACT
Sophie Hahn, District 5, (510) 981-7150
2 “City of Berkeley Community Action Plan 2023, Community Needs Assessment.” The City of Berkeley, berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting- attachments/DRAFT_2024_2025_Community%20Needs%20Assessment.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar. 2024. 3 Karsit, Idil. “Healthy Foods Are Often More Expensive. Here’s Why.” CNBC, 27 Dec. 2023, www.cnbc.com/2023/12/27/healthy-foods-are-often-more-expensive-heres-why.html. 4 “Eating Healthy vs. Unhealthy Diet Costs about $1.50 More per Day.” Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 13 Jan. 2014, www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/healthy-vs-unhealthy-diet- costs-1-50-more/.

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
5 Attachments:

1. Market Match 2023 Impact Report

CalFresh & Market Match
Spent with Local Farmers
$311,553 3
Participating
Sites
623,000
Estimated Servings
of Fruits & Vegetables
Market Match is a 15 year-old program funded by federal, state and private funds that incentivizes CalFresh (known as SNAP on a federal level) recipients to spend their benefits with California farmers on fresh fruits and vegetables. The program provides a dollar-for- dollar match on CalFresh purchases, up to a daily maximum, at hundreds of locations across 38 California counties.

Consumers spent $311,553 of their CalFresh and Market Match incentives at 3 sites in this district. This spending represented a 255% increase in total dollars spent and 174% increase in customers served compared to 2019, showing us that Market Match is a safety net program meeting the growing needs of low income Californians during and post- pandemic. In this district, we estimate that this program led to the purchase of about 623,000 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables.²
Since the beginning of the pandemic, CalFresh
enrollment has grown significantly, with Californians
struggling to afford food for their families. As a result, spending on fresh produce through the Market Match
program has nearly tripled from 2019-2022.

Between 2019 and 2022, the statewide Market
Match program grew nearly 300%. In 2022, the
Program led to $19.5 million in spending of Market
Match and CalFresh on fresh produce at 270
participating locations.

Berkeley, CA | Market Match 2023 Impact Report | Jan 2024 www.marketmatch.org
About the Statewide Market Match Program
State funding for Market Match is
part of a federal matching
program that brought $30 million
into California between 2017 and
2023. If funded, Market Match is
expected to bring more than $13
million into California next year.

Researchers estimate that for
every $1 of Market Match spent,
an additional $3 is generated in
the California economy.¹
Economic Impact
Impact in Berkeley, CA (2023)
(2) According to the USDA ERS, one serving of fruits and vegetables costs $0.50: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fruit- and-vegetable-prices/
(1) “The Economic Contributions of Healthy Food Incentives” Dawn Thilmany, Allison Bauman, Erin Love, Becca B. R. Jablonski.

Colorado State University. 2021 https://marketmatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Economic_Contributions_Incentives.pdf Market Match is a Food Safety Net
Program that Sustains Local Economy

Market Match is currently funded through the CDFA California Nutrition Incentive Program (CNIP) and the USDA Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program. The Market Match program reinvests state and federal dollars into small and mid-sized farms and the rural California communities where they are located and increases the spending power of low- income Californians, which is needed now more than ever. "I'm eating better because
I can afford to get fresh
food, fresh vegetables and
fruit that I wouldn't get
otherwise.
– Market Match Customer
An investment of $35 million of state funds into CNIP could bring significant federal dollars into the state and will lead to tremendous economic impact for the state since every $1 invested in Market Match results in an additional $3 to the local economy.

However without committed state funds in the next fiscal year, the program will not be able to continue past 2024. The GusNIP competitive grant program application period will be in FY23-24, and it requires a committed, 100% match of state, local or private funding. 2024-25 State Budget Funds Needed to Meet
Low-Income Californians’ Fresh Food Access
and to Support Economic Recovery
The Ecology Center is lead contractor under the CDFA Office to Farm to Fork’s California Nutrition Incentive Program responsible for implementing the Market Match program statewide. The Ecology Center subcontracts with 50+ local partners to implement Market Match. For more information visit www.MarketMatch.org.
www.marketmatch.org
Berkeley, CA | Market Match 2023 Impact Report
North Berkeley Farmers‘ Market
Thursdays 3pm - 7pm year round
Shattuck Ave and Vine St.

Berkeley, CA
South Berkeley Farmers‘ Market
Tuesdays 2pm - 6:30pm year round
Adeline St and 63rd St Berkeley, CA
Market Match locations in Berkeley CA:

Downtown Berkeley Farmers‘ Market
Saturdays 10am - 3pm year round
Center Street and MLK Jr Way
Berkeley, CA

"Helped my partner and I
eat fresh and healthy food
we otherwise wouldn’t
have much access too.
– Market Match Customer
www.marketmatch.org
Berkeley, CA | Market Match Impact Report
"At 78 years old, I am still working as a
self-employed person. I hope to be able
to work until 85. If not, it is going to be
very difficult for me to pay my rent, let
alone buy food. The Market Match is
essential for me
-Berkeley Market Match customer
"Market Match helps me to cook with healthy
and local ingredients on a limited budget. It
has introduced many low-income people and
families to the farmers market, making it more
accessible to all. I had never been able to afford
to shop at the farmers market before Market
match and if it gets cut I likely will not be able
to continue going there.
-Berkeley Market Match customer

Internal

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 7, 2024
1 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Author), Councilmember Wengraf (Co- Sponsor)
Subject: Co-Sponsorship and Budget Referral for the Solano Avenue Stroll

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution for the City of Berkeley to Co-Sponsor the Solano Avenue Association’s September 2024 and September 2025 Solano Avenue Stroll events and to provide in-kind services previously provided at no cost to the Solano Stroll, including but not limited to police, fire, zero waste, and public works, at no cost to the September 2024 and 2025 Solano Stroll events.

2. Refer $10,000 per year to the FY 2025-2026 Budget Process ($20,000 total) to support the September 2024 and 2025 Solano Stroll events.

SUMMARY STATEMENT
The Solano Avenue Stroll (the “Stroll” or the “Solano Stroll”), is an annual, multicultural event that draws visitors of all ages, backgrounds, and abilities from Berkeley and neighboring communities. The event is an inclusive, no-barrier, family-friendly, outdoor celebration that is and always has been free to the public.

The Solano Stroll is the largest street fair in the East Bay, drawing crowds of up to 250,000 people and spans both Berkeley and Albany. The scale and importance of this free public event is unique in Berkeley and the region and requires a singular level of support and partnership from the cities of Berkeley and Albany. For these reasons, the Stroll has for decades received in-kind and direct monetary support from both cities.

Producing the Stroll is a uniquely complex and time-consuming undertaking. The Solano Avenue Association, with a board of 15 volunteers – who also own and run their own local businesses – works diligently to produce the Stroll on an exceptionally frugal "shoestring" budget.

Internal
2 Following a two-year break due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City, as it always has, provided in-kind City services such as police and public works to support the 2022 and 2023 events. In addition, the City provided annual grants of $20,000 per year to support the North Berkeley BART shuttle, marketing, and other out-of-pocket expenses. This higher-than-usual level of grant was provided to help the Stroll regain participation of both vendors and members of the public after a two-year hiatus and drop-off in participation related to the pandemic.

With enhanced funds provided by the City of Berkeley for the September 2022 and 2023 events, and a surge of interest in outdoor social events that materialized after several years of caution, the 2023 Solano Stroll drew the highest attendance for any Stroll to date.

The Solano Avenue Association has repeatedly expressed its gratitude to Berkeley and Albany for providing additional funds to continue producing this event in the face of pandemic-related losses. Because of the Stroll’s renewed success, the Solano Avenue Association has determined that in-kind services plus $10,000 per year from the City of Berkeley (reduced from $20,000 per year that were provided in FY 2023 and 2024) will be sufficient to support the event’s success over the next two years.

To facilitate continuity of planning and support for this important annual event, this item seeks to commit City sponsorship, in-kind services, and a reduced grant of $10,000 per year for each of the September 2024 and September 2025 events.

BACKGROUND
The Solano Avenue Association was formed in 1974 and achieved nonprofit status in 1983. The Association’s signature annual event, the Solano Avenue Stroll, draws approximately 250,000 people over the course of a free, outdoor, closed-street, family- friendly, smoke- and alcohol-free one-day event which spans 26 blocks and more than a full mile of Solano Avenue, from The Alameda to San Pablo Avenue, in both Berkeley and Albany. In 2000, the Solano Avenue Stroll became an official “Local Legacy,” installed into the United States Library of Congress with the help of Congresswoman Barbara Lee and was recognized as celebrating “America's rich diverse culture.” Now in its 48th year, the Solano Avenue Stroll has been sponsored with both services and funds by the Cities of Berkeley and Albany for longer than the Solano Avenue Association has records; meaning at least 20 years.

Internal
3 The Stroll draws both locals and visitors. In 2013, a zip code survey was taken from 453 event goers and recorded 139 different zip codes from across the Bay Area. On the east end, the Stroll is referred to as “Berkeley’s Reunion,” and on the west end much of Albany turns out. Both ends are united by the festive Parade that kicks-off the event, starting at the top of the street with dancers, bands, floats and youth and families from many schools and organizations.

The Solano Avenue Association works actively to minimize the environmental impact of the Stroll. In addition to regular AC Transit service, free event-day shuttles provide rides from 10AM to 7PM to and from the North Berkeley BART Station and up and down the length of Marin Avenue, making stops at intersections with stop lights on Marin. Free valet bicycle parking, provided by the Albany High School Cougars mountain biking team and the Albany Strollers & Rollers, will be available at 1275 Solano Ave.

Recycling and composting are part of the zero waste ethos of the event. In 2022, the Solano Avenue Association began requiring all vendors to provide only compostable bags and foodware, unless items are not available due to supply chain challenges, or for health and safety reasons (to avoid spilling of hot liquids, for example). Recycling and composting bins have and will continue to be provided along the entire route of the event.

The Solano Stroll typically features over 500 vendors, including 50 entertainers representing a wide variety of cultures, food from 50 booths and local restaurants representing cuisines from all the continents, 150 government and non-profit agencies, 150 juried handcrafters, a 75- participant parade with local bands, performers, schools, and organizations, safe mechanical rides for children, and more.

The Stroll gives people from near and far a rare opportunity to see, experience and learn about everything our unique community has to offer. The event is family friendly and supported by diverse not-for-profit and government organizations. Approximately 75% of participating nonprofits use Berkeley booth locations to broadcast their mission to the public. The event allows for meaningful outreach and direct contact with the populations that these vital community organizations serve, including low-income clients who may have few other free and public opportunities to learn of available programs and services, and offers a unique opportunity to recruit volunteers and donors.

There is a “green zone” for environmental organizations, an area for health and wellness organizations, affordable housing and homeless services providers, libraries, police, fire and other city and county departments, schools, sports teams, transit

Internal
4 providers, student and neighborhood associations, faith institutions, and political parties and associations, among others. Many elected officials from the State, County, region and local cities and school districts also participate, to connect in person with the hundreds of thousands of constituents who attend the Stroll. All of these groups and individuals rely on the unique exposure the Solano Stroll provides and consider participation a key annual activity to connect with stakeholders and potential clients. 92% of participating organizations and vendors return each year.

A list of recent Stroll business, arts, and organizational participants is attached hereto.

Due to the popularity and reputation of the Solano Avenue Stroll, both the cities of Berkeley and Albany, as well as the community at large, have benefitted from the exposure the event has garnered. Many local businesses and organizations have gained a loyal following by first participating as a vendor at the event, and some have found permanent store-front homes along Solano Avenue and now contribute to the local economy with community-oriented goods and services. The Stroll draws significant traffic to local restaurants, retail businesses, and arts and culture venues who participate in the event. Most recently, a number of businesses have made Solano Avenue home during the pandemic, risking an investment in our local economy at a very challenging time, and the Stroll will provide a great opportunity for the community to discover and welcome them to the neighborhood.

Solano Avenue merchants, both longstanding and newly arrived, benefit from the exposure to approximately 250,000 potential customers who see Solano’s products and services. While not every business registers a boost in sales the day of the Stroll, positive economic activity generated by the event continues for months.1 The Stroll also raises revenues and enhances the City’s reputation locally and regionally, engendering significant goodwill. The event is well-known and beloved by the community and an opportunity for people beyond Berkeley and Albany to discover these communities and has been a source of pride for both Berkeley and Albany for five decades.

It takes about 600 staff-hours to produce the Solano Stroll, plus thousands of additional volunteer hours, and the event is one of only four in the United States and Canada that operates in two municipalities simultaneously. The scale and complexity of the Solano 1“A Brief History of the Solano Avenue Stroll,” Solano Avenue Association. https://www.solanoavenueassn.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/solanoavenuestrollhistory.pdf

Internal
5 Stroll is unique and requires coordination among municipalities and with the Solano Avenue Association to ensure security, zero waste, toilet facilities, parade staging, set- up and take-down of performance, commerce, and event spaces, electricity, barricades, and other services and elements. Despite the magnitude of the Stroll, Solano Avenue is virtually spotless and fully restored to normal operations within 24 hours of the close of the event.

This item asks the City of Berkeley to register its official sponsorship of the September 2024 and 2025 Stroll events (taking place in FY 2025 and 2026), commit to continue providing services traditionally offered to the Stroll at no cost, and refer $10,000 in sponsorship for each of the two years (for a total of $20,000 from the FY 2025/2026 Budget).

In sponsoring the Stroll in all these ways, Berkeley joins the City of Albany and businesses like Albany Subaru, Mechanics Bank, Belmont Village, East Bay Community Energy, Andronico’s, L.J. Kruse, Sun Light & Power, Northeastern University, WM, and Total Health Dental Care, and acknowledges the thousands of volunteer hours donated by the Solano Avenue Association Board of Directors and other volunteers.

The Solano Avenue Association looks forward to working more closely than ever with the City of Berkeley, its Councilmembers, Visit Berkeley, and the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce, among others, to ensure everyone in Berkeley knows they are cordially invited to upcoming Stroll events.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The Stroll minimizes climate impacts by operating on a street easily accessed by numerous AC Transit bus routes and offering a popular no-cost shuttle to and from the North Berkeley BART Station, plus free valet bike parking. Ample additional bike parking is available throughout the area of the Stroll, and many participants simply walk from home to participate. In addition, the Solano Stroll provides compost and recycling facilities throughout the event and will prohibit the use of non-compostable bags and throw-away foodware items by all vendors, except where necessary for health and safety or due to supply chain constraints.

FISCAL IMPACTS
As noted above, the Solano Avenue Stroll provides day-of and residual income to local businesses, and generates significant regional exposure and goodwill, contributing to the local tax base and economy. The item refers $20,000 in sponsorships over two

Internal
6 years ($10,000 per year) and donation of in-kind services associated with the Solano Stroll event, as has been the practice for the City of Berkeley for decades.

CONTACT
Councilmember Sophie Hahn, (510) 981-7166
Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Photos

3. Recent Booth and Parade Participants List

Internal
7 RESOLUTION #####-N.S.

CITY OF BERKELEY CO-SPONSORSHIP AND SUPPORT FOR THE 2024 AND 2025

SOLANO AVENUE STROLL EVENTS
WHEREAS, The annual Solano Avenue Stroll is a public event which brings together the expression, enjoyment, and diversity of our community in an inclusive, no-barrier, family friendly, outdoor celebration that is and always has been free to the public; and WHEREAS, the Solano Avenue Stroll is the largest street fair in the East Bay, drawing crowds of up to 250,000 people over the course of a single day and spanning two cities:

Berkeley and Albany; and
WHEREAS, The scale and importance of this free public celebration is unique in Berkeley and the region, and requires a singular level of support and partnership from both the cities of Berkeley and Albany; and
WHEREAS, The Solano Avenue Stroll, now in its 48th year, has been sponsored with both in-kind services and funds by the cities of Berkeley and Albany for longer than the Solano Avenue Association has records; at least 20 years; and WHEREAS, The Solano Stroll typically features over 500 vendors, including 50 entertainers representing a wide variety of cultures, food from 50 booths and local restaurants representing cuisines from all the continents, 150 government and non- profit agencies, 150 handcrafters, a 75-participant parade with local bands, performers, schools, and organizations, safe mechanical rides for children, and more; and WHEREAS, The Solano Stroll is well-known and beloved by the community and has been a source of pride for both Berkeley and Albany for almost five decades; and WHEREAS, The Solano Stroll raises revenues and enhances the City’s reputation locally and regionally, engendering significant goodwill; and WHEREAS, The Solano Avenue Association, producer of the Stroll event, works actively to minimize the environmental impact of the Stroll, providing a free Shuttle to and from North Berkeley BART station, free valet bike parking, and will require vendors to offer only compostable bags and foodware; and

Internal
8 WHEREAS, in recognition of the diversity and reach of the event, the Solano Avenue Stroll has had the honor of being selected by Congresswoman Barbara Lee for inclusion at the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. as a “National Local Legacy”; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has a longstanding practice of providing annual support for the Solano Avenue Stroll through cash grants to the Solano Avenue Association and the provision of in-kind services at no cost; and WHEREAS, Berkeley’s increased grants over the two years immediately following the pandemic, which allowed for extended marketing, BART shuttles, and other enhancements, have resulted in rebuilding the success of pre-pandemic Strolls; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City of Berkeley shall be an official Co-Sponsor of the Solano Avenue Association’s 2024 and 2025 Solano Avenue Stroll events, currently scheduled for Sunday, September 8, 2024 and Sunday, September 14, 2025, taking place on Solano Avenue in both Berkeley and Albany; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Berkeley shall provide in-kind City services to the Solano Stroll, including but not limited to police, fire, zero waste, and public works services, at no cost to the September 2024 and 2025 Solano Avenue Stroll events.

Internal
9 Solano Stroll Booth and Parade Participants 2023
19 Hands Jewelry
A Walk With Phil
Aaron Eminger Watercolors
ADES

AFS-USA
After the Gold Rush
Alameda County Auditor-Controller/Clerk-Recorder Agency Alameda County Behavioral Health Director’s Executive Team Alameda County Democratic Party
Alameda County District Attorney
Alameda County Law Library
Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Alameda County Probation
Alameda County Public Health Department
Alameda County Social Services Agency
Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson’s Office
Alameda County Transportation Commission
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Albany Berkeley Soccer Club
Albany CERT Inc
Albany Democratic Club
Albany Fire Department
Albany High School Dance Department
Albany High School Jazz
Albany High School Mountain Biking Team
Albany Jazz Big Band
Albany Police Department
Albany Property Rights Advocates
Albany Sauna, Massage Therapy & Hot Tubs
Albany Strollers & Rollers
Albany Subaru
Albany Thrives Together
Albany Unified School District
Aloha Pediatric Dentistry
Alpineer Club
Altar Ceramics
Aly Maky

Internal
10 Alzheimer’s Association
Amy’s Face Painting
Andronico’s Community Markets
Anime Island
Antiques on Solano
Art Corner Academy
As You Wish Frozen Yogurt
Ashby Lumber
Ashby Village
Ashkenaz Music & Dance Community Center
Asian Art Foundation
Aunt Betty’s Gourmet Corn Dogs
Aurora Theatre Company
Back Pages
Barberella Beauty Lounge
Bay Area Alternative Press
Bay Area Brain Spa
Bay Area Experience – Mark Otis
BAYCO
Belmont Village
Berkeley Albany Girl Scouts
Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association
Berkeley Buddhist Priory
Berkeley Camera Club
Berkeley City Auditor
Berkeley Democratic Club
Berkeley Disaster Preparedness Neighborhood Network
Berkeley Fire Department – Office of Emergency Services Berkeley Fire Department – Wildland Urban Interface Division Berkeley Folk Dancers
Berkeley Food Network
Berkeley High Robotics Team 5419 Berkelium
Berkeley High School Jazz
Berkeley Historical Society & Museum
Berkeley Lab
Berkeley Lacrosse Club
Berkeley Morris
Berkeley Path Wanderers Association
Berkeley Playhouse

Internal
11 Berkeley Police Department
Berkeley Public Schools Fund
Berkeley School
Berkeley Unified School District
Berkeley YMCA U-Jam
Berkeleyside
Best Gay Ever Tattoo
Beyond the Spell
Big Bubble People
Black Pine Circle School
Black Pine Circle School Band
Blade & Arrow
Bottle of Clouds
Boy Scouts of America GGAC
Breedloves & Friends
Brenda’s Ceramics and Jewelry
By Three Bears
Cactus Taqueria
California Council of the Blind
California Section of the American Chemical Society
California Tarot
Catholic Funeral and Cemetery Services
Cazadero Music Camp
Center for Early Childhood Connections
Chabad of El Cerrito
Chain Two Collective
Charlie Frank Pies
Child Therapy Institute of Marin
Chris Kindness Award
Church of Divine Man dba Berkeley Psychic Institute
Church on the Corner
Citizens Climate Lobby, Alameda County
Citizens for East Shore Parks
City of Albany
City of Berkeley Office of Economic Development
City of Berkeley Public Works
City of Berkeley Recreation Division
City of Berkeley Rent Board
CJ’s Barbeque & Fish

Internal
12 Classroom Matters
ClimateChangeEducation.org
Congregation Beth El
Consilience
Corn Bread Willie
Craftup
Crowden Music Center
Cruising Cones 6
Cumbia Paradiso
Cutie Pop Nail Shop
Dan Kalb for State Senate 2024
Del Mars
Delicious Kettle Corn
Delightful Foods
Demby Co
Derek’s co (Crazy Copy Hats)
Diana Yoshida
Didi Jewelry Project
District Homes
DJ boyof$summer
DoctorofBeauty, Christine Brozowski
Domino’s
Don Velez Woodturner
DOWNTOWNRHYTHM Band
Dreaming in Paradise
Dusty Rose Designs
EarthCapades
East Bay Center for the Blind
East Bay Community Energy
East Bay German International School
East Bay Heritage Quilters
East Bay Municipal Utility District
East Bay PEMA Specialists
East Bay Rose Society
East Bay School for Boys
East Bay Youth Rugby
Eastshore Alliance Futbol Club
Easy Does it Emergency Services
Eckankar of the East Bay

Internal
13 Ecole Bilingue de Berkeley
El Cerrito Trail Trekkers
Emeryville Taiko
Enjoyus
Epworth UMC Berkeley
Escuela Bilingue Internacional
Evolution Hot Sauce
Fern’s Garden
Fillgood
FIT4MOM 510
Folke
Fraternal Order of Eagles – Bayview Aerie
Freight & Salvage
Friends of Albany Library
Friends of the Albany Twin
Game On
Gamelan Sekar Jaya
Gangchen Gifts
Gaucho Dance Company/ECHS Dance
GenX Fitness LLC
God’s Creations
Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty
Golden Lion Martial Arts Academy
Golestan School
Good Research
Good Trubble
Gourmet Faire
Grape Craft Leather
Gray Panthers of Berkeley and the East Bay
Great Diamond Press, LLC
Green Party of Alameda County
Griffin Performance Judo
Grizzly Peak Fly Fishers
Groove Portal
Half Price Books
Hanabi Judo
Handmade by Renee
Happy Day Montessori School
Harvest Land

Internal
14 Hazel’s California Confections
Himalayan Tandoori Curry House
Himalayan Tribes
Holistic Life Skills
Honey Drop Gems
House of Hara
I Flip Gymnastics LLC
IBX Fitness
Idlewild West
Iyoba
Jack Justice and the Peace
Jamba Juice
Jane’s Homemade
Jay Scott Insurance & Financial Services, Inc.

Jewish Voices for Peace-Bay Area
Jimmy Becker
John Muir Trout Unlimited
Jovanka Beckles for State Senate 2024
JoyousJoyfulJoyness
K&J Eats LLC dba Dippin Dots
Kai Real Estate
Kalimba King (Carl Winters)
Karaoke, Hosted by Mel-o-dee Cocktails
Kathmandu
Kathmandu Gift School
Kathryn for State Senate
Katie’s Dance Studio & Company
Kennedy24.com
Kenny the Clown
Kensington Symphony Orchestra
Kirk McCarthy Designs
Kolo’s Finds
L.J. Kruse Company
Le Jazu
League of Women Voters Berkeley Albany Emeryville
Leopold Chiropractic
LifeLong Medical Care
Light and Breezy Paper
Linked & Co Permanent Jewelry

Internal
15 Lions Club of Albany
Little Shed Crafts
Little Tibet Gift Shop
Liz Patton Design
Los Nadies
Love the Bulb
Low Keys
Luna Bags
Ma’s Trading Company
MacLean Custom Screen Printing
Magical Face Paint by Gina
Main Street Food Concessions
Malaya Botanicals
Maoli Shave Ice
Marxo Lazo
Maru Hair Salon
Matsu Japanese Gifts
Mayor of Berkeley – Jesse Arreguin
Mechanics Bank
Medical Center of Marin – Albany
Mehfil Enterprise
The Menagerie Oddities Market
Mercy Kit
Metalsouls LLC
Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue
Midnight Kitchen
Mills College / Northeastern University
Moonsprouts
MoritaArts
Mountain Music
NALCO Northern Alameda County Emergency Amateur Radio
Nanas Bracelets
NARI San Francisco Bay Area CHapter
New York Life
Nomad Tibetan Restaurant
Norcal Sabeel
North Berkeley Wealth Management
Nourish Osteo & Wellness
Oakland Ski Club

Internal
16 Oaktown Spice Shop
Oasis Pro
Office of Assemblymember Buffy Wicks
Office of Congresswoman Barbara Lee
One Generation Camp
Orca Water Polo Club
Orchid Florist
Organic Attire
Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI) at UC Berkeley Oz+Otz
Pacific Boychoir
Palomacy Pigeon & Dove Adoptions
Pamana Plantas
Papa Seahorse
Paper for Keeps
Paper Sweetly
Pegasus Books
Peki Peki
Pet Adoptions and Street Boutique
Petite Jewel Box
Photopia
Pineapple Express
Pizza Twist
Pop Nation
Rad Power Bikes Berkeley
Raised on TV
RandomTechnology Design
Read-Aloud Volunteer Program
Renner Screen Printing
Ring Around the Toezees
Rock-It-Man Stoneworks
Rolling Hills Memorial Park
Ross Luna’s Sculptures
Rotation Community Services
Royal Scottish Country Dancers
Salvage Flows
Sam’s Toys
Sandre Swanson for State Senate
Saraba African Arts

Internal
17 Sari-Sari Shop
Save the Historic UA Theater
Schmidt’s Tobacco and Trading Co
School of the Madeleine
Seacology
Shoes on Solano
Shumei San Francisco
Signal Coffee Roasters
Silverado Memory Care
Simply Salma’s Treasures
Sisters of the Holy Names
Sites Show
Solano Ave Barber Shop
Solano Avenue B.I.D.

Solano Center for Psychological Services
Solano Cleaning Center
Solano COmmunity Church
Soneha
Sophie Hahn for Mayor 2024
StandWithUs
State Farm Insurance – Sonny Randhawa
STBY
Stone Room
Stratospheres
Strawberry Creek Quilts
Style by Illana
Sue Johnson: Custom Lamps & Shades
Suitcase Ron’s Kettle-korn
Sun Light and Power
Sundhari Spa
Sweet Basil Thai Cuisine
Tante’s LLC
Temple Beth Hillel
Tenzing Collections
Tha Siam Thai Bistro
Tibetan Golden Lotus
Tilden Preparatory School
Total Health Dental Care
Treats by the Bay

Internal
18 Treve Johnson Photography
Troupe Tangiers and Sharifa’s Habibis
Umani Home and Gift
Uncommon Poppy Shop
United Nations Association – East Bay Chapter
United State Coast Guard
Unlimited Fashions
USDA FSIS Western Laboratory
Vagabond Empire
Waste Management
Wilson Glass Co
Wind & Brass
Winkler Real Estate Group
Wilfe, Inc
Women's Daytime Drop-In Center
Xocolate Bar
YMCA Youth and Government
Yosemite Flower Farm
Young People’s Symphony Orchestra
Youth Musical Theater Company

Internal

CONSENT CALENAR
MAY 7, 2024
1 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Author), Mayor Arreguin (Co-Sponsor) Subject: CARE Program for Berkeley Fire

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the FY2025/2026 Budget Process funding for programs that offer care and support for our firefighters and emergency medical service workers (First Responders), the equipment they rely on, and the homes and workplaces we provide for them.

1. For a two-year Pilot Project to Screen for Cancer:
● $40,000 annually for two years to fund on-going age and risk-based full body cancer scans for First Responders that are subjected to carcinogens during the normal course of their work.

2. To add an FTE to the Fire Department for an In-House Fire Mechanic to service Fire Apparatus on-site and better meet the complex, unique, and time-sensitive needs of the Fire Department, and to save firefighters and the City time and money on outsourced maintenance service:
● $203,107 for one FTE, ongoing and inclusive of benefits, for a Lead Fire Mechanic.
● $350,000 in one-time funds to purchase the necessary tools and equipment.

3. For a Fire Reserve Program, offering internships with training to motivated High School graduates and/or college students who may enter the Fire Service after completion of the program, and to support recruitment:
● $120,000 per year, ongoing, to cover salaries for 6 interns, training, supervision, and equipment.

4. For one-time “FFE” (Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment) upgrades to all Fire Stations , including but not limited to new appliances, enhancements to prevent cancer (decontamination dryers, carcinogen-reducing soaps/detergents, etc.), lighting, furniture, and other amenities to improve living, health, and working conditions:
● $140,000 to provide $20,000 for each of the City’s seven Fire Stations in one fiscal year.

Internal CONSENT CALENAR MAY 7, 2024
2 ● Alternatively, $70,000 in FY 2025 and in FY 2026, providing $10,000 per year for each Fire Station over two years, for a two-year total of $140,000.

SUMMARY STATEMENT
Berkeley’s First Responders provide essential services to our community, 24/7. Unlike all other City staff, they are also required to live apart from their homes and families for 24 to 96 hour shifts, sleeping, eating, and taking care of personal needs in living quarters provided by the City of Berkeley.

In the course of their work, First Responders are exposed to toxins that are proven to increase risks of cancer. According to the U.S. Fire Administration, firefighters have a 9% higher risk of developing cancer and a 14% higher risk of dying from cancer compared to the general public.1 First Responders also rely on vehicles and equipment that are highly specialized, state-of-the- art, and must be in good working condition. If an engine is out of service or equipment is in need of cleaning or repair, First Responders cannot do their work at the highest levels of safety and effectiveness.

To ensure the City of Berkeley cares for the health and wellbeing of our First Responders and the facilities and equipment they rely on, this item proposes funding a suite of initiatives that provide the care and support our Fire Department needs to deliver their critical services to the community.

Care for our Firefighters' Health: Advanced cancer screening for individuals with the longest exposure to toxins associated with Fire Service will allow for early, pre-emptive detection and early treatment of cancers.

Care for the Vehicles our First Responders and Community Rely On: An in-House Lead Fire Mechanic will provide rapid, on-site repairs to fire apparatus, ensuring vehicles are in good working condition at all times, increasing regular maintenance to delay or avoid major repairs, keeping apparatus in use rather than waiting for smaller mechanical matters to be serviced off-site, and saving both time and money for the City.

Support for Routine Tasks and Recruitment of Future First Responders: Interns hired through the Fire Reserve Program will support logistics, training, equipment maintenance and more. The program will also allow for the development of skills and relationships that build bridges to the City’s recruitment pipeline. Similar programs in other jurisdictions have yielded a stream of interested and qualified candidates for entry level classifications.
1 “Impact of Occupational Cancer.” U.S. Fire Administration, 11 Oct. 2022, www.usfa.fema.gov/about/usfa-events/2022-10-11-usfa-summit/firefighter-cancer/.

Internal CONSENT CALENAR MAY 7, 2024
3 Care for First Responders’ Homes and Workplaces: While major remodels/rebuilds of Fire Stations as called for the in the Fire Department’s Facility Master Plan are not currently funded, small upgrades and amenities can make a big difference in the comfort, health, and enjoyment of these homes-away-from-home, which also double as workspaces. By providing the Fire Department with the equivalent of $20,000 per station over one or two years, small upgrades and amenities, including purchase of equipment and products that can reduce cancer risks, can be acquired to make a significant positive difference in the lives, health, and work of First Responders.

BACKGROUND
Introduction:

The Berkeley Fire Department operates out of seven fire stations, most of which were built during the 1960s. During the 1960s-70s, ten stations were reduced to seven, the workweek was reduced from 63 to 56 hours per week, and staffing was reduced from four firefighters per engine company to three. Currently, there are nine fire companies, amounting to a total of 120 firefighters. The Department is in the process of staffing ambulances with non-firefighter paramedics, with 15 currently employed. The most recent class began in October 2023, and the transition is due to be completed by July 2025, with a full ambulance staff of 32.

Budget and staffing cuts have occurred against the backdrop of growing population and increased housing and commercial space, including many mid- and high-rise structures. In a September 13 report to the City Council, Chief Sprague highlighted some of the challenges faced by the department as a result of underinvestment, including potential staff shortages, slowed response times, and insufficient staff in the event of a severe fire or earthquake.

The June 8th, 2023 Standards of Cover Study and Community Risk Assessment report by Citygate Associates found that the Department’s minimum daily staffing is sufficient for a “modest single-family house fire or small commercial building fire at the ground floor.” However, current staffing levels are insufficient to provide necessary response to severe fires.

Fire Stations are in need of major repairs, as detailed in the Fire Department’s May 2023 Facilities Master Plan. While Berkeley Fire facilities have undergone some modifications since their construction, these improvements have not been to the extent necessary to “properly house modern apparatus, equipment, additional units and new staff, nor to meet current policy, codes and health, safety and inclusion standards. Additionally, many of the stations house outdated features (such as hose drying towers) and hinder healthy environmental practices (such as physical training in apparatus bays). Without further renovation, replacement or relocation, the stations will continue to fall short of addressing the present day needs and expanding and changing operational demands.”
Difficulties in recruitment are not unique to Berkeley. Low pay, poor work-life balance, and occupational hazards have resulted in a nationwide First Responder shortage. However, Berkeley can be a model for the nation by ensuring its responders, and their living and working conditions, get the care and attention they deserve.

Internal CONSENT CALENAR MAY 7, 2024
4 Cancer Screening - Background:

Firefighters are routinely exposed to carcinogens through inhalation, absorption, and even ingestion. When residential or commercial buildings burn, they release cancer-causing agents known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), asbestos, and diesel exhaust. Firefighters who responded to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center have been the subject of much research, and studies consistently confirm elevated rates of cancer. In the last year alone, five retired Berkeley Firefighters have been diagnosed with cancer.

Despite the statistics indicating the high risk of cancer among firefighters, individuals still experience obstacles to early cancer screenings because their occupation is often not taken into account. Recently, in a Memorandum of Understanding with its Fire Department, the City of Hayward approved annual cancer screenings for its Firefighters:
“The City will provide an annual comprehensive cancer screening mutually agreed upon by Local 1909 and the Fire Chief. All testing is to be scheduled and completed on-duty during the month of February each year.”
Berkeley Fire estimates a cost of $1,600 per person for advanced cancer screenings. The Cancer Screening Pilot will prioritize firefighters with the greatest number of years in fire service.

The first year will include all firefighters with at least 5 years working in the fire service, in order to get a baseline scan – this cost has been covered by the Department in FY24 with one-time funds that were available.

The rotation following the baseline year is based on risk, which generally correlates to age and years of service. Members that are 50 years of age or older receive a scan every 3 years, members between 36-49 years old receive a scan every 5 years, and members between 23-35 years old receive a scan every 7 years. This breakdown results in an annual budget of not more than $40,000 per year or $80,000 to fund the total cost of the two-year pilot.

In-House Mechanic - Background:

Currently the Berkeley Fire Department does not have its own dedicated, on-site mechanic.

Because Fire shares a mechanic with other departments centralized in Public Works, the Department often must seek outside repairs due to staffing, internal mechanic certification, vacancy rate, and workload. Because this is a highly specialized job, outsourcing repairs is extremely costly and time consuming. In 2022, the Department incurred $440,000 in apparatus maintenance costs, a majority of which was labor, through an outside vendor. In addition, when fire vehicles are sent to off-site shops, it requires hours of shuttling apparatus back and forth to Sacramento, using fire personnel that are assigned to other duties, and leaves these critical vehicles out of the City for weeks to months at a time.

In FY 2023, the Department spent $303,000 on maintenance and repairs within the first four months of the year. With a dedicated on-site mechanic, a greater portion of repairs could be accomplished in-house – at lower cost and with significantly fewer vehicle-days out of service.

Internal CONSENT CALENAR MAY 7, 2024
5 The Alameda County Fire Department has its own dedicated team of mechanics at its Vehicle Maintenance Facility, “responsible for maintaining the operational readiness of the Department’s fleet of apparatus and support vehicles. Performing routine and emergency repairs, safety inspections, preventative maintenance, communications equipment installation, and emergency apparatus outfitting.”2 This and other regional maintenance facilities are not able to service Berkeley’s fleet due to staffing, workload and facility constraints.

Berkeley can model its own in-house Fire Mechanic Service after Alameda County’s successful program. Hiring one full-time employee for this specialized function would save the City significant funds in the long-run and ensure appropriate apparatus are functional and available in the event of emergencies. Additionally, there may be an opportunity to contract this function out to nearby municipalities as a means to share a valued service, and gain revenue to support a robust program for Berkeley.

Fire Reserve Program - Background:

The Fire Department is experiencing challenges in recruitment and retention - as are Fire Departments throughout the Bay Area. In an increasingly competitive environment, it’s important for Berkeley to invest in the development of potential future Berkeley First Responders. The Fire Reserve Program is an effective strategy to recruit new talent by developing skills and relationships that can translate into a desire to join Berkeley Fire.

This program would see the creation of six paid part-time internships for young people to gain training and experience with the BFD. Berkeley Fire already has successful partnerships with Berkeley High School and YouthWorks, which can be expanded and improved upon.

Offering reserve positions to motivated individuals can yield substantial long-term benefits, particularly in the recruitment of full-time firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs. These programs provide meaningful experiences to our youth that translate to valuable life skills useful in day-to- day settings, making them more attractive to future employers. These programs also provide meaningful options for high school students who do not plan to attend college directly out of high school.

Fire Station Care Program - Background:

Fire Stations are not just workplaces; they are also homes where our first responders live for 24 to 96 hour shifts. They sleep, exercise, socialize, eat meals, and recreate in our stations, 24/7.

While this item does not address the need for major renovations, as documented in the recent Fire Facilities Master Plan Report that was delivered to Council on May 16, 2023, small changes can have outsized positive impacts on the comfort, health, and enjoyment of these homes- away-from-home.
2 “Stations and Facilities.” Alameda County Fire Department, https://fire.acgov.org/stations-and-facilities/.

Internal CONSENT CALENAR MAY 7, 2024
6 Small grants for each fire station for “FFE” – furniture, fixtures, and equipment – a total of $20,000 per station over one or two years, will help fund the acquisition of new kitchen equipment, furniture, lighting, appliances, blinds, cancer-preventative equipment and supplies, and other amenities that create a more welcoming and comfortable environment, and improve morale.

CONSULTATION/OUTREACH OVERVIEW & RESULTS
The Berkeley Fire Department was consulted regarding the need for each of these programs, and has expressed strong support.

IMPLEMENTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Each program will have its own administration through the Fire Department.

FISCAL IMPACTS
See referral language.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No environmental impacts.

OUTCOMES & EVALUATION
Each of these funding requests is related to a specific need, and anticipates positive outcomes, as described above. Evaluation for effectiveness of each program in meeting its intended goals should be undertaken by the Department at appropriate times.

For the Cancer Pilot, evaluation should take place at the end of the two-year period to determine the value of the program and consider ongoing funding for a cancer screening program covering all Fire staff going forward.

For the In-House Mechanic Program, the Department will track costs and benefits associated with an on-site mechanic in dollars, efficiency, and across other relevant metrics and, after three years of experience with the program, consider whether to continue and/or expand services.

For the Fire Reserve Program, evaluation should happen after three years to determine whether the internship program is effectively supporting First Responders in their day-to-day work and whether program participants are applying for academies or positions within the service.

For the Fire Station Care Program, evaluation could include a survey to measure the satisfaction levels of First Responders with improvements paid for by station care funds.

CONTACT
Councilmember Sophie Hahn, (510) 981-7150