Berkeley City Council
July 9, 2024

Tuesday, July 9, 2024 AGENDA Page 1

AG E N D A

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, July 9, 2024
6:00 PM

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

JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – CECILIA LUNAPARRA DISTRICT 4 – IGOR TREGUB DISTRICT 8 – MARK HUMBERT

This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model with both in -person attendance and virtual participation . If you are feeling sick, please do not attend the meeting in person.

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

Remote participation by the public is available through Zoom. To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this UR L: https://cityofberkeley- info.zoomgov.com/j/1611898773. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen. To join by phone: Dial 1-669-254-5252 or 1 -833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 161 189 8773. If you w ish to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair. Please be mindful that the meeting will be recorded.

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

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953 and applicable Executive Orders as issued by the Governor that ar e currently in effect. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding public participation may be addressed to the City Clerk Department (510) 981-6900. The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda.

Pursuant to the City Council Rules of Procedure and State Law, the presiding officer may remove, or cause the removal of, an individual for disrupting the meeting. Prior to removing an individual, the presiding officer shall warn the individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal. The presiding officer may then remove the individual if they do not promptly cease their disruptive behavior. “Disrupting” means engaging in beh avior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, a failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a le gislative body, or engaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force.

Tuesday, July 9, 2024 AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

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

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

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

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

Public Comment by Employee Unions (first regular meeting of the month): This period of public comment is reserved for officially designated representatives of City of Berkeley employee unions, with five minutes allocated per union if representatives of three or fewer unions wish to speak and up to three minutes per union if representatives of four or more unions wish to speak.

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, July 9, 2024 AGENDA Page 3
Public Comment on Consent Calendar and Information Items Only: The Council will take public comment on any items that are either on the amended Consent Calendar or the Information Calendar. Speakers will be entitled to two minutes each to speak in opposition to or support of Consent Calendar and Information Items. A speaker may only speak once during the period for public comment on Consent Calendar and Information items.

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

Consent Calendar

1. Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23.326 Demolition and Dwelling Unit Controls
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 7,924-N.S. regarding amendments to Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23.326 Demolition and Dwelling Unit Control Ordinance.

First Reading Vote: Ayes – Taplin, Bartlett, Tregub, Hahn, Lunaparra, Arreguin; Noes – Kesarwani, Wengraf, Humbert.

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

2. FY 2025 Tax Rate: Fund Fire Protection and Emergency Response and Preparedness (Measure GG)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 7,925-N.S. setting the FY 2025 tax rate for funding Fire Protection and Emergency Response and Preparedness in the City of Berkeley at the rate of $0.0629 (6.29 cents) per square foot of improvements for dwelling units and setting the rate for all other property at $0.09519 (9.519 cents) per square foot of improvements.

First Reading Vote: All Ayes.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300; David Sprague, Fire, (510) 981- 3473

3. FY 2025 Annual Appropriations Ordinance
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 7,926-N.S. adopting the FY 2025 Annual Appropriations Ordinance (AAO) in the amount of $793,319,711 (gross appropriations) and $686,125,119 (net appropriations).

First Reading Vote: All Ayes.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager, (510) 981-7000

Consent Calendar

Tuesday, July 9, 2024 AGENDA Page 4

4. Police Accountability Board – Appointment of New Member From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution appointing a new member to the Police Accountability Board nominated by Councilmember Taplin.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900

5. Policies and Timelines for Filing Ballot Measure Arguments From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution establishing policies and timelines for filing ballot measure arguments in the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900

6. Grant Application: Bureau of Justice Assistance Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program to Support Law Enforcement Agencies From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application to the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in an amount not to exceed $300,000 for the Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Carianna Arredondo, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000, Jennifer Louis, Police, (510) 981-5900

7. Contract: Gallup, Inc for Employee Engagement and Development From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee(s) to enter into a contract and any amendments with Gallup, Inc for reporting, coaching and learning tools and resources that focus on employee strengths-based development as a sole source. The contract will be effective August 1, 2024 and end on September 30, 2026 in an amount not to exceed $150,000. The contract may be extended for up to four additional years at a cost not to exceed an additional $75,000 per year.

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

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 AGENDA Page 5

8. Purchase Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. and Contract No. 078804- 1 (8068) Amendment: Banc of America Public Capital Corp. for Master Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement for Three Fire Engines and Two Aerial Fire Trucks
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to purchase three Pierce Enforcer 1500 GPM Type 1 Fire Engines and two Pierce Enforcer Tractor Drawn Aerials by executing: 1. Purchase Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $7,353,115, providing for California sales tax of $751,206 and pre-pay discount of $951,353; and 2. Increase the Master Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement with Banc of America Public Capital Corp. by $9,492,845 (prior to sales tax, equipment only) yielding an amended total NTE amount of $26,693,305 on Contract No. 078804-1 (8068) with financing pursuant to the amendment to be paid over 7 years at an annual interest rate of 4.1438% and a first payment commencing no later than April 9, 2025.

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

9. Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Civilian Instructor – Establish Job Class Specifications and Salary Range
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution establishing the unrepresented job class specifications of – and salary range for – Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Civilian Instructor, with an hourly range of $31.5568 to $38.7241.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Aram Kouyoumdjian, Human Resources, (510) 981-6800

10. Contract No. 32000224 Amendment: GovInvest, Inc. for Labor Costing Software and Analysis Services
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000224 with GovInvest, Inc. for labor costing software and analysis services to cover the period May 23, 2023 to June 30, 2026 for a total cost not to exceed $375,000.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Aram Kouyoumdjian, Human Resources, (510) 981-6800

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 AGENDA Page 6

11. Contract: Rincon Consultants, Inc. for Environmental Support Services for the Berkeley Water Transportation Pier Ferry Project
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Rincon Consultants, Inc (Rincon) in an amount not to exceed $3,080,000 which includes $280,000 of contingency to provide environmental support services for the Berkeley Water Transportation Pier Ferry Project (Project) for the period July 15, 2024 through June 1, 2027.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

12. Contract: Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. for Street Rehabilitation FY 2024 Project
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1. Approving plans and specifications for the Street Rehabilitation FY 2024 Project, Specification No. 24-11624-C; and 2.

Accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. and 3) authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions or other change orders until completion of the project, in accordance with the approved plans and specifications in an amount not to exceed $12,361,800.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Terrance Davis, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

13. Community Health Commission Comments on Dark Skies Ordinance From: Community Health Commission
Recommendation: For the City Council to (a) refer to the Planning Commission, the Public Health Comments on the Dark Skies Ordinance which was previously referred to the Planning Commission; (b) refer to the City Manager, a request to ask the Department of Public Works to implement a moratorium on installation of street lighting and building lighting for use at night exceeding 3,000 Kelvin.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Kellie Knox, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-5400

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 AGENDA Page 7

14. Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to the General Fund and Grant of Such Funds to the Port Chicago Alliance; and Official Co-Sponsorship of Port Chicago Weekend 2024
From: Councilmember Hahn (Author), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Taplin (Co-Sponsor), Mayor Arreguin (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including $500 from Councilmember Hahn to the Port Chicago Alliance – a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization – to support Port Chicago Weekend 2024, raising awareness of the legacy of the Port Chicago 50, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose from discretionary Council Office Budgets of Councilmember Hahn and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute, and register the City of Berkeley’s official Co-Sponsorship of Port Chicago Weekend 2024.

Financial Implications: Councilmember's Discretionary Funds - $500 Contact: Sophie Hahn, Councilmember, District 5, (510) 981-7150

15. Amend Item to Remove the Dwight Way/Telegraph Avenue Intersection from the List of Intersections Being Considered for Additional Surveillance Technology
From: Councilmember Lunaparra (Author)
Recommendation: Amend Council action that was passed at the January 30, 2024 Council meeting to remove the Dwight Way/Telegraph Avenue intersection from the list of intersections being considered for additional surveillance technology.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Cecilia Lunaparra, Councilmember, District 7, (510) 981-7170

Action Calendar
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action. For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again during one of the Action Calendar public comment periods on the item. Public comment will occur for each Action item (excluding public hearings, appeals, and/or quasi-judicial matters) in one of two comment periods, either 1) before the Action Calendar is discussed; or 2) when the item is taken up by the Council.

A member of the public may only speak at one of the two public comment periods for any single Action item.

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

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

Tuesday, July 9, 2024 AGENDA Page 8
Action Calendar – Scheduled Public Comment Period
During this public comment period, the Presiding Officer will open and close a comment period for each Action item on this agenda (excluding any public hearings, appeals, and/or quasi-judicial matters). The public may speak on each item. Those who speak on an item during this comment period may not speak a second time when the item is taken up by Council.

Action Calendar – New Business

16. Referral Response: Gap Analysis of Berkeley’s Homelessness System of Care From: City Manager
Recommendation: Receive and file a report and presentation from staff, responding to the City Council’s July 13, 2021 referral to the City Manager to analyze current homelessness expenditures and programs and to explore recalibrating and prioritizing investments to align with the 1-2-4 All Home Regional Action Plan framework.

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

17. ***Removed from the Agenda by the City Attorney*** Youth Voting in Berkeley School Board Elections; Ordinance Providing for Voting By Persons Aged 16 and 17 Years Old for Office of School Director; Resolution Providing for Youth Voting in November 2024 School Board Elections
From: City Attorney
Contact: Farimah Brown, City Attorney, (510) 981-6950

18. Initiative Petition – Initiative Ordinance Establishing Direct Rental Payments and Amending the Rent Stabilization Ordinance
From: City Manager
Recommendation:

1. Take action on the initiative petition to:
a. Adopt the provisions of the measure without alteration. -OR-
b. Adopt a Resolution submitting the measure, without alteration, to a vote of the people at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election.

2. Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.

Financial Implications: No direct fiscal impacts
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900

Action Calendar – New Business
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 AGENDA Page 9

19. Initiative Petition – Initiative Ordinance to Adopt a Special Tax on Natural Gas Consumption in Buildings 15,000 Sq. Ft. or Larger
From: City Manager
Recommendation:

1. Take action on the initiative petition to:
a. Adopt the provisions of the measure without alteration. -OR-
b. Adopt a Resolution submitting the measure, without alteration, to a vote of the people at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election.

2. Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.

Financial Implications: No direct fiscal impacts
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900

20. Initiative Petition – Ordinance Creating a Parcel Tax for the Purpose of Funding Repairs and Improvements to Streets, Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths (Fix the Streets & Sidewalks)
From: City Manager
Recommendation:

1. Take action on the initiative petition to:
a. Adopt the provisions of the measure without alteration. -OR-
b. Adopt a Resolution submitting the measure, without alteration, to a vote of the people at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election.

2. Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.

Financial Implications: No direct fiscal impacts
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900

21. Initiative Petition – Initiative Ordinance Requiring the Adoption of Minimum Indoor Air Quality Standards in City-Owned and City-Leased Buildings From: City Manager
Recommendation:

1. Take action on the initiative petition to:
a. Adopt the provisions of the measure without alteration. -OR-
b. Adopt a Resolution submitting the measure, without alteration, to a vote of the people at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election.

2. Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.

Financial Implications: No direct fiscal impacts
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900

Action Calendar – New Business
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 AGENDA Page 10

22. Initiative Petition – Ordinance to Establish a Parcel Tax to Fund Repairs and Improvements to Streets, Sidewalks, and Pedestrian Paths (SAFE STREETS) From: City Manager
Recommendation:

1. Take action on the initiative petition to:
a. Adopt the provisions of the measure without alteration. -OR-
b. Adopt a Resolution submitting the measure, without alteration, to a vote of the people at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election.

2. Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.

Financial Implications: No direct fiscal impacts
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900

Council Action Items

23. Amendments to Berkeley Municipal Code 23C.22: Short Term Rentals (Reviewed by the Land Use, Housing, & Economic Development Committee) From: Councilmember Harrison (Author)
Recommendation: Amend Berkeley Municipal Code 23C.22: Short Term Rentals to clarify the ordinance and insure adequate host responsibilities, tenant protections and remedies for violating the ordinance.

Policy Committee Recommendation: Refer item to City Council with a qualified negative recommendation with the caveat that the ordinance cannot be passed without consideration and approval by the Planning Commission, and it is likely that elements of the proposal would violate State housing law.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Kate Harrison, Councilmember, District 4, (510) 981-7140

24. Condemning the University of California’s Anti-Labor Actions and Legal Tactics
From: Councilmember Lunaparra (Author)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution Condemning the University of California’s Anti-Labor Actions and Legal Tactics.

Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Cecilia Lunaparra, Councilmember, District 7, (510) 981-7170

Information Reports

25. LPO NOD: 1401 Le Roy Avenue, #LMSAP2024-0002
From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda

Adjournment

Tuesday, July 9, 2024 AGENDA Page 11
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to appro ve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

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

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

Communications to the City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information.

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

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

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

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

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

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

Attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various scents, whether natural or manufactured, in products and materials. Please help the City respect these needs.

Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B -TV, and on the Internet. In addition, assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available from the City Cl erk prior to the meeting, and are to be returned before the end of the meeting.

Tuesday, July 9, 2024 AGENDA Page 12
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the agenda for this meeting of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on June 27, 2024.

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

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

Item #19: Initiative Petition – Initiative Ordinance to Adopt a Special Tax on Natural Gas Consumption in Buildings 15,000 Sq. Ft. or Larger

1. Daniel Tahara

2. Steve Meckfessel

Item #22: Initiative Petition – Ordinance to Establish a Parcel Tax to Fund Repairs and Improvements to Streets, Sidewalks, and Pedestrian Paths (SAFE STREETS)

3. Barbara Gilbert (2)

North Berkeley Bart and Bike Lane Concern

4. Walter Wood

5. Kenneth Yip

6. Gloria Schild

7. John Rea

8. Dan Auten

9. Anya Davis

Shipping Containers at 2556 Haste Street

10. 45 Similarly-worded form letters

People’s Park

11. Summer Brenner

12. Moni Law

Stormwater Plan

13. Susan Schwartz, President, Friends of Five Creeks

West Campus Pool

14. Veronica Labarca

Tuesday, July 9, 2024 AGENDA Page 13
In Home Support Services

15. Carol Denney

Southside Complete Streets

16. Tom

Sidewalk Safety Concerns

17. Max Ventura

Safe Streets

18. Peggy Mulligan

Aurora Theater

19. Josh

Wireless Radiation

20. Ellen Marks

Ohlone Greenway Trail

21. Carleen Mandolfo

Driveway Concerns

22. K. Lazer

PG&E Bills

23. Dave Margulius

Anti-Mask Law

24. Dorothea Dorenz

Insurance Reform Information

25. Chief David Sprague, Berkeley Fire Department

Golden Duplex Designation

26. Peg

12 Panoramic Way

27. Ken Peterson

28. Lisa Handwerker

Information Request

29. Mike

BESO Notice

30. Robert Richerson

Tuesday, July 9, 2024 AGENDA Page 14
Soft Story Retrofit

31. Todd Andrew

Middle East Conflict

32. Erwan Illian (3)

33. Michael Fullerton

34. Marianne Olney-Hamel

AC Transit Bus Stop Guidelines

35. Ryan Lau

EHS Day

36. Phoebe Thomas (Sorgen)

URLs Only

37. Russbumper (8)

38. Crustyrusty

39. Keith Bayne (3)

Newsletter

40. Vivian Warkentin
Supplemental Communications and Reports
Items received by the deadlines for submission will be compiled and distributed as follows. If no items are received by the deadline, no supplemental packet will be compiled for said deadline.

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

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

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

Ordinance No. 7,924-N.S. Page 1 of 12
ORDINANCE NO. 7,924-N.S.

AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 23.326, DEMOLITION

AND DWELLING UNIT CONTROLS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23.326 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 23.326 DEMOLITION AND DWELLING UNIT CONTROLS
Sections:

23.326.010 Chapter Purpose.

23.326.020 General Requirements.

23.326.030 Demolition of Residential Units.

23.326.040 Eliminating Dwelling Units through Combination with Other Units.

23.326.050 Demolition of Accessory Buildings.

23.326.060 Private Right of Action.

23.326.070 Demolitions of Non-Residential Buildings.

23.326.080 Building Relocations.

23.326.090 Limitations.

23.326.100 Severability

23.326.010 Chapter Purpose.

This chapter establishes demolition and dwelling unit control standards that promote the affordable housing, and safety goals of the City.

23.326.020 General Requirements.

A. No Residential Unit(s) may be eliminated or demolished except as authorized by this chapter.

1. “Residential Unit” means, for purposes of this Chapter, any Dwelling Unit, any Live-Work Unit, any Residential Hotel unit, any bedroom of a Group Living Accommodation (GLA), except a GLA in a
University-recognized fraternity, sorority or co-op, or any Accessory

01

Ordinance No. 7,924-N.S. Page 2 of 12
Dwelling Unit (“ADU”) or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (“JADU”).

2. “Residential Unit” includes Dwelling Units, any Residential Hotel unit, any bedroom of a Group Living Accommodation (GLA), except a GLA in a University-recognized fraternity, sorority or co-op, ADUs, and JADUs created without proper zoning approvals or Building Permit(s) if they have been registered with the Rent Stabilization Board, or the Rent Stabilization Board has otherwise determined that a tenant-landlord relationship existed during the preceding five years.

3. “Residential Unit” does not include an ADU or JADU on a residential property containing only a Single-Family Dwelling and one lawfully established and fully permitted ADU or JADU, as defined in BMC Chapter

23.306, where the landlord also occupies a unit in the same property as their principal residence. This shall only apply to properties containing a single ADU or JADU, shall only apply to units compliant with all applicable requirements of BMC Chapter 23.306 ("Accessory Dwelling Units"), and shall only apply to tenancies created after November 7, 2018.

4. “Comparable Unit” means a Residential Unit of similar size that contains the same number of bedrooms than the demolished unit, in accordance with the “equivalent size” requirements of state Government Code § 65915 (Density Bonus Law) and § 66300 (Housing Crisis Act). In the case of a Single-Family Dwelling being replaced, a Comparable Unit is not required to have the same or similar square footage or the same number of total rooms, but must provide the same number of bedrooms if the Single-Family Dwelling includes three or fewer bedrooms, or at least three bedrooms if the Single-Family Dwelling contains four or more bedrooms.

5. “Protected Unit” includes a Residential Unit:
a. Subject to a low-income deed restriction for any of the previous five years;
b. Subject to rent or price control under BMC Chapter 13.76; or c. Rented by a household at 80% Area Median Income or lower within the previous five years.

Ordinance No. 7,924-N.S. Page 3 of 12

23.326.030 Demolition of Residential Units.

A. Demolition is not allowed if:

1. The Residential Unit(s) was removed from the rental market through a no- fault eviction during the preceding five years; or

2. There is substantial evidence of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding three years. Where allegations of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction are in dispute, either party may request a hearing before a Rent Board Hearing Examiner, whose determination may be appealed to the Rent Stabilization Board.

B. Procedure and Findings.

1. A Use Permit is required to eliminate or demolish one or more Residential Units, except where otherwise provided by the Zoning Ordinance. The ZAB shall only approve the Use Permit if one of the following is true:
(a)  The building containing the Residential Unit(s) is hazardous or unusable and is infeasible to repair.
(b)  The building containing the Residential Unit(s) will be moved to a different location within Berkeley with no net loss of units and no change in the rent levels of the unit(s).
(c)  The demolition is necessary to permit construction approved pursuant to this Chapter of at least the same number of Dwelling Units.

2. A Single-Family Dwelling without sitting tenants can be demolished with an AUP, if the demolition is part of a development project that would result in a net increase in residential density.

3. In the event of a demolition of a Residential Unit created without proper zoning approvals or Building Permit(s), as defined in 23.326.020(A)(2), the Building Official, Zoning Officer or Fire Marshal may determine that the replacement of such a unit is infeasible and not required under this Chapter.

Such a determination shall include a finding that the replacement of the unit could not occur in compliance with Zoning Code, Building Code, Fire Code or other regulations related to public health and safety.

Ordinance No. 7,924-N.S. Page 4 of 12
C. Landmarks and Structures of Merit. Demolition of a designated landmark or structure of merit, or of a structure in a designated historic district, must be approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 3.24.

D. Conditions of Approval. Any Protected Unit that is demolished shall be replaced with a Comparable Unit that shall comply with the maximum allowable rent requirements for Affordable Units in Chapter 23.328 [Affordable Housing Requirements] and Chapter 23.330 [Density Bonus] as they may be amended from time to time.

1. In the event that a displaced household has an income below 50% AMI, a Comparable Unit shall be offered at a rent that is affordable to households at 30% of AMI, and the displaced household shall have the first right of refusal for that unit. Such a Comparable Unit shall be counted as a Very Low-Income unit for applicable affordability requirements in Chapter

23.328.

2. In the event that a demolished Residential Unit is not a Protected Unit and the income of the displaced household is unknown, the Residential Unit shall be presumed to have been occupied by Low- or Lower-Income renter households in the same proportion as Residential Units throughout the City. The City shall rely upon US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data to determine the number of such Residential Units that must be replaced with Affordable Units as defined in Chapter 23.328.

3. In the event that a Protected Unit was subject to rent or price controls under BMC Chapter 13.76, and the income level of the displaced household is unknown, the unit shall be replaced with an Affordable Unit as defined in Chapter 23.328.

E. Requirements for Occupied Units.

1. Applicability. The following requirements do not apply to tenants who move in after the application for demolition is submitted to the City if the owner informs each prospective tenant about the proposed demolition and that demolition constitutes good cause for eviction.

2. Notice. The applicant shall provide all sitting tenants and the Rent

Ordinance No. 7,924-N.S. Page 5 of 12
Stabilization Board notice of the application for demolition no later than the date the application is submitted to the City, including notice of their rights under Municipal Code Chapter 13.76 (Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Program), Chapter 13.77 (Requirements, Procedures, Restrictions and Mitigations Concerning the Withdrawal of Residential Rental Accommodations from Rent or Lease), 13.79 (Tenant Protections:

Automatically Renewing Leases and Buyout Agreements) and 13.84 (Relocation Services and Payments for Residential Tenant Households).

3. General Requirements. The applicant shall provide moving and relocation assistance equivalent to the requirements set forth in Municipal Code Chapter

13.84 (Relocation Services and Payments for Residential Tenant Households) or Government Code section 66300.6(b)(4)(A), whichever requires greater relocation assistance to displaced tenants, and shall not be subject to the limitations in section 13.84.070.B.3(a). The applicant shall subsidize the rent differential for a comparable replacement unit, in the same neighborhood if feasible, until new units are ready for occupancy. Within five days of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, tenants shall be notified in writing that the units will be ready for move-in on a date specified. Tenants shall confirm in writing their intent to lease the available unit at any time before 20 days after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Funding for the rent differential shall be guaranteed in a manner approved by City Council Resolution; provided, however, that any project that is carried out or funded by the state or federal government shall be subject to applicable provisions of the California Relocation Act (Government Code section 7260 et seq.) and/or the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. sections 4601- 4655).
(a) Exception. An applicant who proposes to construct a 100-percent affordable housing project is not required to comply with this subsection but must comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as amended and the California Relocation Act (Government Code sections 7260 et seq.). (b) Exception for Tenants in ADUs or Unpermitted Units that Cannot be Replaced. Applicants are required to provide moving and relocation assistance, in an amount provided in BMC Section 13.76.130(A)(9)(g), to

Ordinance No. 7,924-N.S. Page 6 of 12
the following groups of tenants: (i) tenants who occupy an ADU or JADU on a residential property containing only a Single-Family Dwelling and one lawfully established and fully permitted ADU or JADU, where the landlord also occupies a unit in the same property as his/her principal residence; and (ii) tenants who occupy a unit created without proper zoning approvals that cannot be replaced for public health or safety reasons, pursuant to BMC 23.326.030(B)(3). However, applicants are not required to (i) provide such tenants with a temporary replacement unit while a new unit is being constructed, (ii) notify such tenants when a new unit is ready for occupancy; or (iii) provide such tenants with a right for first refusal for the new unit.

4. Sitting Tenants Rights.
(a) Any tenant of a Protected Unit that is permitted to be demolished under this section shall have the right of first refusal to rent a Comparable Unit in the new project.
(b) In the event that a displaced household is ineligible for below-market rate replacement units, a market rate Comparable Unit shall be made available to that household at the same rent as had been previously charged, or a lesser rent if that is the market rate.
(c) Where a displaced tenant exercises the right to rent a Comparable Unit, any increase in rent for the Comparable Unit for the duration of their tenancy shall be no greater than the lesser of 65% of the increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose region (as reported and published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for the twelve- month period ending the previous December 31) or 65% of the corresponding increase in Area Median Income (AMI) for the same calendar year.
(d) Exceptions.
i. An applicant who proposes to construct a 100 percent affordable housing project is not required to comply with the preceding requirements but must comply with the following requirement.

Ordinance No. 7,924-N.S. Page 7 of 12
ii. Sitting tenants who are displaced as a result of demolition and who desire to return to the newly constructed affordable housing project will be granted a right of first refusal subject to their ability to meet income qualifications and other applicable eligibility requirements.

23.326.040 Eliminating Dwelling Units through Combination with Other Units.

A. Process for Projects Where Density Exceeds Current Allowance. A Use Permit is required to eliminate one or more Residential Units by combining with another unit when the existing development exceeds currently-allowable density. The ZAB shall approve a Use Permit for the elimination of one or more Residential Units by combining with another unit only if it finds that:

1. The existing number of Residential Units exceeds the current maximum allowed residential density in the zoning district where the units are located; and

2. One of the following is true:
(a) One of the affected Residential Units has been owner-occupied as a principal place of residence for no less than two years before the date of the application and none of the affected units are currently occupied by a tenant.
(b) All of the affected Residential Units are being sold by an estate and the decedent occupied the Residential Units as their principal residence for no less than two years before the date of their death.

B. Limitations. Combination is not allowed if:

1. The building was removed from the rental market through a no-fault eviction during the preceding five years; or

2. There is substantial evidence of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding three years. Where allegations of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction are in dispute, either party may request a hearing before a Rent Board Hearing Examiner, whose determination may be appealed to the Rent

Ordinance No. 7,924-N.S. Page 8 of 12
Stabilization Board.

C. Two-Year Occupancy Requirement Following Elimination

1. If a Residential Unit that is eliminated through combination is not owner- occupied for at least two consecutive years from the date of elimination, the affected Residential Unit must be restored to separate status.

2. This requirement shall be implemented by a condition of approval and a notice of limitation on the property, acceptable to the City of Berkeley.

3. The condition of approval and notice will provide that if the Residential Unit is not owner-occupied for at least two years from the date of elimination then the affected Residential Unit(s) must either be restored as separate Residential Unit(s) and the vacant Residential Unit(s) offered for rent within six months or the owner must pay a fee of $75,000 in 2013 dollars, adjusted in May of each year according to the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area. The fee shall be deposited into the City of Berkeley’s Housing Trust Fund.

4. The City of Berkeley may exempt an applicant from the two-year residency requirement if there is an unforeseeable life change that requires relocation.

D. Effect of Eliminating a Residential Unit.

1.  If eliminating a Residential Unit reduces the number of Residential Units in a building to four or fewer, the applicant shall record a notice of limitation against the subject property that the limitation on eviction of tenants under Chapter 13 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare) shall continue to apply until:
(a)  The building is demolished; or
(b)  Sufficient Residential Units are added or restored such that the building contains at least five Residential Units.

2.  The Zoning Officer may issue an AUP for a building conversion which eliminates a Residential Unit upon finding that the conversion will restore or bring the building closer to the original number of Residential Units that was present at the time it was first constructed, provided the conversion meets the requirements of 23.326.040.A.1 and 2 and 23.326.040.B and C.

Ordinance No. 7,924-N.S. Page 9 of 12
E. Exception. The ZAB may approve a Use Permit to eliminate a Residential Unit through combination with another Residential Unit for the purpose of providing private bathrooms, kitchenettes, accessibility upgrades, and/or seismic safety upgrades, or other elements required by funding sources or programmatic needs to single resident occupancy rooms in residential developments undergoing a publicly-funded rehabilitation.

23.326.050 Demolition of Accessory Buildings.

A. Notwithstanding anything in Municipal Code Title 23 (Zoning Ordinance) to the contrary, but subject to any applicable requirements in Municipal Code Section 3.24 (Landmarks Preservation Ordinance), Accessory Buildings of any size, including, but not limited to, garages, carports, and sheds may be demolished by right except where the Accessory Building is occupied by a residential tenant (regardless of whether it is lawfully permitted) or otherwise contains a lawfully established Residential Unit, which serves and is located on the same lot as a lawful residential use. Such Accessory Buildings are considered Residential Units for the purposes of this Chapter.

23.326.060 Private Right of Action.

A. Any affected tenant may bring a private action for injunctive and/or compensatory relief against any applicant and/or owner to prevent or remedy a violation of Sections

23.326.030 (Eliminating Dwelling Units through Demolition) and 23.326.040 (Eliminating Dwelling Units through Conversion and Change of Use). In any such action a prevailing plaintiff shall recover reasonable attorney’s fees.

23.326.070 Demolitions of Non-Residential Buildings.

A. Main Non-Residential Buildings. A Use Permit is required to demolish a main building used for non-residential purposes on any lot.

B. Accessory Buildings. For any lot located in a non-residential zoning district, Accessory Buildings may be demolished as follows:

1. Demolishing an accessory building with less than 300 square feet of floor area is permitted as of right.

2. An accessory building with 300 square feet or more of floor area may be demolished with an AUP.

C. Landmarks Preservation Commission Review.

Ordinance No. 7,924-N.S. Page 10 of 12

1. Any application for a Use Permit or AUP to demolish a non-residential building or structure that is 40 or more years old shall be forwarded to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) for review before consideration of the Use Permit or AUP.

2. The LPC may initiate a landmark or structure-of-merit designation or may choose solely to forward to the ZAB or Zoning Officer its comments on the application.

3. The ZAB or Zoning Officer shall consider the recommendations of the LPC in when acting on the application.

D. Findings. A Use Permit or an AUP for demolition of a main building used for non- residential purposes on any lot or an accessory building located on a lot in a non- residential district may be approved only if the ZAB or the Zoning Officer finds that:

1. The demolition will not be materially detrimental to the commercial needs and public interest of any affected neighborhood or the City of Berkeley; and

2. The demolition:
(a) Is required to allow a proposed new building or other proposed new use;
(b) Will remove a building which is unusable for activities which are compatible with the purposes of the district in which it is located or which is infeasible to modify for such uses;
(c) Will remove a structure which represents an uninhabitable attractive nuisance to the public; or
(d) Is required for the furtherance of specific plans or projects sponsored by the City of Berkeley or other local district or authority upon a demonstration by the applicant that it would be infeasible to obtain prior or concurrent approval for the new construction or new use.

23.326.080 Building Relocations.

A. Treatment of Building Relocation.

Ordinance No. 7,924-N.S. Page 11 of 12

1. Relocating a building from a lot is considered a demolition for purposes of this chapter.

2. Relocating a building to a lot within the city is subject to all requirements applicable to new construction.

3. When a building is relocated to a different lot within in Berkeley, the lot from which the building is removed shall be known as the source lot and the lot on which the building is to be sited shall be known as the receiving lot.

4. Nothing in this subsection shall exempt Residential Units relocated to the receiving lot from the provisions of BMC Section 13.76 after a building relocation if the Residential Units located within a building were otherwise subject to BMC Chapter 13.76 in the source lot.

B.  Findings. The Zoning Officer shall approve Zoning Certificate to relocate a building upon finding that: the resulting development on the receiving lot is in conformance with applicable zoning code development standards.

23.326.090 Limitations.

A. Unsafe, Hazard, or Danger.

1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if a building or structure is unsafe, presents a public hazard, and is not securable and/or is in imminent danger of collapse so as to endanger persons or property, as determined by the city’s Building Official, it may be demolished without a Use Permit.

2. The Building Official’s determination in this matter shall be governed by the standards and criteria in the most recent edition of the California Building Code that is in effect in the City of Berkeley.

B. Ellis Act. This chapter shall be applied only to the extent permitted by state law as to buildings which have been entirely withdrawn from the rental market pursuant to the Ellis Act (California Government Code Chapter 12.75).

23.326.100 Severability.

A. If any part or provision of this Chapter, or the application of this Chapter to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Chapter, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be

Ordinance No. 7,924-N.S. Page 12 of 12
affected by such a holding and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Chapter are severable.

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

At a special meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on June 25, 2024, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Hahn, Lunaparra, Taplin, Tregub, and Arreguin.

Noes: Humbert, Kesarwani, Wengraf.

Absent: None.

Ordinance No. 7,925-N.S. Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. 7,925-N.S.

SETTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 SPECIAL TAX RATE TO FUND FIRE PROTECTION

AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND PREPAREDNESS (MEASURE GG) IN THE CITY

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

Section 1. The FY 2025 Tax Rate for the Fire Protection and Emergency Response and Preparedness (Measure GG) is set at:
$0.06290 per square foot of improvements for dwellings
$0.09519 per square foot of improvements for all other properties Section 2. The cost to taxpayers during FY 2025 will be $75.48 for a 1,200 square foot dwelling and $188.70 for a 3,000 square foot dwelling.

Section 3. This tax rate will result in estimated total collections of $5,821,950 Section 4. The tax imposed by this ordinance does not apply to any property owner whose total personal income, from all sources for the previous calendar year, does not exceed that level which shall constitute a very low income, as established by resolution of City Council.

Section 5. 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.

At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on June 25, 2024, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Hahn, Humbert, Kesarwani, Lunaparra, Taplin, Tregub, Wengraf, and Arreguin.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

02

Ordinance No. 7,926-N.S. Page 1 of 8
ORDINANCE NO. 7,926-N.S.

ADOPTING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE BASED ON THE ADOPTED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY

MANAGER AND PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That the Annual Appropriations Ordinance based on the budget for FY 2025 submitted by the City Manager and passed by the City Council be adopted as follows and as summarized in Exhibit A:

A. General Fund (Funds 001-099) 292,442,721
B. Special Funds (Funds 100-199) 164,854,386
C. Grant Funds (Funds 300-399) 52,124,999
D. Capital Projects Funds (Funds 500-550) 37,379,376
E. Debt Service Fund (Funds 551-599) 13,363,356
F. Enterprise Funds (Funds 600-669) 162,628,095
G. Internal Service Funds (Funds 146, 670-699) 56,865,855 H. Trust Funds (Funds 701-759) 213,777
H. Successor Agency (Funds 760-769) 57,120
I. Agency Funds (Funds 771-799) 5,450,818
J. Other Funds (Funds 800-899) 7,939,208
K. Total
Total General Fund 292,442,721
Add: Total Other Than General Fund 500,876,990
Gross Revenue Appropriated 793,319,711
Less: Dual Appropriations -53,031,895
Less: Revolving/Internal Service Funds -54,162,697
Net Revenue Appropriated 686,125,119
Section 2. The City Manager is hereby permitted, without further authority from the City Council, to make the following transfers by giving written notice to the Director of Finance:

03

Ordinance No. 7,926-N.S. Page 2 of 8
a. From the General Fund to the General Fund – Stability Reserve Fund; Catastrophic Reserve Fund; PERS Savings Fund; Health State Aid Realignment; Fair Election Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; Phone System Replacement; Equipment Replacement Fund; Public Liability Fund; Catastrophic Loss Fund; IT Cost Allocation Fund: Police Employee Retiree Health Assistance Plan; Safety Members Pension Fund; and Sick Leave Entitlement Fund.
b. To the General Fund from the General Fund – Stability Reserves Fund; Catastrophic Reserves Fund; Community Development Block Grant Fund; Street Lighting Assessment District Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations and Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA); and Health State Aid Realignment Fund.
c. From GF-Payroll Deduction Trust Fund to Employee Training Fund d. To the First Source Fund from the Parks Tax Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; and the Marina Fund.
e. From Measure FF – Public Safety Fund to Paramedic Tax Fund f. From Capital Improvement Fund to Berkeley Repertory Theater Fund; and 2010 COP (Animal Shelter) Fund.
g. To the Public Art Fund from the Parks Tax Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; and the Marina Fund.
h. To CFD#1 District Fire Protection Bond (Measure Q) from Special Tax Bonds CFD#1 ML-ROOS.
i. To Private Sewer Lateral Fund from Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund. j. To Catastrophic Loss Fund from Permit Service Center Fund. k. To Catastrophic Loss Fund from Unified Program (CUPA) Fund. l. To the Building Purchases and Management Fund from General Fund; Health (General) Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program Fund; Measure B Local Streets & Road Fund; Employee Training Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; and Health State Aide Realignment Trust Fund.
m. To Equipment Replacement Fund from General Fund; Mental Health Services Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Playground Camp Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; Rental Housing Safety

Ordinance No. 7,926-N.S. Page 3 of 8
Program Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Street Light Assessment District Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; and Central Services Fund.
n. To the Equipment Maintenance Fund from General Fund; Health (General) Fund; Mental Health Services Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Library - Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Ta Fund; Street Light Assessment District Fund; FEMA Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; and Central Services Fund.
o. To the Building Maintenance Fund from the General Fund; Health (General) Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; Measure B Local Street & Road Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Street Light Assessment District Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Off Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; and Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund.
p. To the Central Services Fund from the General Fund; First Source Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; Library-Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; and Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund.
q. To Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund from General Fund; Target Case Management/Linkages Fund; Health (Short/Doyle); Library Fund; Playground Camp Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; CDBG Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Street Light Assessment District Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund; Health State Aid Realignment Trust Fund; and Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund.
r. To the Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund from General Fund; Special Tax for Severely Disabled Measure E Fund; First Source Fund; HUD Fund; ESGP Fund; Health (General) Fund; Target Case Management/Linkages Fund; Mental Health Service Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; EPSDT Expansion Proposal

Ordinance No. 7,926-N.S. Page 4 of 8
Fund; Senior Nutrition (Title III) Fund; C.F.P. Title X Fund; Fund Raising Activities Fund; Berkeley Unified School District Grant; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Alameda County Grants Fund; Senior Supportive Social Services Fund; Family Care Support Program Fund; Domestic Violence Prevention – Vital Statistics Fund; Affordable Housing Mitigation; Inclusionary Housing Program; Library – Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; Community Action Program Fund; State Proposition 172 Public Safety Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; CDBG Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program; Measure B Local State & Road Fund; Measure B Bike & Pedestrian Fund; Measure B – Paratransit Fund; Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Streets & Roads Fund; Measure BB – Paratransit Fund; Fair Election Fund; Measure U1 Fund; One-Time Grant: No Cap Expense Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Measure GG – Fire Prep Tax Fund; Street Lighting Assessment District Fund; Employee Training Fund; Private Percent – Art Fund; Measure T1 – Infrastructure & Facilities Fund; FUND$ Replacement Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; FEMA Fund; CFD #1 District Fire Protect Bond Fund; Special Tax Bonds CFD#1 ML-ROOS Fund; Shelter+Care HUD Fund; Shelter+Care County Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Private Sewer Lateral Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off-Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Equipment Replacement Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; Workers’ Compensation Fund; Public Liability Fund; Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund; Health State Aid Realignment Trust Fund; Tobacco Control Trust Fund; Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund; Alameda Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Authority; and Bio-Terrorism Grant Fund.
s. To the Sick Leave and Vacation Leave Accrual Fund from General Fund; Special Tax for Severely Disabled Measure E Fund; First Source Fund; HUD Fund; ESGP Fund; Health (General) Fund; Target Case Management/Linkages Fund; Mental Health Service Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; EPSDT Expansion Proposal Fund; Senior Nutrition (Title III) Fund; C.F.P. Title X Fund; Fund Raising Activities Fund; Berkeley Unified School District Grant; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Alameda County Grants Fund; Senior Supportive Social Services Fund; Family Care Support Program Fund; Domestic Violence Prevention – Vital Statistics Fund; Affordable Housing Mitigation; Inclusionary Housing Program; Library – Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; Community Action Program Fund; State Proposition 172 Public Safety Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; CDBG Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program; Measure B Local State & Road Fund; Measure B Bike & Pedestrian Fund; Measure B – Paratransit Fund; Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Streets & Roads Fund; Measure BB – Paratransit Fund; Fair Election Fund; Measure U1 Fund; One-Time Grant: No Cap Expense Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Measure GG – Fire Prep Tax Fund; Street Lighting Assessment District Fund; Employee Training Fund; Private Percent – Art Fund; Measure T1 – Infrastructure & Facilities Fund; FUND$ Replacement Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; FEMA Fund; CFD

Ordinance No. 7,926-N.S. Page 5 of 8
#1 District Fire Protect Bond Fund; Special Tax Bonds CFD#1 ML-ROOS Fund; Shelter+Care HUD Fund; Shelter+Care County Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Private Sewer Lateral Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off-Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Equipment Replacement Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; Workers’ Compensation Fund; Public Liability Fund; Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund; Health State Aid Realignment Trust Fund; Tobacco Control Trust Fund; Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund; Alameda Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Authority; and Bio-Terrorism Grant Fund.
t. To the Payroll Deduction Trust Fund from General Fund; Special Tax for Severely Disabled Measure E Fund; First Source Fund; HUD Fund; ESGP Fund; Health (General) Fund; Target Case Management/Linkages Fund; Mental Health Service Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; EPSDT Expansion Proposal Fund; Senior Nutrition (Title III) Fund; C.F.P. Title X Fund; Fund Raising Activities Fund; Berkeley Unified School District Grant; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Alameda County Grants Fund; Senior Supportive Social Services Fund; Family Care Support Program Fund; Domestic Violence Prevention – Vital Statistics Fund; Affordable Housing Mitigation; Inclusionary Housing Program; Library – Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; Community Action Program Fund; State Proposition 172 Public Safety Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; CDBG Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program; Measure B Local State & Road Fund; Measure B Bike & Pedestrian Fund; Measure B – Paratransit Fund; Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Streets & Roads Fund; Measure BB – Paratransit Fund; Fair Election Fund; Measure U1 Fund; One-Time Grant: No Cap Expense Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Measure GG – Fire Prep Tax Fund; Street Lighting Assessment District Fund; Employee Training Fund; Private Percent – Art Fund; Measure T1 – Infrastructure & Facilities Fund; FUND$ Replacement Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; FEMA Fund; CFD #1 District Fire Protect Bond Fund; Special Tax Bonds CFD#1 ML-ROOS Fund; Shelter+Care HUD Fund; Shelter+Care County Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Private Sewer Lateral Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off-Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Equipment Replacement Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; Workers’ Compensation Fund; Public Liability Fund; Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund; Health State Aid Realignment Trust Fund; Tobacco Control Trust Fund; Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund; Alameda Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Authority; and Bio-Terrorism Grant Fund.

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 Council Chambers, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each

Ordinance No. 7,926-N.S. Page 6 of 8
branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on June 25, 2024, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Hahn, Humbert, Kesarwani, Lunaparra, Taplin, Tregub, Wengraf, and Arreguin.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

Ordinance No. 7,926-N.S. Page 7 of 8
Attachment for Annual Appropriations Ordinance - Fiscal Year 2025

REVOLVING FUNDS/INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Appropriations are identified with revolving and internal service funds. Such funds derive revenue by virtue of payment from other fund sources as benefits are received by such funds, and the total is reflected in the "Less Revolving Funds and Internal Service Funds" in item I. The funds are:

DUAL APPROPRIATIONS - WORKING BUDGET
Dual appropriations are identified with revenues generated by one fund and transferred to another fund. Both funds are credited with the applicable revenue, and the total is reflected in the "Less Dual Appropriations" in item I. The dual appropriations are:

Revolving/Internal Service Funds
Employee Training Fund 860,645
Equipment Replacement Fund 6,572,107
Equipment Maintenance Fund 11,551,467
Building Maintenance Fund 5,677,341
Central Services Fund 399,519
Workers' Compensation Fund 6,620,627
Public Liability Fund 3,678,458
18,802,533
Subtotal Revolving/Internal Service Funds 54,162,697$
Information Technology Fund
Transfers to the General Fund
Indirect Cost Reimbursement
CDBG Fund 176,194
Street Light Assessment District Fund 115,502
One-Time Grant: No Cap Exp 78,545
Zero Waste Fund 2,643,473
Marina Enterprise Fund 449,252
Sanitary Sewer Fund 1,091,386
Clean Storm Water Fund 176,832
Permit Service Center Fund 2,172,889
Unified Program (CUPA) Fund 88,045
Subtotal Transfers to General Fund: 6,992,118$

Ordinance No. 7,926-N.S. Page 8 of 8
Transfer to Safety Members Pension Fund from General Fund 551,804 6,500,000
Transfer to Health State Aid Realignment from General Fund 1,953,018 Transfer to Fair Election Fund from General Fund 612,210 Transfer to Capital Improvement Fund (CIP) from General Fund 14,099,209 Transfer to Equipment Replacement Fund from General Fund 1,081,699 Transfer to Public Liability Fund from General Fund 2,450,111 Transfer to Catastrophic Loss Fund from General Fund 6,278,457 Transfer to IT Cost Allocation Fund from General Fund 71,335 400,136
Transfer to Sick Leave Entitlement Fund from General Fund 201,501 750,000
5,000,000
Transfer to General Fund from Health State Aid Realignment Fund 2,643,280 757,925
499,802
Transfer from CIP Fund to 2010 COP (Animal Shelter) Fund 402,613 90,501
50,555
5,082
Transfer to General Fund from Parking Meter Fund 1,042,288 498,355
Transfer to First Source Fund from Parks Tax Fund 6,234 Transfer to First Source Fund from Capital Improvement Fund 29,917 Transfer to First Source Fund from Marina Fund 1,875
Transfer to Public Art Fund from Parks Tax Fund 6,234
Transfer to Public Art Fund from Capital Improvement Fund 52,355 Transfer to Public Art Fund from Marina Fund 3,281
Subtotal Transfers to Other Funds: 46,039,777
Sub-Total Dual Appropriations 53,031,895$
Grand Total Dual Appropriations 107,194,592$
Transfer to Police Employee Retiree Health Assistance Plan from General Fund Transfer to General Fund from IT Cost Allocation Fund
Transfer to Catastrophic Loss Fund from Permit Service Center Fund Transfer to Catastrophic Loss Fund from Unified Program (CUPA) Fund Transfer to Private Sewer Lateral Fund from Sewer Fund
Transfer to Berkeley Repertory Theater Debt Service Fund from CIP Fund Transfer to Measure U1 Fund from General Fund
Transfer to Paramedic Tax Fund from Measure FF - Public Safety Fund Transfer from GF Payroll Deduction Trust Fund to Employee Training Fund Transfer from Library Tax Fund to Library - Trans Based Fund

EXHIBIT A
ERMA
Fund # Fund
FY 2025
Adopted
11 General Fund Discretionary 285, 550,053
13 G
F - Payroll Deduction Trust 750,000
16 Measure U1 - Housing 6,142,668
101 Library - Tax 31,815,703
102 Library - Trans Based 2,000,000
103 Library - Grants 67,526
104 Library - Friends & Gift 150,000
105 Library - Foundation 200,000
106 Asset Forefeiture 201,000
107 Special Tax Measure E 1,733,706
108 Workforce Investment 58,311
110 Sec 108 Loan Gty Asst. 1,183,612
111 Fund Raising Activities 50,333
113 Gilman Sports Field 318,415
115 Animal Shelter 52,480
116 Paramedic Tax 4,486,586
119 Domestic Violence Prev - Vit Stat 29,065
120 Affordable Housing Mitigation 28,694,717
121 Affordable Child Care 13,275
122 Inclusionary Housing Program 712,265
123 Condo Conversion 509,478
125 Playground Camp 3,911,261
126 State-Prop 172 Pub.Safety 446,694
127 State Transportation Tax 7,954,591
128 CDBG 4,566,152
129 Rental Housing Safety Program 2,657,072
130 Measure B - Local St & Road 2,007,551
131 Measure B - Bike & Pedestrian 47,646
132 Measure B - Paratransit 36,797
133 Measure F Alameda County VRF St & Rd 562,218
134 Measure BB - Local St & Road 9,586,869
135 Meaure BB - Bike & Pedestrian 2,028,132
136 Measure BB - Paratransit 975,667
138 Parks Tax 19,783,148
139 Streets and Open Space Improvement (SOSIP) 200,000
140 Measure GG - Fire Prep Tax 5,900,588
142 Streetlight Assesment District 3,252,909
143 Berkeley Bus Ec Dev 156,387
146 Employee Training 860,645
147 UC Settlement 5,111,175
148 Cultural Trust 116,780
149 Private Party Sidewalks 100,000
150 Public Art Fund 121,001
152 Vital & Health Statistics Trust Fund 30,292
156 Hlth State Aid Realign Trust 4,500,238
157 Tobacco Cont.Trust 368,910

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND
25AAO Final.xlsx 6/26/2024 11:06 AM

EXHIBIT A
ERMA
Fund # Fund
FY 2025
Adopted

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND
158 Mental Health State Aid Realign 5,276,501
159 Citizens Option Public Safety Trust 272, 394
161 A
lameda Cty Abandoned Vehicle Abatement 121,233
164 Measure FF 11,090,910
165 Fair Elections 650,932
301 Operating Grants - Federal 35,162
302 Operating Grants - State 8,260,364
306 Capital Grants - State 750,000
307 Capital Grants - Local 100,000
309 OTS DUI Enforcement Education Prg. 145,074
310 HUD/Home 904,340
311 ESGP 235,744
312 Health (General) 2,753,296
313 Target Case Management Linkages 1,507,317
315 Mental Health Service Act 11,713,181
316 Health (Short/Doyle) 7,506,568
317 EPSDT Expansion Proposal 493,511
318 Alcoholic Bev Ctr OTS/UC 58,644
319 Youth Lunch 111,153
320 Sr. Nutrition Title III 214,038
321 CFP Title X 203,566
324 BUSD Grant 216,521
325 Vector Control 372,174
326 Alameda County Grants 908,861
327 Senior Supportive Social Services 126,557
328 Family Care Support Program 91,307
329 CA Integrated Waste Management 5,244
331 Housing Mitigation 1,126,763
333 CALHOME 200,000
334 Community Action 283,416
336 One-Time Grant: No Cap Exp 3,482,470
339 MTC 752,827
340 FEMA 657,132
341 Alameda Cty Waste Mgt. 345,000
343 State Dept Conserv/Recylg 32,000
347 Shelter+Care HUD 6,644,440
348 Shelter+Care County 924,119
349 JAG Grant 58,989
350 Bioterrorism Grant 533,027
354 ARPA - Local Fiscal Recovery Fund 372,194
501 Capital Improvement Fund 16,880,486
502 Phone System Replacement 449,408
503 FUND$ Replacement 2,807,857
504 PEG-Public, Education & Government 100,000
511 Measure T1 - Infra & Facil. 10,696,058
512 Measure O 6,445,567
25AAO Final.xlsx 6/26/2024 11:06 AM

EXHIBIT A
ERMA
Fund # Fund
FY 2025
Adopted

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND
552 09 Measure FF Debt Service 1,337,638
553 2015 GORBS 2, 047,259
554 2012 Leas
e Revenue Bonds BJPFA 499,820
555 2015 GORBS - 2002 G.O. Refunding Bonds 378,696
556 2015 GORBS (2007, Series A) 142,540
557 2015 GORBS (2008 Measure I) 480,184
558 2010 COP (Animal Shelter) 140,085
559 Measure M GO Street & Water Imps 1,630,863
560 Infrastucture & Facilities Measure T1 4,699,006
561 Measure O - Housing Bonds 2,007,265
601 Zero Waste 63,843,856
608 Marina Operation 8,431,392
611 Sewer 32,682,155
612 Private Sewer Lateral FD 82,732
616 Clean Storm Water 9,085,787
621 Permit Service Center 26,739,100
622 Unified Program (CUPA) 967,783
627 Off Street Parking 7,112,934
631 Parking Meter 9,812,436
636 Building Purchases and Management 3,869,919
671 Equipment Replacement 6,572,107
672 Equipment Maintenance 11,551,467
673 Building Maintenance Fund 5,677,341
674 Central Services 399,519
676 Workers Compensation 6,620,627
678 Public Liability 3,678,458
679 Catastrophic Loss 3,447,023
680 IT Cost Allocation 18,802,533
706 Police Medical Trust Fund 48,281
721 Retiree Medical Trust Fund - BHA 2,970
722 Retiree Medical Trust Fund - IBEW 2,563
723 Retiree Medical Trust Fund - Local 1 22,595
724 Retiree Medical Trust Fund - Z1 Mgmt. 4,000
725 Retiree Medical Trust Fund - Z2 To Z6 12,000
726 Retiree Medical Trust Fund - Local 535 32,191
727 Retiree Medical Trust Fund - Local 790 37,106
731 Police EE Retiree Health Ast Plan 6,500
736 Fire Medical Trust Fund 45,571
762 Successor Agency - Savo DSF 57,120
776 Thousand Oaks Underground 98,448
777 Measure H - School Tax 500,000
778 Measure Q - CFD#1 Dis. Fire Protect Bond 507,914
779 Spl Tax Bds. CFD#1 ML-ROOS 776,665
780 Sick Leave Entitlement 322,955
781 Berkeley Tourism BID 740,277
782 Elmwood Business Improvement District 30,000
25AAO Final.xlsx 6/26/2024 11:06 AM

EXHIBIT A
ERMA
Fund # Fund
FY 2025
Adopted

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND
783 Solano Ave BID 25,000
784 Telegraph Avenue Bus. Imp. District 616, 664
785 N
orth Shattuck BID 228,135
786 Downtown Berkeley Prop & Improv. District 1,604,760 801 Rent Board 7,939,208
GROSS EXPENDITURE: 793,319,711
Dual Appropriations (53,031,895)
Revolving & Internal Service Funds (54,162,697)

NET EXPENDITURE: 686,125,119
25AAO Final.xlsx 6/26/2024 11:06 AM

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Subject: Police Accountability Board – Appointment of New Member

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution appointing a new member to the Police Accountability Board nominated by Councilmember Taplin.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
All commissioners are eligible to receive a stipend of $100 per meeting.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In June of 2021 the Mayor and Members of the City Council nominated and appointed the initial nine members of the PAB and also appointed one alternate commissioner.

There are currently two seats on the PAB that are vacant. The alternate seat is also vacant.

Commissioner Nominated By
vacant Mayor Arreguin
Alexander Mozes Councilmember Kesarwani
vacant Councilmember Taplin
John Moore Councilmember Bartlett
Kitty Calavita Councilmember Harrison
Leah Wilson Councilmember Hahn
Juliet Leftwich Councilmember Wengraf
Joshua Cayetano Councilmember Robinson
Brent Blackaby Councilmember Humbert
vacant Alternate
Councilmember Taplin has nominated David Williams to serve on the Police Accountability Board. David Williams meets the eligibility criteria in the City Charter and may be appointed by a majority vote of the Council.

04

Police Accountability Board – Appointment of Members CONSENT CALENDAR July 9, 2024

The City Charter provides for the appointment of members to the Police Accountability Board. Article XVIII, Section 125, Part 6 states, “The Mayor and each City Councilmember shall nominate one candidate from an applicant pool at a meeting of the City Council and that each individual nominee must be approved by a majority vote of the City Council.”
Members of the Police Accountability Board must:
 Be a resident of the City;
 Be at least 18 years of age;
 Not be an employee, officer, or contractor with the City, a current sworn police officer from any agency, or a current employee, official, or representative of an employee association representing sworn police officers; and
 Be fair minded and objective with a demonstrated commitment to community service.

The City Charter indicates that desirable qualities of a Board member are familiarity with human resources, law, police procedures, police oversight, or involvement in civil rights or community organizations and that the City Council shall endeavor to establish a Board that is broadly inclusive and reflective of race, ethnicity, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, economic status, neighborhoods, and various communities of interest in the City.

BACKGROUND
Measure II was adopted on November 3, 2020 by the voters of Berkeley to establish an Office of the Director of Police Accountability and create a new Police Accountability Board (hereafter “Board”), both of which are independent of the City Manager. The members of the Board are approved by vote of the full Council.

All applicants are reviewed and their eligibility is verified by city staff against the requirements of the Charter.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The appointment is provided for by the City Charter and pursuant to the nomination submitted by Councilmember Taplin.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

Police Accountability Board – Appointment of Members CONSENT CALENDAR July 9, 2024

CONTACT PERSON
Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900
Attachments:
1: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. XX,XXX-N.S.

APPOINTMENT OF DAVID WILLIAMS TO THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD WHEREAS, Measure II was adopted on November 3, 2020 by the voters of Berkeley to create a new Police Accountability Board; and
WHEREAS, Article XVIII, Section 125, Part 6 provides for the Council’s appointment of board members; and
WHEREAS, Councilmember Taplin has submitted a nominee for appointment by the full council; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the following nominees are hereby appointed to the Police Accountability Board:

Nominee Nominated By
David Williams Councilmember Taplin

Office of the City Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Subject: Policies and Timelines for Filing Ballot Measure Arguments

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution establishing policies and timelines for filing ballot measure arguments in the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No direct fiscal impacts related to the recommended action.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City of Berkeley will hold its General Municipal Election on November 5, 2024.

Several City ballot measures will appear on the ballot.

The resolution in Attachment 1 establishes policies and timelines for filing ballot measure arguments on City measures. These policies govern how and when arguments are submitted as well as the required documentation that must accompany the primary and rebuttal arguments. The Council regularly adopts these policies in every municipal election.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900
Attachments:
1: Resolution Establishing Policies and Timelines for Filing Ballot Measure Arguments Exhibit A: Selection Procedure for Multiple Ballot Measure Arguments Exhibit B: Ballot Measure Argument Consent Form
Exhibit C: Signature Form for Proponents

05

RESOLUTION NO –N.S.

ESTABLISHING THE SCHEDULE AND POLICY PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF

BALLOT ARGUMENTS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR CITY

MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
WHEREAS, the C ity Council will l ikely submi t ballot mea sures to the vote rs at the November 5, 2024, election; and
WHEREAS, it is nece ssary to establish a schedule and poli cy for the filing of ballot arguments.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the following policy is hereby adopted for the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election:

Section 1. The Primary Argument filing period opens at 8: 30 a.m. on Monday, August 12, 2024, and closes at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, August 16, 2024. The Rebuttal Argument filing period opens at 4:00 p.m. on Friday, August 16, 2024, and closes at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, August 23, 2024.

Section 2. Th ere is a 10-da y pub lic review period for all ballo t materia ls which starts the day after the due date for the materials.

Section 3. Primary Arguments for or against ballot measures shall not exceed 300 words in length. Rebuttal Arguments for or against ballot measures shall not exceed 250 words in length (EC 9282, 9285). Word count will be determined using the standards set forth in Elections Code Section 9.

Section 4. If more than one argument is submitted on a measure, the City Clerk shall select the argument and shall give preference, in the order named, to arguments of the following: (EC 9287)
a) The legislative body, or member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body.
b) The individual voter or bona fide association of citizens, or combination of voters and associations, who are the bona fide sponsors or proponents of the measure.
c) Bona fide associations of citizens.
d) Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure.

If more than one argument from the same level of standing is submitted, the argument to be printed will be determined by the procedure in Exhibit A.

Attachment 1

Section 5. Each ballot argument must be accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the person or persons submitting it or, if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument. (EC 9283) a. The co nsent fo rm in Exhi bit B must be submitted in order to use an organization name for the title of a signor or as an endorser in the argument text. b. If the argument is filed by: 1) the legislative body or authorized members of the legislative body; or 2) individual voters eligible to vote on the measure, then, pursuant to Elections Code Sections 9282 and 9283, all signors to the argument must be eligible to vote on the measure.

Section 6. No more than five signatures shall appear with any argument. In case any argument is signed by more than five persons, the signatures of the first five shall be printed. (EC 9283) Authors must list the signors names on the argument in the order they are to be printed.

Section 7. The certification of the author(s) and proponent(s) in Exhibit C must be submitted at the time the respective primary argument or rebuttal argument is filed. A separate signature form is required for the rebuttal argument even if the same signor completed a form for the primary argument. (EC 9600)
Section 8. For proponents of ballot arguments whose name and title shall appear with the argument in the voter pamphlet, the title of said proponent is limited to 20 words. In the case that there are more than 20 words, the title will be truncated at the 20th word.

Section 9. The names and titles of proponents will be printed exactly as they appear on the “Printed Name” and “Title” lines on the Signature Form for Proponents in Exhibit C.

Section 10. The Consent Form for Use of Organization Name for Ballot Argument/Rebuttal Statements shown in Exhibit B is required for any proponent and/or signatory that uses the name of any organization in their title. If using more than one organization name in the full title(s), a separate consent form is required for each organization.
a. Consent forms are requi red fo r pe rsons and/or organi zations listed as supporters in the text of the argument.
b. Offices held with p ublic agencies (including city boa rds and commissions) do
not require a consent form from the jurisdiction.

Section 11. The City Clerk, upon receipt of arguments and after the filing deadline, w ill immediatel y transmit copies of the arguments to the authors of the

opposing arguments (both for and against the measure) who may then submit rebuttals within the time period shown above. (EC 9285)
Section 12. Primary arguments may be changed or withdrawn up to 12:00 p.m., Friday, August 16, 2024. Rebuttal arguments may be changed or withdrawn up to 12:00 p.m., Friday, August 23, 2024. Arguments received prior to the deadline are confidential until the deadline.

Section 13. Only the author whose primary argument has been selected by the City Clerk in accordance with Elections Code Section 9287 may file a rebuttal argument or may authorize in writing another person or persons to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument. (EC 9285)
Section 14. Primary and rebuttal arguments must be typed or printed from a computer. Hand written arguments will not be accepted. If prepared on a computer, the primary/rebuttal argument shall be submitted in electronic format in addition to the required hard copy.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these provisions, excluding date specific deadlines, shall remain in effect for all future elections until superseded.

Exhibit A

CITY OF BERKELEY

CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT
Selection Procedure for Multiple Ballot Measure Arguments When multiple ballot measure arguments are submitted for or against a measure, Elections Code Section 9287 provides guidelines for determining which argument will be published in the Voter Information Guide.
9287. City elections official to select if more than one argument. (a) If more than one argument for or more than one argument against any city measure is submitted to the city elections official within the time prescribed, he or she shall select one of the arguments in favor and one of the arguments against the measure for printing and distribution to the voters. In selecting the argument, the city elections official shall give preference and priority, in the order named, to the arguments of the following:
(1) The legislative body, or member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body.
(2) The individual voter, or bona fide association of citizens, or combination of voters and associations, who are the bona fide sponsors or proponents of the measure.
(3) Bona fide associations of citizens.
(4) Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure. (b) In order to enable the city elections official to determine whether it qualifies as a bona fide association of citizens, an organization or association submitting an argument for or against a city measure shall submit with its argument a copy of one of the following:
(1) Its articles of incorporation, articles of association, partnership documents, bylaws, or similar documents.
(2) Letterhead containing the name of the organization and its principal officers.
(3) If the organization or association is a primarily formed committee established to support or oppose the measure, its statement of organization filed pursuant to Section 84101 of the Government Code.
(c) In selecting an argument from among bona fide associations of citizens, the city elections official shall not consider the type of documentation submitted pursuant to subdivision (b) or the form of the association.

The Elections Code does not require that the signors of the argument, when filed by a bona fide association of citizens, must reside or be registered to vote in the jurisdiction that is voting on the measure.

If the argument is being filed by a bona fide association, Elections Code Section 9283 requires that “the name of the organization and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument” must accompany the argument.

The Elections Code does not contain any provision for selecting an argument based on which argument was filed first, or earliest in relation to any arguments filed later, but before the deadline. All arguments filed before the deadline are considered equal in priority.

The Elections Code clearly states that only one argument for and one argument against may be printed (EC Sec. 9287). If two or more parties filing an argument for or against a measure fall under the same classification, then the Elections Official shall select one argument to print. The Elections Official will determine the most appropriate procedure to select the argument to be printed.

The Berkeley Municipal Code and the City Charter do not stipulate a method for selecting arguments if multiple arguments of equal standing are filed. Therefore, state law is followed to make the determination.

The procedure to determine the winning candidate in the case of a tie vote is by drawing of lots (EC Sec. 15651). The Elections Official may determine that the drawing of lots, as outlined below, is the most appropriate means to select the argument to be printed.

Procedure for Drawing of Lots
The names of the authors of each argument shall be written on a piece of paper, folded, and placed in a container so that each argument is represented by one paper. The container will be agitated to mix the papers, and then one paper shall be drawn at a time. As each piece of paper is removed, it will be opened and the names recorded in the order removed.

The order in which the names are removed from the container shall be the order of priority for printing the argument, i.e., the first name chosen shall be the author whose argument shall be printed.

Arguments for a measure and arguments against a measure will each have their own drawing process.

The results of the drawing will then be posted in the City Clerk Department.

Exhibit B

BALLOT MEASURE ARGUMENT CONSENT FORM
► PRIMARY ARGUMENT ◄

CONSENT FOR USE OF ORGANIZATION NAME
I hereby consent that my organization’s name may be referred to as an endorser either within the text of the primary argument or in the title of the signatory listed below for city ballot measure _______________________________________ at the City of Berkeley (subject or measure letter)
General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024.

To be completed by
Organization Principal: ____________________________________________ Printed Name of Principal
____________________________________________
Signature of Principal
____________________________________________
Title
____________________________________________
Organization Name
____________________________________________
Date
____________________________________________
Printed Name of Signatory

CONSENT FOR USE OF ENDORSER NAME
I hereby consent that my name may be referred to as an endorser within the text of the primary argument for City Ballot Measure ____________________________________ (subject or measure letter)
at the City of Berkeley General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024.

To be completed by
Endorser: ____________________________________________
Printed Name of Endorser
____________________________________________
Signature of Endorser
____________________________________________
Title

Exhibit B

BALLOT MEASURE ARGUMENT CONSENT FORM
► REBUTTAL ARGUMENT ◄

CONSENT FOR USE OF ORGANIZATION NAME
I hereby consent that my organization’s name may be referred to as an endorser either within the text of the rebuttal argument or in the title of the signatory listed below for city ballot measure _______________________________________ at the City of Berkeley (subject or measure letter)
General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024.

To be completed by
Organization Principal: ____________________________________________ Printed Name of Principal
____________________________________________
Signature of Principal
____________________________________________
Title
____________________________________________
Organization Name
____________________________________________
Date
____________________________________________
Printed Name of Signatory

CONSENT FOR USE OF ENDORSER NAME
I hereby consent that my name may be referred to as an endorser within the text of the rebuttal argument for City Ballot Measure ____________________________________ (subject or measure letter)
at the City of Berkeley General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024.

To be completed by
Endorser: ____________________________________________
Printed Name of Endorser
____________________________________________
Signature of Endorser
____________________________________________
Title

Exhibit C

SIGNATURE FORM FOR PROPONENTS
► PRIMARY ARGUMENT ◄
EC 9600: "All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to this division shall be accompanied by the following form statement, to be signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:"
The undersigned proponent or author of the ballot argument in favor of or against ballot measure _________________________________________ at the (subject or measure letter)
General Municipal Election for the City of Berkeley to be held on November 5, 2024, hereby states that this argument is true and correct to the best of his/her/their knowledge and belief:

Signed:____________________________________ Date: ___________________ Printed Name: ______________________________________________________ (Name will be printed exactly as written on this line)
Full Title: ______________________________________________________________ (Title will be printed exactly as written on this line – limit 20 words) Residence Address: ___________________________________________________ Phone Number: _______________________________________________________ For the City of Berkeley General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024, I hereby consent that my name may be referred to as an endorser within the text of the primary argument for City Ballot Measure __________________. (subject or measure letter)
 For any argument filed by the City Council or an individual voter, all signors must be eligible to vote on the measure (i.e. Berkeley resident, at least 18 years old on Election Day, U.S. citizen, not incarcerated in a state or federal prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and not currently found mentally incompetent to vote by a court).
 For any signor on a city ballot measure, a consent form is required for the use of any organization name in the signor’s title(s). The organization must consent to the use of its name for all signors.
 Offices held with public agencies (including city boards and commissions) do not require a consent form from the jurisdiction.
 If using more than one organization name in the full title(s), a separate consent form is required for each organization.

Exhibit C

SIGNATURE FORM FOR PROPONENTS
► REBUTTAL ARGUMENT ◄
EC 9600: "All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to this division shall be accompanied by the following form statement, to be signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:"
The undersigned proponent or author of the ballot argument in favor of or against ballot measure __________________________________________ at the (subject or measure letter)
General Municipal Election for the City of Berkeley to be held on November 5, 2024, hereby states that such argument is true and correct to the best of his/her/their knowledge and belief:

Signed:______________________________________ Date: ___________________ Printed Name: ________________________________________________________ (Name will be printed exactly as written on this line)
Full Title: ______________________________________________________________ (Title will be printed exactly as written on this line – limit 20 words) Residence Address: ____________________________________________________ Phone Number: ________________________________________________________ For the City of Berkeley General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024, I hereby consent that my name may be referred to as an endorser within the text of the rebuttal argument for City Ballot Measure __________________. (subject or measure letter)
 For any argument filed by the City Council or an individual voter, all signors must be eligible to vote on the measure (i.e. Berkeley resident, at least 18 years old on Election Day, U.S. citizen, not incarcerated in a state or federal prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and not currently found mentally incompetent to vote by a court).
 For any signor on a city ballot measure, a consent form is required for the use of any organization name in the signor’s title(s). The organization must consent to the use of its name for all signors.
 Offices held with public agencies (including city boards and commissions) do not require a consent form from the jurisdiction.
 If using more than one organization name in the full title(s), a separate consent form is required for each organization

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager, Reimagining Public Safety
Subject: Grant Application: Bureau of Justice Assistance Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program to Support Law Enforcement Agencies

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application to the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in an amount not to exceed $300,000 for the Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There are sufficient funds in the General Fund (011-71-705-820-0000-000-421-666110) allocation to accommodate the 50% match of this grant. This allocation can be used to leverage grant opportunities such as the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) grant program that require local matching funds. If awarded, the BJA grant program will reimburse the City up to 50% of the total project cost.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) a critical entity within the Department of Justice, plays a pivotal role in strengthening the nation's criminal justice system. The BJA assists state, local, and tribal jurisdictions in reducing and preventing crime, decreasing recidivism, and promoting a fair and safe criminal justice system. BJA's efforts encompass a broad spectrum of resources, including training and technical assistance, to support law enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, reentry, justice information sharing, and community-based partners. These initiatives are aimed at addressing both chronic and emerging criminal justice challenges across the nation.

Fiscal Year 2024 funds from the Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program are specifically allocated to support the purchase and lease of body-worn cameras (BWCs) by publicly funded law enforcement and corrections agencies. These funds are intended to aid comprehensive BWC programs. Additionally, the program seeks to support demonstration projects that advance digital evidence management, utilizing BWC digital footage to foster evidence-based and procedurally just practices in agencies with established BWC programs.

06

Grant Application: Bureau of Justice Assistance Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program to Support Law Enforcement Agencies CONSENT CALENDAR July 9, 2024

Body-worn cameras have become the industry standard in policing, and there is broad support for their use in the City of Berkeley. These cameras provide crucial evidence in police investigations and enhance accountability for all parties involved in community- police interactions. Studies have consistently shown that the use of body-worn cameras leads to a significant reduction in citizen complaints and use-of-force incidents.

The Berkeley Police Department is seeking to pursue this funding to continue its successful BWC program and maintenance. By doing so, the department aims to sustain and expand its efforts to promote transparency, accountability, and public trust in its operations.

BACKGROUND
On June 27, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 68,060—NS, in accordance with the requirements of City Charter Article XI, Section 67.2. This resolution approved the National Intergovernmental Purchasing Alliance (National IPA) bid procedures and authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract, including any necessary amendments, to equip the Berkeley Police Department with body-worn camera (BWC) equipment, software, and services from Axon Enterprises. The contract, capped at $1,250,000 over five years, was designed to enhance the department’s transparency and accountability.

Following the adoption of this resolution, the City of Berkeley entered into Contract No. 10662 with Axon Enterprises to purchase and lease BWCs. This contract marked a significant step in the City's efforts to modernize its policing tools and promote community trust. In 2023, the City entered into a subsequent contract with Axon Enterprises under Contract No. 32400001, further reinforcing its commitment to maintaining an effective BWC program.

In alignment with the City's ongoing commitment to the Reimagining Public Safety initiative, the City Council approved strategic funding allocations to sustain and enhance public safety efforts. For fiscal years 2023 and 2024, a total of $100,000 was allocated under the Grant Assistance effort. This funding is a critical component of the City's long- term strategy for safety and community welfare. The Assistant to the City Manager, serving as the Reimagining Public Safety Project Coordinator, oversees the management of these funds within the City Manager’s Office.

In 2024, the City of Berkeley formed a partnership with California Consulting, LLC, under Contract No. 32400015. This partnership aims to bolster the City's grant application processes, thereby maximizing the potential for securing additional funding to support and expand public safety programs. The collaboration is part of a broader effort to ensure that the City can continue to invest in initiatives that promote public safety and community well-being.

Grant Application: Bureau of Justice Assistance Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program to Support Law Enforcement Agencies CONSENT CALENDAR July 9, 2024

As the Reimagining Public Safety initiative transitions into Phase 3, aligning with the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget cycle, securing further grants remains a critical priority.

Continued funding will support the expansion of current initiatives and the introduction of new programs in the next phase of the initiative. This ongoing financial support is essential to sustaining and enhancing comprehensive public safety efforts that ensure a secure and thriving community for all residents.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Approving the resolution enables the City to apply for the BJC Body-Worn Camera grant is essential to secure additional funding needed to expand and sustain Berkeley's body- worn camera program, thereby enhancing transparency, accountability, and overall public safety. This funding will support crucial upgrades and maintenance, ensuring continued community trust and effective law enforcement practices.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager, Reimagining Public Safety, 510- 981-6903
Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police, 510-981-5700
Jen Tate, Deputy Chief, 510-981-5983
Lt. Matthew McGee, Police Community Services Bureau, 510-981-5808 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

AUTHORIZING A GRANT APPLICATION FOR UP TO $300,000 TO BUREAU OF

JUSTICE ASSISSTANCE (BJA) FOR BODY-WORN CAMERA POLICY AND

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM GRANT
WHEREAS, the Bureau of Justice Assistance has established the Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program, which provides 50% matching funding to enhance transparency, accountability, and evidence-based practices for law enforcement agencies across the nation
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley, in alignment with the Reimagining Public Safety initiative, recognizes the urgent need to support its body-worn camera program, ensuring effective law enforcement and strengthening community trust; and WHEREAS, the Berkeley Police Department has established a partnership with Axon Enterprises, focusing on comprehensive body-worn camera solutions that enhance the department's capacity to document and manage interactions with the public effectively; and
WHEREAS, securing the Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program grant is beneficial for continuing the successful deployment and maintenance of body-worn cameras, which have proven helpful in reducing citizen complaints and use-of-force incidents, while promoting transparency and procedural justice; and WHEREAS, the application for this grant, due July 24, 2024, in the amount of up to $300,000, requires timely submission and a 50% match to meet strict funding deadlines.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council approves the City Manager (or her designee) to submit a Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program FY 2024 grant application in the amount of up to $300,000, due July 24, 2024; to accept the grant and provide a 50% match; to execute any resultant revenue agreements and amendments; and authorize these funds be utilized to support the current Axon BWC contract, subject to securing the grant.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: David Sprague, Fire Chief
Subject: Contract: Gallup, Inc for employee engagement and development

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee(s) to enter into a contract and any amendments with Gallup, Inc for reporting, coaching and learning tools and resources that focus on employee strengths-based development as a sole source.

The contract will be effective August 1, 2024 and end on September 30, 2026 in an amount not to exceed $150,000. The contract may be extended for up to four additional years at a cost not to exceed an additional $75,000 per year.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
All funds required to pay for this contract are in the Department’s baseline operating budget. Funding sources include but are not limited to Measure FF, UC Settlement Funds, and the General Fund.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Department has been working diligently to develop systems, programs, and resources to support employee development across all classifications. One key area of focus is developing current and future supervisors. We believe well trained supervisors are the key to happy and satisfied employees. The Department has hosted numerous leadership and management courses subsequent to receiving a $180,000 FEMA grant, Department leaders have established quarterly meetings with all supervisors to discuss current topics and needs, and the organization is in the middle of hosting its first supervisor development academy.

We have used Gallup products and concepts extensively and have found them to provide a great value to those who have engaged with them. The Department is seeking to engage Gallup in a long-term agreement and integrate their services into established leadership development programs.

07

Contract: Gallup, Inc for employee engagement and development CONSENT CALENDAR July 9, 2024

Developing employees is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to:
 provide excellent, timely, easily-accessible service and information to the community, and
 attract and retain a talented and diverse City government workforce.

BACKGROUND
Gallup’s programs are based on the most comprehensive research on the topic. Gallup has studied Over 3.3 Million Workers Across 100,000+ Teams, across 50 diverse industries and across the globe. This data has been used to develop a comprehensive understanding of what employees need most to perform their best. Gallup's 12-item engagement survey, referred to as the " Q12," is the culmination of that research.

The Gallup CliftonStrengths assessment and CliftonStrengths program are wholly owned by Gallup and not distributed through or provided by anyone but Gallup.

Additionally, Gallup retains the exclusive rights in granting a license for use of its intellectual property.

The CliftonStrengths assessment helps individuals, teams and organizations discover and develop their natural talents. The assessment consists of 187 paired questions and measures the presence of 34 talent themes. The CliftonStrengths program consists of multiple reporting, coaching and learning tools and resources that focus on strengths- based development and how to use it for personal development and the development of others.

Because of the proprietary trade secret information involved in the CliftonStrengths assessment, this type of service cannot be obtained from any other source and, therefore, Gallup should be accepted as a sole source provider.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Department is committed to developing its employees, especially its current and future supervisors. The Department has extensive experience with Gallup products and services and have found them to be very helpful.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
David Sprague, Fire Chief, (510) 981-3473

Contract: Gallup, Inc for employee engagement and development CONSENT CALENDAR July 9, 2024

Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Sole Source Letter

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

CONTRACT: GALLUP, INC FOR EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Department has been working diligently to develop systems, programs, and resources to support employee development across all classifications. One key area of focus is developing current and future supervisors; and WHEREAS, we believe well trained supervisors are the key to happy and satisfied employees. The Department has hosted numerous leadership and management courses subsequent to receiving a $180,000 FEMA grant, Department leaders have established quarterly meetings with all supervisors to discuss current topics and needs, and the organization is in the middle of hosting its first supervisor development academy; and
WHEREAS, we have used Gallup products and concepts extensively and have found them to provide a great value to those who have engaged with them. The Department is seeking to engage Gallup in a long-term agreement and integrate their services into established leadership development programs; and
WHEREAS, the Gallup CliftonStrengths assessment and CliftonStrengths program are wholly owned by Gallup and not distributed through or provided by anyone but Gallup.

Additionally, Gallup retains the exclusive rights in granting a license for use of its intellectual property; and
WHEREAS, the CliftonStrengths assessment helps individuals, teams and organizations discover and develop their natural talents. The assessment consists of 187 paired questions and measures the presence of 34 talent themes. The CliftonStrengths program consists of multiple reporting, coaching and learning tools and resources that focus on strengths-based development and how to use it for personal development and the development of others; and
WHEREAS, because of the proprietary trade secret information involved in the CliftonStrengths assessment, this type of service cannot be obtained from any other source and, therefore, Gallup should be accepted as a sole source provider.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or her designee(s) to enter into a contract and any amendments with Gallup, Inc for reporting, coaching and learning tools and resources that focus on employee strengths-based development as a sole source. The contract will be effective August 1, 2024 and end on September 30, 2026 in an amount not to exceed $150,000.

The contract may be extended for up to six additional years at a cost not to exceed an additional $75,000 per year.

1001 Gallup Drive ◼ Omaha, Nebraska 68102 ◼ USA
t 402.951.2003 f1.888.500.8202

www.gallup.com

June 5, 2024

To Whom it May Concern:

This letter serves as a sole source letter to describe the CliftonStrengths® assessment and the CliftonStrengths program, which are proprietary material developed by Gallup, Inc.

The CliftonStrengths assessment and CliftonStrengths program are wholly owned by Gallup and not distributed through or provided by anyone but Gallup. Additionally, Gallup retains the exclusive rights in granting a license for use of its intellectual property.

The CliftonStrengths assessment helps individuals, teams and organizations discover and develop their natural talents. The assessment consists of 187 paired questions and measures the presence of 34 talent themes. The CliftonStrengths program consists of multiple reporting, coaching and learning tools and resources that focus on strengths-based development and how to use it for personal development and the development of others. The web portal and learning tools include materials designed to help others understand, apply and integrate CliftonStrengths results into their lives and organized roles.

Because of the proprietary trade secret information involved in the CliftonStrengths assessment, this type of service cannot be obtained from any other source and, therefore, Gallup should be accepted as a sole source provider.

If you have any questions about the Gallup process or Gallup’s qualifications to be a sole source provider, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours,

LISA B. KIICHLER
Vice President-Law and Senior Counsel

t 402.938.6414 f 402.938.5927
[email protected]

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: David Sprague, Fire Chief, Fire Department Subject: Purchase Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. and Contract No. 078804-1 (8068) Amendment: Banc of America Public Capital Corp. for Master Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement for Three Fire Engines and Two Aerial Fire Trucks

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to purchase three Pierce Enforcer 1500 GPM Type 1 Fire Engines and two Pierce Enforcer Tractor Drawn Aerials by executing:

1. Purchase Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $7,353,115, providing for California sales tax of $751,206 and pre-pay discount of $951,353; and

2. Increase the Master Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement with Banc of America Public Capital Corp. by $9,492,845 (prior to sales tax, equipment only) yielding an amended total NTE amount of $26,693,305 on Contract No. 078804- 1 (8068) with financing pursuant to the amendment to be paid over 7 years at an annual interest rate of 4.1438% and a first payment commencing no later than April 9, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The purchase price for the three engines and two aerial fire trucks will not exceed $9,492,845. This purchase total includes document fees, California tire fees, delivery charges and sales tax. This also includes a pre-payment discount of $951,353.

The Purchase Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. (Pierce) is for amount not to exceed $7,353,115, providing for California sales tax of $751,206, and a pre-payment discount of $951,353.

The purchase will be financed through the Lease/purchase agreement with Banc of America Public Capital Corp for an amount NTE $9,492,845 (this includes California tire fees, document fees, delivery charges and training), to be paid over 7 years at an interest rate of 4.1438%, with a first payment commencing no later than April 9, 2025.

08

Purchase Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. and CONSENT CALENDAR Contract No 078804-1 (8068) Amendment Banc of America July 9, 2024 Public Capital Corp. for Master Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement

The City will directly remit sales tax payments in an amount NTE $751,206.

Payments for the lease and tax payments will be made through annual budget allocation from the General Fund (011). The annual debt service payment will be appropriated in the General Fund and transferred to the Equipment Replacement Fund (Fund 671) as part of the Lease/purchase amount including sales tax. (2) Fire Enforcer Tractor Drawn Aerials $ 4,451,658 (3) Fire Enforcer Fire Engines 3,652,663 Total NTE Amount $ 8,104,351

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This purchase will replace three fire engines and two aerial trucks that are nearing their end of useful service life as front line, initial response vehicles. The existing vehicles will be transitioned to reserve status and will be used when additional units are deployed for special events, during wildfire weather, and for larger/complex incidents. Reserve apparatus are also used when front line apparatus must be placed out of service for maintenance and repairs.

These vehicles are used 24/7 by the City’s firefighters to respond to all types of non- emergency and emergency situations including but not limited to fires of all types, medical emergencies, technical rescues, water rescues, hazardous materials incidents, fire alarms, natural gas leaks, electrical emergencies, and more. While the use of these vehicles is primarily for incidents within Berkeley, all Department resources are factored into the Statewide Mutual Aid System to support other jurisdictions when their own resources prove to be inadequate to cope with given situations. Berkeley relies on this same mutual aid system when the incidents within its jurisdiction surge beyond normal volume and/or when there are larger or more complex incidents that exceed available resources.

This purchase agreement will support the City’s Strategic Plan Goal of creating a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared City.

BACKGROUND
Contract No. 8068 is a Master Equipment/Lease Purchase Agreement between the City and Banc of America Public Capital Corp. executed in July 2009 for an initial NTE amount of $5,530,940 for the purchase of 4 fire engines and 2 fire trucks. This Master Lease provides for additional “Leases,” defined as Schedules to the Master Lease, for the purpose of financing the acquisition of equipment by the City. The Master Lease was amended in July 2010 to finance the purchase of recycling split carts increasing the contract amount by $2,886,852 for an amended NTE amount of $8,417,791. In October 2015, a second amendment to the Master Lease was executed for the purchase of 3 fire engines and 1 hazmat response vehicle at an incremental value of $2,996,400, yielding an NTE amount of $11,414,191. In October 2019, a third amendment to the

Purchase Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. and CONSENT CALENDAR Contract No 078804-1 (8068) Amendment Banc of America July 9, 2024 Public Capital Corp. for Master Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement

Master Lease was executed for the purchase of 4 fire engines and 1 tiller at an incremental value of $5,274,172 yielding an NTE amount of $16,688,364.

The fire apparatus supply chain has not yet recovered from the pandemic and the lead time for vehicle delivery after an order is placed is currently 48 months. Fire apparatus can be used in a front-line status for approximately 10 years. Beyond this service life the vehicles are placed in reserve status as the maintenance and repair costs escalate dramatically along with the amount of time the vehicle is out of service.

By the time these vehicles are delivered the engines that will be replaced will have been in front line service for 11 years and the trucks for 19 years, one (1) and nine (9) years longer than desirable, respectively. Additionally, the current fleet of reserve engines and truck is 15 years old and are no longer in good working condition.

The City of Berkeley has been a no cost member of the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGACBuy), a Cooperative Purchasing Program that has offered inter-local purchasing since 2008. HGACBuy provides procurement services that make the government procurement process more efficient by establishing competitively priced contracts for good and services made available to local governments nationwide.

All products and services offered through HGACBuy have been subjected to a public competitive bid process. Houston-Galveston Area Council selected Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. as one of the best responsive and responsible proposers and awarded Contract No. FS12-23. The Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. authorized dealer for the state of California including the City of Berkeley is Golden State Fire Apparatus, Inc.

HGACBuy charges an order processing charge for each sale successfully completed through their contract. For this purchase a flat fee of $4,000 will be paid directly to HGACBuy by Golden State Fire Apparatus, Inc.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Department would like to transition its fleet of front-line fire apparatus to electric.

This is likely to not be financially feasible until all firehouses are remodeled/rebuilt to include the appropriate infrastructure (see next section) and/or the price of electric fire apparatus decreases or additional revenue is identified.

However, modern Pierce fire apparatus do have an exhaust aftertreatment system which reduces harmful exhaust emissions from internal-combustion engines. In other words, it is a device that cleans exhaust gases to ensure the engines meet emission regulations.

First the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) collects and oxidizes carbon to remove particulate matter (PM) by more than 90%; the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) aids in this process and is also contained in the particulate filter. The exhaust passes from the turbo through the DOC and enters the DPF.

Purchase Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. and CONSENT CALENDAR Contract No 078804-1 (8068) Amendment Banc of America July 9, 2024 Public Capital Corp. for Master Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement

After collecting the particles from the gases in the DOC and DPF, there is still nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) left in the exhaust. In order to reduce the NOx levels a light mist of urea Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) is injected into the hot exhaust stream in the Decomposition Reactor.

The exhaust progresses from the Decomposition Reactor into the SCR system which converts the toxic NOx and urea mixture into harmless nitrogen gas (N2) and water vapor (H2O), which effectively eliminates harmful emissions resulting in near zero emissions from the exhaust.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
These vehicles represent the core of how the Department delivers service. The vehicles that are in-service now will be well past their useful life by the time these vehicles are manufactured and delivered. The new apparatus come with exciting new features that will help the Department navigate a transportation network that increasingly presents with more congestion. These units adopt the shorter wheelbase the Department transitioned to in 2016 and implement a new dual front and rear axle steering feature which improve maneuverability and reduce wide swing turns with a tighter turning radius.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The Department would like to transition its fleet of front-line apparatus to electric, which has recently emerged in the emergency response apparatus marketplace. In collaboration with Public Works the Department investigated switching to electric fire apparatus. Unfortunately, there are major financial hurdles that stand in the way of that goal. Specifically, each apparatus is approximately $500,000 more expensive, which would equate to an additional commitment of at least $2.5m for this purchase. In addition, each of the City’s seven (7) fire stations would need to be retrofitted with 3- phase power and charging infrastructure at an estimated cost of at least $2.9 million.

Given the current state of fire facilities and the pending re-build/renovations that we know have to occur in the next ten (10) years according to the Fire Facilities Master Plan, these investments do not seem fiscally prudent.

CONTACT PERSON
David Sprague, Fire Chief (510) 981-3473
Henry Oyekanmi, Director of Finance, (510) 981-7300
Terrance Davis, Director of Public Works, (510) 981-6300 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC., AND CONTRACT NO. 078804-1 (8068) AMENDMENT FOR MASTER EQUIMENT LEASE / PURCHASE AGREEMENT: BANC OF AMERICA PUBLIC CAPITAL CORP. FOR

PURCHASE OF THREE FIRE ENGINES AND TWO AERIAL FIRE TRUCKS WHEREAS, this purchase will replace fire apparatus that are nearing their end of useful service life as front line, initial response vehicles. The existing vehicles will be transitioned to reserve status and will be used when additional units are deployed for special events, during wildfire weather, and for larger/complex incidents. Reserve apparatus are also used when front line apparatus must be placed out of service for maintenance and repairs; and
WHEREAS, these vehicles are used 24/7 by the City’s firefighters to respond to all types of non-emergency and emergency situations including but not limited to fires of all types, medical emergencies, technical rescues, water rescues, hazardous materials incidents, fire alarms, natural gas leaks, electrical emergencies; and WHEREAS, the five fire engines are factored int the California Disaster and Civil Defense Statewide Mutual Aid System; and
WHEREAS, the fire apparatus supply chain has not yet recovered from the pandemic and the lead time for vehicle delivery after an order is placed is currently 48 months. Fire apparatus can be used in a front-line status for approximately 10 years. Beyond this service life the vehicles are placed in reserve status as the maintenance and repair costs escalate dramatically along with the amount of time the vehicle is out of service; and WHEREAS, by the time these vehicles are delivered the engines that will be replaced will have been in front line service for 11 years and the trucks for 19 years, one and nine years longer than desirable, respectively; and
WHEREAS, these vehicles represent the core of how the Department delivers service.

The vehicles that are in-service now will be well past their useful life by the time these vehicles are manufactured and delivered. The new apparatus come with exciting new features that will help the Department navigate a transportation network that increasingly presents with more congestion. These units adopt the shorter wheelbase the Department transitioned to in 2016 and implement a new dual front and rear axle steering feature which improve maneuverability and reduce wide swing turns with a tighter turning radius; and
WHEREAS, City Charter XI Section 67.2 may, by resolution, authorize the City to purchase goods without undergoing a competitive bid process if the City uses pricing obtained by another entity through a competitive bid process; and

WHEREAS, HGACBuy bid procedures satisfy the procurement requirements of the City of Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, funding is subject to appropriation in the FY 2025 budget via; and WHEREAS, the Purchase Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc will be entered into the contracts database via Contract No. 078804-1 (8068).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council hereby accepts the proposals of Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., for three fire engines per Proposal Number 20509-24AP dated May 9, 2024 and two aerial fire trucks per Proposal Number 20509-24A2 dated May 9, 2024.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to enter into a Purchase Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $7,353,115, providing for California sales tax of $751,206, and pre-pay discount of $951,353 for the purchase three engines and two aerial fire trucks.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to increase the Master Lease contract amount with Banc of America Public Capital Corp. by $9,492,845 (prior to sale tax, equipment only) yielding an amended total NTE amount of $26,693,305 on Contract No. 078804-1 (8068) with financing pursuant to the amendment to be paid over 7 years at an interest rate of 4.1438% and a first payment commencing no later than April 9, 2025.

BE IT FURHTER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute a purchase order for direct payment of sales tax in an amount not to exceed $751,206.

Office of the City Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Aram Kouyoumdjian, Director of Human Resources Subject: Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Civilian Instructor – Establish Job Class Specifications and Salary Range

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution establishing the unrepresented job class specifications of – and salary range for – Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Civilian Instructor, with an hourly range of $31.5568 to $38.7241.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact will vary, given that CERT instructors typically work 10 hours per week on an intermittent basis.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Civilian Instructors receive an hourly wage of $34.9572, but there is currently no official job class specification or salary range.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley Fire Department Office of Emergency Services Division (Fire-OES) coordinates training for the community on disaster preparedness topics. As part of this work, Fire-OES administers the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program, which includes education in disaster preparedness and training in basic emergency skills for City residents and people who work in Berkeley. The program includes courses in disaster preparedness, fire safety, disaster medical operations, light search and rescue operations, CERT organization, and additional disaster preparedness topics.

Currently, intermittent CERT Civilian Instructors work under Fire-OES to deliver courses using the federally defined CERT curriculum, as well as disaster preparedness courses

09

CERT Civilian Instructor – Job Class Specifications and Salary Range Consent Calendar July 9, 2024
tailored to the specific needs of the Berkeley community. Education is delivered through community-wide courses, in neighborhoods with community groups, and at community events.

Over the years since the CERT Civilian Instructor position was established, some instructors have left the role, but the City has not been able to fill these vacancies because of the lack of an official job classification. Due to these staffing shortages, the Fire Department has not been able to offer CERT courses at a frequency to meet community demands, as courses are generally full within days of posting. In addition, there is currently a backlog of unmet community requests for neighborhood-based CERT and other disaster preparedness courses. Establishing the CERT Civilian Instructor job classification will enable the City to move forward with hiring additional necessary CERT Civilian Instructors to help meet community needs.

Introducing a salary range would allow higher pay upon entry for qualified applicants and broaden the potential applicant pool; allow for increased pay commensurate with time worked in the role, enhancing retention; and enable the City to honor the contributions of current CERT Civilian Instructors, some of whom have served in these roles since the position was established in 2015.

The Personnel Board discussed and voted at its June 3, 2024 meeting to send this classification and salary to the City Council for approval (Motion to approve:

Wenk/Gilbert; Vote - Ayes: Bartlow, Dixon, Gilbert, Karpinski, Lacey, O’Loughlin, Wenk; Noes: None; Abstains: None; Absent: None.).

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The intermittent CERT Civilian Instructor job classification will continue to deliver content related to natural hazards exacerbated by climate change.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This job class specification is being created to maintain and expand the delivery of the CERT curriculum to the Berkeley community. Establishing the job class enables the City to move forward with hiring the necessary CERT Civilian Instructors to deliver courses to the community.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Aram Kouyoumdjian, Director of Human Resources, (510) 981-6807.

ATTACHMENTS
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Civilian Instructor – Job Class Specifications and Salary Range

CERT Civilian Instructor – Job Class Specifications and Salary Range Consent Calendar July 9, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. xxxxx - N.S.

NEW JOB SPECIFICATIONS AND SALARY RANGE FOR COMMUNITY

EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (CERT) CIVILIAN INSTRUCTOR CLASSIFICATION WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department maintains the Classification and Compensation plan for the City of Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, the classification of Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Civilian Instructor was established without accompanying job specifications; and WHEREAS, job specifications are foundational components of the City’s Classification and Compensation plan; and
WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department developed job specifications for the classification with an hourly salary range of $31.5568 to $38.7241; and WHEREAS, the Personnel Board recommended on June 3, 2024 to adopt the new job specifications and salary range for the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Civilian Instructor class;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the classification for Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Civilian Instructor is established with a salary range and classification as shown in Exhibit A, effective July 9, 2024.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Civilian Instructor classification have an hourly salary range of $31.5568 to $38.7241 over 5 salary steps, effective the start of the first full pay period following adoption of this resolution.

STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5
$31.5568 $33.2135 $34.9572 $36.7925 $38.7241
Exhibit A:

Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Civilian Instructor – Job Class Specifications and Salary Range

CERT Civilian Instructor – Job Class Specifications and Salary Range Consent Calendar July 9, 2024

EXHIBIT A
Community
Emergency
Response Team
(CERT) Civilian
Instructor
Bargaining Unit: Unrepresented Classification
Class Code:

XXXX

CITY OF BERKELEY
Established Date: July 9, 2024

SALARY RANGE
$31.5568 - $38.7241 Hourly
$2,524.54 - $3,097.92 Biweekly
$5,469.85 - $6,712.18 Monthly
$65,638.14 - $80,546.13 Annually
DESCRIPTION:

DEFINITION
Under general direction of a Division Manager in the Fire Department, or their designee, the CERT Civilian Instructor supports City of Berkeley Fire Department community education efforts. The position delivers the federally-defined Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) curriculum and disaster preparedness education to members of the public; represents the Department at community events; tracks and reports on community engagement efforts; assists in maintaining tools and materials for use in instruction; and performs other work related to community emergency preparedness and other related duties as required.

This role requires a strong commitment to community engagement, effective communication skills, ability to work collaboratively with a diverse population, and the ability to provide effective instruction to individuals and groups on how to effectively prepare for and respond to various emergencies.

CLASS CHARACTERISTICS
This single position journey-level class provides emergency and disaster preparedness training, education, and support under the Fire Department.

EXAMPLES OF DUTIES:

The following list of duties is intended only to describe the various types of work that may be performed and the level of technical complexity of the assignment(s) and is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of duties. The omission of a specific duty statement does not exclude it from the position if the work is

CERT Civilian Instructor – Job Class Specifications and Salary Range Consent Calendar July 9, 2024
consistent with the concept of the classification, or is similar or closely related to another duty statement.

1. Coordinates and teaches community and personal disaster preparedness classes. Training may include but is not limited to courses on the standardized Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) curriculum and other disaster preparedness courses tailored to the specific needs of the Berkeley community. The CERT Civilian Instructor may focus on one or several of these topics.

2. Presents to community audiences and fosters a strong rapport with participants, encourages active participation and interaction during training sessions. Presentations may include hands-on activities.

3. Responds in a timely manner to requests from community members or other groups regarding outreach programs and training.

4. Gathers feedback from participants. Assists with tailoring training content to target audiences, ensuring relevance, accessibility, and relatability. Maintains accurate records of training sessions, attendance, and participant feedback.

5. Assists the Division with developing public facing curricula, schedules, and training/drill programs.

This work may be coordinated between the Fire Department and other City departments and stakeholders.

6. Assists the Division with community meetings and/or events, including drills, fairs, and other gatherings.

7. Assists the Division with developing and maintaining working partnerships in the Berkeley community with government, business, non-profit, and community members by offering training and conducting community outreach.

8. Performs related duties as assigned.

KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES:

Note: The level and scope of the knowledge and skills listed below are related to the job duties as defined under Class Characteristics.

Knowledge of:

1. Principles and current standards in one or more areas: the standardized Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) curriculum, and disaster preparedness topics in Berkeley.

2. Excellent communication skills, including public speaking, interpersonal communication, and written communication.

3. Adult learning methodologies, and interactive training techniques.

4. Teaching tools and technologies, both online and offline, to enhance the learning experience.

5. Principles of training, community education and organizing.

6. Principles of effective written and verbal communication.

Ability to:

1. Adapt training content to different age groups, cultural backgrounds, and educational levels.

2. Convey complex information in an easy-to-understand manner.

3. Develop and maintain excellent working relationships with people in Berkeley’s diverse communities.

4. Work independently and as part of a team, to take direction from leadership and collaborate with other educators and emergency response professionals.

5. Manage multiple projects and tasks simultaneously.

6. Express oneself clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.

7. Develop public education materials utilizing digital tools and content editing programs.

CERT Civilian Instructor – Job Class Specifications and Salary Range Consent Calendar July 9, 2024
Skill in:

1. Public speaking and community outreach activities.

2. Facilitating meetings with community members.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:

A TYPICAL WAY OF GAINING THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS OUTLINED ABOVE IS:

Equivalent to graduation from high school.

Desirable qualifications include: Completion of CERT Train-the-Trainer course; two years of experience in emergency services, public health, education, community organizing or related field; Associate’s degree in fire science, emergency management, public policy, public administration, or related field; and ability to communicate in languages that are reflective of the community served.

OTHER REQUIREMENTS

Availability to work evening, night, and weekend shifts is desirable.

Must be able to travel to various locations within and outside the City of Berkeley to meet program needs and to fulfill the job responsibilities. When driving on City business, the incumbent is required to maintain a valid California driver’s license as well as a satisfactory driving record.

CLASSIFICATION HISTORY:

Classification Code XXXX
Classification Established July 9, 2024
FLSA Status Non-Exempt
Admin Leave / Overtime Overtime
Representation Unit Unrepresented
Probationary Period One Year
Workers’ Comp Code 8810

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Aram Kouyoumdjian, Director of Human Resources Subject: Contract No. 32000224 Amendment: GovInvest, Inc. for Labor Costing Software and Analysis Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000224 with GovInvest, Inc. for labor costing software and analysis services to cover the period May 23, 2023 to June 30, 2026 for a total cost not to exceed $375,000.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The funding for the cost of the amendment will be paid for by the General Fund (Fund 011) and covers multiple years and cycles of contract negotiations with the City’s labor partners.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
GovInvest is the external firm that provides the City with the sophisticated software and analysis services utilized in labor costing. The current contract, in effect since 2020, is capped at $200,000, so an extension of the contract and an increase in its cap are necessary to keep these services viable for the next two fiscal years, given that negotiations are still pending in 2024 with two Miscellaneous bargaining units and will continue in 2025 with IBEW and in early 2026 with multiple Public Safety bargaining units.

BACKGROUND
By contracting with GovInvest in 2020, the City digitized its labor costing through a sophisticated software that projects the costs associated with various labor proposals and agreements, utilizing in its calculations such complicating factors as compounding and dynamic changes such as step advancements. Aside from access to the software, the City engages GovInvest analysts to validate the costing models.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
GovInvest provides software for paperless costing services.

10

Contract Amendment: GovInvest, Inc. for Labor Costing CONSENT CALENDAR July 9, 2024

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Maintaining reliable labor costing services during labor negotiations is integral to the City’s fiscal decisions and budgetary projections. This contract extension and cap increase would allow the City continued access to such services for the next two fiscal years.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Aram Kouyoumdjian, Director of Human Resources, (510) 981-6807.

Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT NO. 32000224 AMENDMENT: GOVINVEST, INC. FOR LABOR COSTING

SOFTWARE AND ANALYSIS SERVICES
WHEREAS, maintaining reliable labor costing services during labor negotiations is integral to the City’s fiscal decisions and budgetary projections; and WHEREAS, GovInvest, Inc. is the external firm that provides the City with sophisticated software and analysis services utilized in labor costing; and WHEREAS, the current contract with GovInvest, in effect since 2020, is capped at $200,000, so an extension of the contract and an increase in its cap are necessary to keep these services viable for the next two fiscal years, given that negotiations are still pending in 2024 with two Miscellaneous bargaining units and will continue in 2025 with IBEW and in early 2026 with multiple Public Safety bargaining units.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000224 with GovInvest, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $375,000 for the period covering May 23, 2023 through June 30, 2026.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a record signature copy of said contract and any amendments be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Contract: Rincon Consultants, Inc. for environmental support services for the Berkeley Water Transportation Pier Ferry Project

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Rincon Consultants, Inc (Rincon) in an amount not to exceed $3,080,000 which includes $280,000 of contingency to provide environmental support services for the Berkeley Water Transportation Pier Ferry Project (Project) for the period July 15, 2024 through June 1, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The cost of this contract is covered by a combination of Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) funds and Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and California Coastal Conservancy (CCC) grants. Funds for the Project are available in the 2024 budget as follows:
$1,000,000 606-52-545-000-0000-000-479-720003- PRWWF24002-606-COAST- $1,500,000 307-52-545-000-0000-000-461-720003- PRWWF24002-307. $580,000 336-52-545-000-0000-000-461-720003- PRWWF24002-336

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On December 7, 2021, City staff presented the preferred concept from the Ferry Facility at Berkeley Municipal Pier Feasibility Study1 (Feasibility Study), which includes landside and on-water improvements to provide a dual-purpose pier allowing both recreation and ferry access. The Feasibility Study was finalized and posted to the Project website in June, 20232.

The City received a California Coastal Conservancy grant of $2.96M and an Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) grant of $5.139M to fund the engineering, 1 December 7, 2021 Work Session
2 Feasibility Study, Ferry Facility at Berkeley Municipal Pier, June 2023

11

Contract: Rincon for Environmental Support Services for the CONSENT CALENDAR Berkeley Water Transportation Pier Ferry Project July 9, 2024

detailed design and environmental studies for the Project. WETA has allocated funding in the amount of $3,000,000 for the engineering, design and environmental phase (Phase 2) of the Project in its 2023/24 Capital Budget and the City has amended its WETA MOU to reflect the Phase 2 scope and budget allocation (Resolution No. 71,325- N.S.).

On February 27, 2024 the City issued a request for qualifications for environmental support services for the Berkeley Water Transportation Pier Ferry Project (Spec No. 24- 11627-C). The City received two proposals and conducted interviews of both firms.

After evaluation of written proposals, reference checks and interviews, the selection panel identified Rincon as the consultant best suited to meet the City’s needs for this Project.

Under this contract, Rincon will provide environmental studies, documents, public presentations and permitting support to complete all environmental analyses, approvals and permits required for the Berkeley Water Transportation Pier-Ferry Project.

BACKGROUND
In July of 2015, the Berkeley Municipal Pier was closed to the public indefinitely due to structural safety issues. On June 21, 2017, the City contracted with GHD, Inc. to perform a structural engineering assessment to identify feasible options and costs for fixing the Pier (contract No. 10632, Resolution No. 67,856). The draft study identified twelve options ranging in cost from $16 million to $51 million. A second component of the study looked at the feasibility of small-scale ferry service at the potentially renovated pier. (Small-scale ferry service is currently offered by two independent providers at K- dock at the main basin at the Marina).

In February of 2016, the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) updated its Strategic Plan. The resulting System Expansion & Strategic Plan identified a network of sixteen ideal locations for expanded ferry service throughout the Bay Area region, including Berkeley, to help provide alternative transportation for disasters and commuter needs.

WETA
In 1999, the California State Legislature established the Water Transit Authority (WTA) (WETA's predecessor agency), to consolidate existing ferry services operated by the cities of Valley, Alameda and Oakland into a comprehensive water transit system and to expand water transit on the San Francisco Bay. In 2007, the agency name was changed to Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) and its responsibilities expanded to include coordination of the water transit response to a regional emergency.

WETA’s overall mission is to plan for and operate passenger-only ferry services on the San Francisco Bay for commuter and disaster response purposes. The Berkeley location has been identified in WETA’s System Expansion & Strategic Plan (2016) as

Contract: Rincon for Environmental Support Services for the CONSENT CALENDAR Berkeley Water Transportation Pier Ferry Project July 9, 2024

one of the higher priority Near-Term projects, along with the Seaplane Lagoon in Alameda, Mission Bay in San Francisco, and Redwood City.

PREFERRED PROJECT
The Feasibility Study identified a preferred Project that consists of landslide and waterside improvements summarized below. All dimensions and concepts here are preliminary, and subject to change based on the detailed engineering and environmental studies that will occur in Phase 2. The planning-level construction cost estimate for the preferred Project is approximately $70M (not including electric ferry vessels or cost escalation, see Feasibility Study Appendix E).  A new, 22-foot-wide pier (same width as the existing Berkeley Municipal Pier) to accommodate both ferry foot traffic, recreational activities, and emergency and maintenance vehicles. The pier would extend from the shoreline at Seawall Drive westward to a new breakwater (approximately 580 feet long).  A new breakwater creating a safe harbor from the predominantly southwesterly winds and waves for ferry boarding on the north side of the new pier (approximately 400 feet long). The breakwater would provide surface decking to allow public access for recreational activities.
 An extension of the new pier westward into the Bay beyond the breakwater for recreational use (approximately 500 feet long).
 A ferry facility including ferry berthing floats, float piles, ADA-accessible gangways, and security gates.
 Renovation of the parking lot located at 199 Seawall Drive, which would include new pavement surfacing, new striping, and new stormwater bioswales to treat stormwater runoff.
 Improvement of an area along the southwestern side of University Avenue would provide for public buses, shuttles, and a drop-off zone for rideshare and family vehicles.
 Renovation of pedestrian pathways and safety lighting.  Shifting the Seawall Drive vista parking zone from the west side to the east side of the road.
 A new water access point at the small peninsula located at the southwest corner of Seawall Drive.
 A new restroom and fish cleaning area to replace an existing restroom.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The transportation system in the Bay Area has become severely impacted by the growing economy and population boom, causing severe traffic congestion and overcrowding on public transit systems. Traffic congestion keeps more vehicles on roads, and overcrowding on public transit systems can push commuters back into cars, both of which result in more greenhouse gas emissions.

Contract: Rincon for Environmental Support Services for the CONSENT CALENDAR Berkeley Water Transportation Pier Ferry Project July 9, 2024

The City’s Climate Action Plan identifies public transit as a more sustainable form of transportation (Chapter 3), and sets a goal to expand under-used modes of transportation, such as ferry service at the Berkeley Marina to connect to San Francisco and other locations. In spring 2023, WETA completed its Blueprint for Zero Emission Vessel Transition. To support this transition, the Berkeley pier-ferry will be designed to support zero-emission ferry service.

As a water-based transportation service, WETA will be directly impacted by Sea-level Rise. As agencies throughout the Bay Area explore adaptation strategies and other mitigation measures, WETA will monitor forecasts and trends to ensure that its plans for expansion and operations remain an effective public transit option for the foreseeable future.

This contract with Rincon includes analyses of existing conditions, potential Project impacts, and the development of mitigation measures to ensure that Project’s environmental impacts are avoided and/or mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing two proposals and conducting interviews and reference checks, the selection panel identified Rincon as the best-suited for the City’s needs. Staff therefore recommends Council approval of a contract with Rincon for environmental services for the Berkeley Water Transportation Pier-Ferry Project.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The City does not have the expertise required to complete the tasks covered by this contract. Therefore, no alternative actions were considered.

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront, 981-6700 Christina Erickson, Deputy Director, PRW, 981-6712
Liza McNulty, PRW Capital Improvement Program Manager, 542-4131 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT: RINCON CONSULTING, INC. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT

SERVICES FOR THE BERKELEY WATER TRANSPORTATION PIER FERRY

PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City and Water Transportation Authority executed a Memorandum of Understanding effective July 1, 2019 for the Planning Phase of the Berkeley Pier-Ferry Project (Project) which includes a feasibility study and public engagement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Phase is complete and a preferred concept has been identified; and
WHEREAS, the second phase (Phase 2) of work includes detailed technical analyses, design, environmental studies, public engagement and permitting for the preferred Project concept; and
WHEREAS, WETA has allocated $3,000,000 of Regional Measure 3 funds for the Phase 2 of the Project in its adopted 2023/24 Capital Budget; and WHEREAS, the City and WETA have amended the July 1, 2019 Memorandum of Understanding to reflect the Phase 2 scope and funding; and WHEREAS, the City has received a California Coastal Conservancy grant of $2.96M and an Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) grant of $5.139M to fund the engineering, detailed design and environmental studies for the Project; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2024 the City issued a Request for Qualifications for environmental support services for the Berkeley Water Transportation Pier Ferry Project (Spec No. 24-11627-C) and after reviewing two proposals and conducting interviews and reference checks the selection panel identified Rincon Consultants, Inc. as the consultant best-suited for the City’s needs; and
WHEREAS, the cost of this contract is covered by a combination of State Coastal Conservancy funds ($1,000,000 in 606-52-545-000-0000-000-479-720003- PRWWF24002-606-COAST), Alameda County Transportation Commission funds ($1,500,000 in 307-52-545-000-0000-000-461-720003- PRWWF24002-307) and Water Emergency Transportation Authority funds ($580,000 in 336-52-545-000-0000-000-461- 720003- PRWWF24002-336).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the

City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Rincon Consultants, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $3,080,000 which includes $280,000 of contingency for the Berkeley Water Transportation Pier Ferry Project for the period July 15, 2024 through June 1, 2027. A record signature copy of said agreements and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 09, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Terrance Davis, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Contract: Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. for Street Rehabilitation FY 2024 Project

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution:

1. Approving plans and specifications for the Street Rehabilitation FY 2024 Project, Specification No. 24-11624-C; and

2. Accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. and 3) authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions or other change orders until completion of the project, in accordance with the approved plans and specifications in an amount not to exceed $12,361,800.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding is available from the Street Capital Improvement Program across multiple capital funds in the FY 2024 Engineering Streets CIP budget, and a contribution from the Zero Waste Fund 601 allocated to paving will be available in FY 2025. No other funding is required, and no other projects will be delayed due to this expenditure.

FY 2024 Street Capital Improvement Program Expenses
Low bid by Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. $11,238,000 10% Contingency $1,123,800
Total construction cost $12,361,800
FY 2024 Street Capital Improvement Program Funds
State Transportation Tax (127) ..............................................................$1,076,476 Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation Account/SB1 (127) .......................$1,700,000 Measure B Local Streets & Roads (130) ..............................................$1,380,537 Measure F Vehicle Registration Fee (133) ...............................................$155,000 Measure BB Sales Tax (134).................................................................$3,501,709 Capital Improvement Fund (501) ...........................................................$3,548,078 Zero Waste Fund (601)..........................................................................$1,000,000 Total construction funding $12,361,800

12

Contract: Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. for CONSENT CALENDAR Street Rehabilitation FY 2024 Project July 09, 2024

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Street Rehabilitation FY 2024 Project is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal of providing state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

The Street Rehabilitation FY 2024 Project (Specification No. 24-11624-C) was released for bids on May 02, 2024, and bids were opened on May 23, 2024. Three non-local bids were received, from a low of $11,238,000 to a high of $13,288,111.96 (see Attachment 3, Abstract of Bids).

The low bidder was Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. (Bay Cities), with a bid of $11,238,000, which is below the Engineer’s estimate of $12.65 million. Staff has verified that Bay Cities is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. This project includes a 10% contingency, which brings the total potential contract amount up to the requested $12,361,800. Staff recommends that a contract for this project be awarded to Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc.

BACKGROUND
Streets throughout Berkeley are scheduled for rehabilitation as part of the City’s Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan (Five-Year Plan). Berkeley maintains a rolling Five-Year Plan for resurfacing and repaving City streets. Staff develops the plan using a Pavement Management System supported by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The plan was updated for Fiscal Years 2024 through 2028 by Resolution 71,120-N.S., which was adopted by Council on November 28, 2023. The Five-Year Plan aims to complete

46.73 miles of street rehabilitation with nearly $90 million in funding over five years.

Funding sources primarily include the State Transportation Tax, Road Repair, Accountability Act, and Measure BB. Additionally, a new annual allocation of $1 million from the Zero Waste Fund for FY 2024 to FY 2026, increasing to $2 million for FY 2027 and FY 2028, will offset the impact of Zero Waste collection vehicles on the City’s pavement.

The Street Rehabilitation and Repair Policy created by Resolution 55,384-N.S. and most recently updated by 70,204-N.S., includes equity as an essential criteria for developing the plan and consists of the following:
 To the extent financially practical, implementing the paving plan shall advance City plans, e.g., the Complete Streets Policy, Vision Zero Policy and Action Plan, Pedestrian Plan, and Bicycle Plan.
 Rehabilitation of contiguous sections of roadway rather than one block at a time shall be preferred when feasible.
 Strive to maintain all roads within the primary transportation network (arterials, collectors, bus routes, existing and proposed low-stress bikeway network, and equity zone) at a target Pavement Conditions Index (PCI) of 70, as measured on a scale of 1 to 100.
 The benefits of good infrastructure shall be distributed equitably throughout the entire community regardless of the income, political influence, or demographic

Contract: Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. for CONSENT CALENDAR Street Rehabilitation FY 2024 Project July 09, 2024

characteristics of the residents of each area. The newly established Equity Zone shall be prioritized to meet an average PCI of 70 sooner than the remainder of the City.
 Coordinating sewer, water, electrical, telecom, undergrounding, and other activities.

This contract is for the Paving of approximately 10 miles of City streets. It consists of rehabilitation and surface sealing of selected streets, as shown in Attachment 2: Location Map & List of Streets (taken from the City’s Five-Year Plan adopted by Council in November 2023).

In addition to street pavement, the project incorporates other improvements to selected streets in compliance with the Berkeley Complete Streets Policy (Resolution No. 65,978- N.S.), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and stormwater best management practices.

Among the improvements included in Complete Streets are the Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan recommendations for installing a traffic circle in Virginia/California and a traffic diverter in Virginia/McGee. Additional infrastructure repairs are also included in this project. All non-repaving related costs represent approximately 10-15% of the construction costs.

The project plans and specifications underwent planning, coordination with outside utility companies, preliminary cost estimates, field investigations, surveys, and extensive design before being released for bid.

The plans and specifications are on file in the Public Works Department. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, this project has been determined to be categorically exempt because it consists of maintenance of existing streets and does not expand their use beyond existing conditions.

The Living Wage Ordinance does not apply to this project since Public Works construction contracts are, pursuant to City policy, subject to State prevailing wage laws. Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. has submitted a Certification of Compliance with the Equal Benefits Ordinance. The Community Workforce Agreement applies to this project because its estimated value exceeds $500,000. As a result, the contractor and all subcontractors will be required to sign an agreement to be bound by the terms of the Agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The project includes using rubberized cape seal treatments, which help divert tire waste from landfills, thus promoting recycling and reducing environmental waste. Additionally, rubberized cape seals lessen the carbon footprint associated with pavement maintenance by enhancing the longevity of road surfaces, thereby decreasing the frequency of future repairs and the associated emissions from construction activities.

Contract: Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. for CONSENT CALENDAR Street Rehabilitation FY 2024 Project July 09, 2024

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This street repair project is part of the City’s annual program to rehabilitate deteriorated streets. The work requires contracted services, as the City does not possess the in-house labor or equipment resources necessary to complete it.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions were considered for this pavement rehabilitation project. The City could choose not to proceed with it. However, the street pavement would then continue to deteriorate, drainage improvements would not be made, and Complete Streets, Vision Zero and bicycle and pedestrian elements would not be installed, affecting the community's and others' use of the street.

CONTACT PERSON
Wahid Amiri, Deputy Director, Public Works, (510) 981-6396 Ronald A. Nevels, Manager of Engineering, Public Works (510) 981-6439 Srinivas Muktevi, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works (510) 981-6402 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Location Map & List of Streets for Project
3: Abstract of Bids

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

CONTRACT: BAY CITIES PAVING & GRADING, INC. FOR
STREET REHABILITATION FY 2024 PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Street Rehabilitation FY 2024 Project is part of the City’s ongoing Street Capital Improvement Program to rehabilitate deteriorated streets located throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has neither the labor nor the equipment necessary to undertake this Street Rehabilitation FY 2024 Project; and
WHEREAS, an invitation for bids was duly advertised, and Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and WHEREAS, funding is available in the FY 2024 budget in the Street Capital Improvement Program State Transportation Tax (Fund 127), Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation Account (127-SB1), Measure B Sales Tax (Fund 130), Measure F Vehicle Registration Fee (Fund 133), Measure BB Sales Tax (Fund 134), Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 501), and in FY 2025 from the Zero Waste Fund (601).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Plans and Specification No. 24-11624-C for the Street Rehabilitation FY 2024 Project are approved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the construction contract is awarded to Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions, or change orders until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications with Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. for the Street Rehabilitation FY 2024 Project, in an amount not to exceed $12,361,800, which includes a 10% contingency for unforeseen circumstances. A record signature copy of said agreement and any amendments will be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Street Rehabilitation FY 2024
Attachment No. 2: Location Map & List of Streets

Street From To
7th St Harrison St University Ave
10th St Camelia St University Ave
Acton St University Ave Ward St
Acton Cir Acton Crescent Dead End
Acton Crescent Acton St Dead End
Acroft Ct Acton St East End
Camelia 6th St San Pablo Ave
Cornell Ave Gilman St City Limit
Channing Wy San Pablo Sacramento St
Derby St Mabel St Sacramento St
Euclid Ave Grizzly Peak Blvd Cragmont Ave
Gilman St San Pablo Ave Santa Fe Ave
Hearst Ave 6th St San Pablo Ave
Keith Ave Euclid Ave Shasta Rd
Mabel St Dwight Wy Ward St
Shattuck Ave Vine St Hearst Ave
Spruce St Grizzly Peak Blvd Arch St
Spruce St Eunice St Hearst Ave
Virginia St San Pablo Ave MLK Jr Wy

City of Berkeley
Abstract of Bid Worksheet
Finance Department
General Services Division
Bid Date: 5/23/2024
FOR: Street Rehabilitation FY 2024 24-11624-C
required w/ bid
Bidders Base Bid Bid Bond Addendum (1) Experience -
Fin. Qual. Taxpayer ID Opp.States Nuclear
Free EBO Sanctuary
City
1 Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. 11,238,000.00$ X X X X X X X X 2 DeSilva Gates Construction 11,970,970.00$ X X X X X X X X 3 Ghilotti Construction Company 13,288,111.96$ X X X X X X X X 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Bid Recorder: Josh Roben Date
Bid Opener: Josh Roben Date
Project Manager: Randy (Wai) Kong Date
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7320 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7390 E-mail: [email protected]

Community Health Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Community Health Commission
Submitted by: Andy Katz, Chairperson, Community Health Commission Subject: Community Health Commission Comments on Dark Skies Ordinance

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to (a) refer to the Planning Commission, the Public Health Comments on the Dark Skies Ordinance which was previously referred to the Planning Commission; (b) refer to the City Manager, a request to ask the Department of Public Works to implement a moratorium on installation of street lighting and building lighting for use at night exceeding 3,000 Kelvin.

SUMMARY
● The purpose of this recommendation is to communicate the Community Health Commission’s (CHC) support to the City Council regarding its prior referral to the Planning Commission to consider the Dark Skies Ordinance. ● While the Dark Skies Ordinance originates from the Community Environmental Advisory Commission, the control of “cool” light temperatures would provide public health benefits for Berkeley residents, based on scientific studies. ● To achieve the intended environmental and health benefits, the scope of the proposed Dark Skies Ordinance should be expanded to include a reasonable phase-in for existing construction, not just new construction. It should also reflect unique aspects of Berkeley’s building stock compared to existing model ordinances.
● In advance of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council, the health and environmental benefits are sufficiently clear to support an immediate moratorium on installation of street lighting and building lighting exceeding 3,000 Kelvin.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
● Potential for small additional ongoing costs associated with slightly increased requirements for staff review to ensure compliance.
● Minimal staff time to implement city procurement of compliant light bulbs.

13

Community Health Commission Comments on Dark Skies Ordinance CONSENT CALENDAR July 9, 2024

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Community Environmental Advisory Commission stated in its report before the City Council on November 19, 2019 that “Unfettered outdoor lighting also poses known risks to birds, as well as generating unwanted light pollution.” The City of Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan, as well as Southside zoning regulations (BMC 23E.52.070.F.7), provide guidance or limitations on outdoor lighting, but no general policy exists citywide to prevent excessive light pollution from outdoor lighting. The Community Health Commission has reviewed scientific studies of light pollution on health, the proposed Dark Skies Ordinance and developments in cities across the United States.

Action: M/S/C (Adams/Webber/Katz) Motion to approve the Commission recommendation.

Votes: Ayes- Webber, Smart, Spigner, Adams, Katz; Noes –None ; Abstain –None ; Absent –None .

BACKGROUND
The American Medical Association (AMA) has adopted guidance on human and environmental effects of light emitting diode (LED) community lighting, particularly where the correlated color temperature exceeds 3,000 Kelvin, characterized by an excessive blue wavelength. The AMA found that the wavelengths for this type of light as associated with more scattering in the human eye, damages the retina, impacts disability glare that can impair roadway safety, and most significantly, disrupt circadian rhythmicity and sleep patterns. The AMA found some evidence supporting a long-term increase in the risk for cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity from chronic sleep disruption associated with exposure to brighter light sources in the evening or night. The AMA therefore, in 2016, encouraged the use of 3,000 Kelvin or lower lighting for outdoor installations, for lighting to be properly shielded, and for consideration to dim lighting for off-peak time periods.1 For example, one study found a modest, but positive association between light at night (“LAN”) and breast cancer risk, increasing risk by 10-14% among a population of predominantly Black women in neighborhoods with increased LAN exposure.2 Another study found an association between artificial light at night and thyroid cancer.3 One study found a significant association between diabetes prevalence and LAN exposure, linked to the disruption of circadian rhythms.4
1 Report of the American Medical Association, Council on Science and Health, on Human and Environmental Effects of Light Emitting Diode (LED) Community Lighting, 2016 2 Qian Xiao, Gretchen L. Gierach, Cici Bauer, William J. Blot, Peter James, and Rena R. Jones 2021 The Association between Outdoor Artificial Light at Night and Breast Cancer Risk in Black and White Women in the Southern Community Cohort Study Environmental Health Perspectives 129:
3 Zhang D, Jones RR, James P, Kitahara CM, Xiao Q. Associations between artificial light at night and risk for thyroid cancer: A large US cohort study. Cancer. 2021 May 1;127(9):1448-1458. 4 Zheng R, Xin Z, Li M, Wang T, Xu M, Lu J, Dai M, Zhang D, Chen Y, Wang S, Lin H, Wang W, Ning G, Bi Y, Zhao Z, Xu Y. Outdoor light at night in relation to glucose homoeostasis and diabetes in Chinese

Community Health Commission Comments on Dark Skies Ordinance CONSENT CALENDAR July 9, 2024

The CHC offers the following recommendations to strengthen the proposed Dark Skies Ordinance:

1. The purpose of the ordinance should state public health as a purpose of the ordinance.

2. Aspects of the Dark Skies ordinance should be applicable to existing construction after a reasonable phase-in period, like in Los Angeles County, Malibu, CA, Ann Arbor, MI, Ithaca, NY, Pittsburg, PA, Maricopa County, AZ, Washington, DC, and several other states and cities.

3. The primary purpose of near-term applicability to existing construction is to achieve the health benefits of limiting night light exposure to color temperatures of 3,000 Kelvin or below. The Planning Commission may consider limiting the requirement to install motion sensors or timers where it would be unduly costly or burdensome on existing construction, or similarly costly or burdensome to install shielding in difficult to access areas without a major construction event. Such situations may have a longer phase-in period or remain exempt, while bulb replacements at the compliant color temperature should be phased in faster.

4. When considering features of exemplar ordinances, Berkeley’s Dark Skies ordinance should also consider our local context by applying color temperature requirements to building interior walkways or lighting that shines into residential windows, which is particularly common in some multi-family buildings.

Additionally, while color temperature of 3,000 or below, and shielding should be achieved, standards restricting light intensity (lumens) in commercial areas should be balanced with public safety benefits of adequate lighting.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Community Environmental Advisory Commission stated in its report before the City Council on November 19, 2019 that “Unfettered outdoor lighting also poses known risks to birds, as well as generating unwanted light pollution.” The City of Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan, as well as Southside zoning regulations (BMC 23E.52.070.F.7), provide guidance or limitations on outdoor lighting, but no general policy exists citywide to prevent excessive light pollution from outdoor lighting. The Community Health Commission has reviewed scientific studies of light pollution on health, the proposed Dark Skies Ordinance and developments in cities across the United States.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
● While the Dark Skies Ordinance originates from the Community Environmental Advisory Commission, the control of “cool” light temperatures would provide public health benefits for Berkeley residents, based on scientific studies. adults: a national and cross-sectional study of 98,658 participants from 162 study sites. Diabetologia. 2023 Feb;66(2):336-345.

Community Health Commission Comments on Dark Skies Ordinance CONSENT CALENDAR July 9, 2024

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The CHC considered no action and opted to communicate the health benefits of these recommendations to the City Council.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Kellie Knox, Commission Secretary, HHCS, (510) 981-5301 Attachments:
1: Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements, including Dark Skies Ordinance, Referral from CEA 11-12-2019

Community Environmental Advisory Commission
1947 Center Street, First Floor, Berkeley, California 94704 ● TEL: (510) 981-7460 ● FAX: (510) 981-7470● TDD: (510) 981-6903 e-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=10312

ACTION CALENDAR
November 12, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC) Submitted by: Ben Gould, Chairperson, CEAC
Subject: Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements
RECOMMENDATION:

Refer to the Planning Commission and the City Attorney the attached ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code Title 23C, adding a new Chapter 23C.27 establishing bird safety requirements for new construction and significant renovations and a new Chapter 23C.28 establishing a dark skies ordinance, for review and approval.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION:

Potential for small additional ongoing costs associated with slightly increased requirements for staff review of new construction proposals to ensure compliance.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Bird safety is aligned with the City of Berkeley’s Strategic Plan, advancing our goal to be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.

According to the Audubon Society, bird collisions with windows is a leading cause of human-induced bird deaths (second only to outdoor house cats). Berkeley is located in the midst of the Pacific Flyway, a major migratory route for birds including hummingbirds, robins, blackbirds, numerous shorebirds, raptors, and more. When these birds encounter unfamiliar urban areas along the migratory path, they are at particular risk for collisions and death.

At present, there are no bird safety measures required for new construction or renovations. As a result, it is possible that new and existing buildings may incorporate features which pose preventable hazards to local and migratory birds.

Unfettered outdoor lighting also poses known risks to birds, as well as generating unwanted light pollution. The City of Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan1, as well as 1 Lighting, City of Berkeley Downtown Area Plan. Accessed August 2019:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _DAP/Chapter%2012%20Lighting.pdf
Item 11 - Attachment 1
Planning Commission
March 2, 2022

Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements ACTION CALENDAR
November 12, 2019
Southside zoning regulations (BMC 23E.52.070.F.7), provide guidance or limitations on outdoor lighting, but no general policy exists citywide to prevent excessive light pollution from outdoor lighting.

At its September 12, 2019 meeting, the Community Environmental Advisory Commission voted to recommend the adoption of Bird Safe Berkeley requirements.

Moved by Goldhaber, second by Hetzel, carried 6-0-0-2 (Ayes: Simmons, Ticconi, Hetzel, De Leon, Goldhaber, Gould. Noes: None. Abstained: None. Absent: Varnhagen, De Leon).

BACKGROUND
Berkeley is in the midst of the Pacific Flyway, a major migratory route for birds. The city is also adjacent to San Francisco Bay, one of North America’s most ecologically important estuaries and a site of Western Hemispheric importance for shorebirds and waterfowl. Alameda County has recorded 407 species of resident and migratory bird species, including least terns, Ridgway’s rails, and a variety of other uniquely local and/or threatened species.

New buildings can be designed to reduce bird deaths from collisions without compromising cost or aesthetics – in fact, many of the compliance methods in the attached ordinance can be incorporated into design or construction with virtually no additional cost or difficulty for architects or engineers, and in some cases facilitate achieving other environmental goals (like improved building energy efficiency).

Several other Bay Area cities have adopted bird safety ordinances, including San Francisco, Oakland, Alameda, and Richmond. The attached proposed ordinance is developed from the City of Alameda’s adopted ordinance.

In addition, birds are drawn to light, whether from the moon or artificial lights, and lights affixed to buildings or structures pose a risk that birds may crash into them. A special danger comes from very bright lights, as well as lights aimed upward.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Implementing the Bird Safe Berkeley ordinance will ensure new construction does not pose undue hazards to local and migratory birds, thereby reducing human impact and benefiting the environment.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The proposed amendment to BMC Title 23C is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Item 11 - Attachment 1
Planning Commission
March 2, 2022

Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements ACTION CALENDAR
November 12, 2019
Berkeley’s strategic plan calls for being a global leader in protecting the environment.

The bird-safe glazing design standards contained within have been found to be effective at reducing or eliminating bird deaths, and can be implemented with little or no additional costs. The window size threshold for requiring implementation is the most stringent in the nation, and as a result adopting this policy strongly aligns with Berkeley’s strategic plan. The dark skies ordinance is straightforward and simple, yet effective at reducing excessive and unwanted light pollution while conserving energy.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
CEAC considered taking no action on bird safety standards, but concluded that the environmental benefits substantially outweighed the burden imposed. CEAC also considered a less stringent window size requirement (of twenty-four (24) square feet instead of eight (8) square feet), but determined that window size was not a significant factor in either bird safety or cost or ease of compliance.

CEAC considered taking no action on dark skies, but concluded that the environmental benefits outweighed the burden imposed. CEAC also considered a more stringent dark skies ordinance, but concluded it would be unnecessarily difficult to enforce with minimal additional benefits.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Ben Gould, Chairperson, CEAC, 510-725-9176
Item 11 - Attachment 1
Planning Commission
March 2, 2022

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 23C TO ESTABLISH GENERAL

REQUIREMENTS FOR BIRD SAFETY IN BUILDINGS AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURES; ADDING CHAPTER 23C.27 AND CHAPTER 23C.28
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That the Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23C.27 is added to read as follows:

Chapter 23C.27

BIRD SAFETY
Sections:
23C.27.010 Purpose
23C.27.020 Applicability
23C.27.030 Exemptions
23C.27.040 Standards
23C.27.010 Purpose
The purposes of the Bird Safety related regulations contained in this Chapter is to reduce bird mortality from windows or other specific building features known to increase the risk of bird collisions.
23C.27.020 Applicability
The bird-safe building standards apply to the following types of projects when such projects require a building permit:

A. New Construction. New buildings with two (2) or more stories, and one or more façades in which glass constitutes fifty percent (50%) or more of the area of the individual façade. The bird-safe glazing requirement must be met on any window with dimensions of at least two (2) feet by four (4) feet, or an area of eight (8) square feet or more, located on such façade.

B. Window Replacement. On buildings with two (2) or more stories, and one or more facades in which glass constitutes fifty percent (50%) or more of the area of the individual façade, replacement of any window or other rigid transparent material with dimensions of at least two (2) feet by four (4) feet, or an area of eight (8) square feet or more. The requirement does not apply on existing windows that are not proposed to be replaced.

Item 11 - Attachment 1
Planning Commission
March 2, 2022

C. New or Replaced Glass Structures. Any structure that has transparent glass walls twenty-four (24) square feet or more in size, including but not limited to freestanding glass walls, wind barriers, skywalks, balconies, greenhouses, and rooftop appurtenances.
23C.27.030 Exemptions
The bird-safe building standards shall not apply to the following:

A. The replacement of existing glass on historic structures. However, the standards shall apply to new exterior additions to historic structures, and new construction on the site of historic structures, that are differentiated from the historic structures, if determined by the Planning Director to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

B. Glazing on the ground floor of commercial storefronts directly fronting a public street, alley, or sidewalk.
23C.27.040 Standards
A. Bird-Safe Glazing Requirement. At least ninety percent (90%) of the glazing on any building façade or freestanding glass structure shall include features that enable birds to perceive the glass as a solid object. The requirement can be satisfied by using one or more of the following treatments to be determined by the Planning Director as part of an application for a building permit:

1. External screens installed permanently over glass windows such that the windows do not appear reflective.

2. Light-colored blinds or curtains.

3. Opaque glass, translucent glass, or opaque or translucent window film.

4. Paned glass with mullions on the exterior of the glass.

5. Glass covered with patterns (e.g., dots, stripes, images, abstract patterns, lettering). Such patterns may be etched, fritted, stenciled, silk- screened, applied to the glass on films or decals, or another method of permanently incorporating the patterns into or onto the glass. Elements of the patterns must be at least one- eighth (1/8) inch tall and separated no more than two (2) inches vertically, at least one-quarter (1/4) inch wide and separated by no more than four (4) inches horizontally, or both (the “two-by-four rule”).

6. Ultraviolet (UV)-pattern reflective glass, laminated glass with a patterned UV- reflective coating, or UV-absorbing and UV-reflecting film that is permanently applied to the glass. Where patterns are used, they shall meet the two-by-four rule.

7. Other glazing treatments providing an equivalent level of bird safety and approved by the Planning Director as part of building plan review.

Item 11 - Attachment 1
Planning Commission
March 2, 2022

B. Alternative Glazing Compliance. As an alternative to meeting subsection 4(a), Bird- Safe Glazing Requirement, an applicant may propose building and fenestration designs and/or operational measures that will minimize bird collisions and achieve an equivalent level of bird safety. The applicant shall submit a bird collision reduction plan along with the application for design review or other discretionary permit required for the project.

The bird collision reduction plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist. Design and operational solutions may include but need not be limited to the following techniques, singularly or in combination:

1. Layering and recessing glazed surfaces.

2. Angled or faceted glazing that minimizes reflectivity and transparency.

3. Louvres.

4. Overhangs and awnings.

5. Glass block.

6. Bird netting with openings one (1) square centimeter or smaller.

7. Decorative grilles that allow birds to perceive the grilles, together with the glass behind them, as solid.

8. Glass embedded with photovoltaic cells.

9. Placement of landscaping in such a way as to minimize bird collisions.

Section 2. That the Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23C.28 is added to read as follows:

Chapter 23C.28

DARK SKIES
Sections:
23C.28.010 Purpose
23C.28.020 Applicability
23C.28.030 Exemptions
23C.28.040 Standards
23C.28.010 Purpose
The purpose of the Dark Skies ordinance is to ensure exterior light fixtures are pointed downwards and turn off whenever possible, minimizing light pollution, sky glow, and hazardous risks to birds, while ensuring adequate illumination for safety, security, and the enjoyment of outdoor areas, including travel on public roads. 23C.28.020 Applicability
The dark skies ordinance applies to any project that requires a building permit or electrical permit for:

Item 11 - Attachment 1
Planning Commission
March 2, 2022

A. New exterior lighting, including lighting fixtures attached to buildings, structures, poles, or self-supporting structures; or
B. Additions or replacements of existing exterior light fixtures, including upgrades and replacements of damaged or destroyed fixtures.
23C.28.030 Exemptions
The following types of lighting are exempt from the requirements of this subsection:

A. Emergency lighting. Temporary emergency lighting used by law enforcement or emergency services personnel, a public utility, or in conjunction with any other emergency service.

B. Construction lighting. Temporary lighting used for construction or repair of roadways, utilities, and other public infrastructure.

C. Lighting Required by Building Code or Other Regulations. Lighting for exit signs, stairs, ramps, points of ingress/egress to buildings, and all other illumination required for building codes, OSHA standards, and other permitting requirements imposed by state, or federal agencies.

D. Signs. Signs and sign lighting.

E. Athletic Field Lights. Athletic field lights used within a school campus or public or private park.

F. Neon, Argon, and Krypton. All fixtures illuminated solely by neon, argon, or krypton.

G. Water Features. Lighting used in or for purposes of lighting swimming pools, hot tubs, decorative fountains, and other water features.

H. Flag Lighting. Lighting used to illuminate a properly displayed United States flag and/or State of California flag.

I. Holiday Displays. Seasonal and holiday lighting.

J. Temporary Lighting. Temporary lighting allowed under a permit.

K. Historic Fixtures. Historic lighting fixtures or fixtures that exhibit a historical period appearance, as determined by the Planning Director.

L. Architecture, Historic Structures, and Public Art. Lighting on historic structures, special architectural features, public art, monuments, and other similar objects of Item 11 - Attachment 1
Planning Commission
March 2, 2022

A. Outdoor lighting shall be no brighter than 3000 Kelvin.

B. Outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed, with a full cut off fixture of no more than 2.5% of lamp lumens at or above 90°, and no more than 10% of lamp lumens at or above 80°.

C. Wherever feasible, require motion sensors or timers to prevent unnecessary energy use and light pollution.

D. Light shows and beams of light are not permitted during spring or fall migration seasons, roughly February 15 to May 31, and August 15 to November 30, respectively. interest shall be exempt if the lamps emit less than one thousand six hundred (1600) lumens per fixture and together draw less than one hundred (100) watts. However, the standards shall apply to new exterior additions to historic structures, and new construction on the site of historic structures, that are differentiated from the historic structures, if determined by the Planning Director to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

M. Low-Voltage Landscape Lighting. Low-voltage landscape lighting such as that used to illuminate fountains, shrubbery, trees, and walkways, provid ed that it uses no more
than sixty (60) watts and no more than seven hundred and fifty (750) lumens per fixture. 23C.28.040 Standards
To minimize the harmful effects of light pollution, new construction and major renovation projects shall meet the following standards:

Item 11 - Attachment 1
Planning Commission
March 2, 2022

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Author), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Taplin (Co-Sponsor), Mayor Arreguin (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to the General Fund and Grant of Such Funds to the Port Chicago Alliance; and Official Co-Sponsorship of Port Chicago Weekend 2024

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including $500 from Councilmember Hahn to the Port Chicago Alliance – a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization – to support Port Chicago Weekend 2024, raising awareness of the legacy of the Port Chicago 50, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose from discretionary Council Office Budgets of Councilmember Hahn and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute, and register the City of Berkeley’s official Co- Sponsorship of Port Chicago Weekend 2024.

BACKGROUND
From July 18 – 21, the Port Chicago Alliance will be hosting its Port Chicago Weekend – a 4- day festival of educational initiatives designed to engage our community through music, art, cuisine, theater, exhibits, and entertainment across various Bay Area cities.

The weekend events aim to educate and spotlight the national history of Port Chicago by raising awareness of its impact on World War II and our nation's civil rights.

For more information visit: portchicagoweekend.org
The Port Chicago Disaster and the Protest of Port Chicago Sailors During World War II, nearly a million Black Americans served in the U.S. Armed Forces, but the military at that time was racially segregated, and Black servicemen in the Navy were restricted to non-combat assignments. These assignments were usually the least desirable duties deemed unfit for White sailors, which ranged from menial tasks to the most back-breaking work.

At Port Chicago Naval Magazine near Concord, California, newly-arriving Black sailors quickly learned their duties would be limited to the hazardous task of loading ammunition and explosives into Navy ships.

The work was grueling, and Jim Crow segregation policies were strictly enforced. Black sailors were prohibited from using the "Whites only" restrooms aboard the ships they were loading, so they were made to walk a half mile to use the restroom. Although loading bombs and explosives

14

is extremely dangerous work, the Navy neglected to provide sailors with adequate resources and the specialized training necessary to safely carry out their duties.

Ships were loaded non-stop, 24 hours a day. Commanders at Port Chicago wanted the ships loaded as quickly as possible, ignoring federally-mandated safety codes.

On the night of July 17, 1944, two Liberty ships, the SS Quinault Victory and SS E.A. Bryan, were being loaded with explosive incendiary bombs, depth charges, and ammunition. At 10:18pm, two massive explosions at the docks, just seconds apart, lit up the sky. Fiery debris and chunks of metal rained down on the base and surrounding areas. Smoke and fire extended nearly two miles into the air. All 320 of the men on duty that night died instantly, almost two thirds of whom were African American, amounting to 15% of all Black American military deaths during World War II. 390 civilians and military personnel were injured, many seriously. The Naval Magazine was completely destroyed.

The nearby town of Port Chicago was severely damaged and the blast caused structural damage and broken windows in surrounding communities. The explosions were felt as far away as Nevada. It was the largest home front disaster of the war. The surviving Black sailors were off-duty that night, and many of them were injured from the blast as windows shattered in their barracks. Uninjured sailors fought valiantly to put out fires and contain the damage caused by the explosions. In the days that followed, many of the surviving injured Black sailors, still shaken from the traumatic event, were tasked with cleaning up the remnants of the disaster, including the body parts of their brothers-in-arms.

Within days after the gruesome cleanup, with the war raging on and troops still needing munitions overseas, the sailors were sent to Mare Island Naval Shipyard about 25 miles from Port Chicago in Vallejo, California. There they learned they would soon be again tasked with loading explosives onto ships – under the same leadership responsible for previous safety violations, with no changes to procedures, conditions, or safety practices.

On August 9, 1944, when 328 sailors were directed to march toward the ships to load munitions, the sailors all stopped in their tracks. When asked if they would resume handling explosives, the majority of them resisted. While White sailors were granted leave, Black sailors were not only denied leave but also made to clean up debris and body parts after the explosion.

Eventually, about 70 of the sailors agreed to return to loading duties. The remaining sailors explained to the officers they would serve their country performing other duties, they'd accept transfers, or fight overseas in combat, but would not continue loading munitions under the same dangerous conditions. Rather than train the sailors, bring working conditions up to code, or reassign White sailors to loading duties, the Naval officers packed 258 of the Black sailors onto a prison barge and threatened them with death-by-firing-squad if they did not return to loading munitions. After over two days on the overcrowded barge, 208 of the sailors reluctantly returned to loading. In an act of nonviolent civil disobedience, fifty of the sailors – now known as the Port

Chicago 50 – stood firm and refused to continue loading munitions until the Navy changed their policies and practices.

The Navy’s Court of Inquiry
An official investigation began on July 21 and wasn't completed until twenty days after the sailors were directed to return to loading munitions. Three senior officers and a judge advocate interviewed 125 witnesses over a month, only five of whom were Black sailors. The inquiry report found Port Chicago leadership had shown a "general failure to foresee and prepare for the tremendous increase in explosive shipments" and had violated safety code and regulations, encouraged competition, and promoted criminalized loading practices. However, the facts and evidence included in the report were interpreted by Navy captains and commanders in a final "opinions" section, which theorized that if the explosions were caused by human error, it was likely caused by the deceased Black sailors themselves. Specifically, that the explosions were caused by "rough or careless handling by an individual or individuals," not any failures of leadership. To back this theory, Naval leadership included a racist theory that Black sailors were inherently inferior to White sailors, including the opinion that Black sailors were "neither temperamentally [nor] intellectually capable of handling high explosives." The report ultimately absolved all White officers of wrongdoing.

The Mutiny Trial
The mutiny trial was scheduled to take place at Treasure Island in the San Francisco Bay on September 14, 1944. It would be the largest mass mutiny trial in American history. The U.S. military does not typically send public invitations to military trials, however the Navy made an exception in order to invite the national press to cover the mutiny trial.

The fifty sailors were not granted the right to choose their own representation, and were denied their right to individual counsel, as the Navy appointed five Naval attorneys who represented blocks of ten sailors each. Additionally, the Navy-appointed attorneys were all made to play by Navy rules, which barred evidence of hazardous conditions and necessitated the young men be instructed not to testify about things that could incriminate the Navy or Port Chicago leadership.

This left the sailors with very little recourse to prove their innocence, as the reasons they spontaneously refused to load munitions had much to do with hazardous working conditions caused by Port Chicago leadership's negligence and disregard for the Black sailors' safety. As a result, subjects like safety violations, unsafe practices, and racial discrimination were disallowed from the trial and not part of witness examination.

On October 24, 1944, after six weeks and 32 days of proceedings, the Naval jury deliberated for 80 minutes over lunch – which amounts to about 96 seconds deliberation per sailor – before delivering their verdict. The men were pronounced guilty of "conspiracy to commit mutiny" and were indiscriminately sentenced to 15 years prison and hard labor.

Desegregating the Navy
Mainstream press coverage of the mutiny trial widely reported the Navy's point-of-view but also opened it up to scrutiny for its policies of racial segregation, exposing racial inequality in the Navy for the first time. Under intense scrutiny, Naval leadership concluded the Port Chicago protest could have been handled differently, and so in extreme cases commanders should be encouraged to assign Black sailors to alternative assignments, even if that means serving alongside White sailors. As a result, on October 9, 1944, the Navy's Bureau of Personnel lifted restrictions for Black American assignments where "personnel problems" were present. While the Port Chicago 50 were still on trial, the Navy ordered the formation of two divisions of White sailors to load munitions at Port Chicago and Mare Island.

The racial integration of the Navy had officially begun in direct response to the Port Chicago protest. In the months following the verdict, resentment and frustrations with racially- discriminatory policies led to acts of protest throughout the military. These acts of protest included a race riot in Guam in December 1944, a hunger strike of 1000 Navy Seabees in Port Hueneme in March 1945, and the Freeman Field "Mutiny" of April 1945 in which Black airmen refused to leave an all-White officers club. Over time, many in the Navy became convinced segregating enlisted men by race was no longer viable, and integrating personnel only under extreme circumstances was simply not enough.

In April 1945, on behalf of the fifty sailors, Thurgood Marshall appealed the case directly to the Navy's Judge Advocate General's Office in Washington DC. Although the Navy refused to publicly concede that racial discrimination and bias influenced its judgment of the sailors, just 205 days after Marshall's appeal case was denied, the sailors' sentences were commuted and they were quietly released from prison and given the "opportunity to complete their enlistments" overseas. Just one month after they were released from prison, in February 1946, after intense public pressure initiated by the Port Chicago protest, subsequent protests, and a public appeal campaign, the Navy became the first branch of the military to end racial segregation. Two years later, the remaining branches of the U.S. Armed Forces integrated.

In 1992, after much advocacy from supporters – including high-profile entertainers Morgan Freeman, Danny Glover, and Louis Gossett Jr. – the Navy agreed to "examine all aspects of the allegations of racial prejudice and discrimination." Following a two year review, the final report found that "racial discrimination did play a part in the assignment of African-American sailors to load munition” but that "neither racial prejudice nor other improper factors tainted the original investigations and trials" and "no error or injustice occurred." In December 1999, President Bill Clinton honored the Port Chicago 50 by granting Freddie Meeks a presidential pardon. The remaining two sailors declined, with sailor Jack Crittenden explaining that he refused to ask forgiveness for a crime he didn't commit. Today, the sailors have all passed away, yet efforts to seek justice for their legacies continue. Naval historians now say the heroic actions of the 50 sailors probably prevented another disaster, likely saved lives, and drew attention to issues of racial inequity within the Navy and society as a whole.

Celebrating the Sailors
The Port Chicago 50 are now being honored and celebrated as heroes in schools, parks, and public institutions. In 2021, the East Bay Regional Park District, the largest park district in the country, named a regional park in honor of Thurgood Marshall and the Port Chicago 50. The 2,540-acre Thurgood Marshall Regional Park - Home of the Port Chicago 50 in Concord, California will teach of the Port Chicago 50's courage and how their act of protest, and Marshall's public appeal campaign, forever changed our country for the better. In 2022, Treasure Island Museum announced they are working with the National Park Service to honor and memorialize the fifty sailors at Yerba Buena Island in the San Francisco Bay where the mutiny trial took place. Plans for a hilltop park on the island include exhibits, panels, plaques, and an American flag waving in their honor. Through education and advocacy, the legacies of the Port Chicago 50 and the brave fallen sailors of Port Chicago Naval Magazine lives on.

In 2015 and again in 2023, the Berkeley City Council adopted resolutions in support of local, state, and federal efforts to exonerate the Port Chicago 50.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No environmental impacts.

FISCAL IMPACTS
Up to $4,000 from Councilmembers’ discretionary budgets.

CONTACT
Councilmember Sophie Hahn, (510) 981-7150
Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Resolution Supporting Efforts to Exonerate the Port Chicago 50, November 7, 2023

RESOLUTION #####-N.S.

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE EXPENSE

ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT TO PROVIDE

SUPPORT FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE
WHEREAS, the Port Chicago Alliance is a nonprofit organization dedicated to restoring, preserving, and elevating the history of Port Chicago Naval Magazine and the sailors who resided, served, and championed equal rights during World War II; and WHEREAS, the organization has been working to raise awareness of the Port Chicago sailors and their sacrifices and contributions to the war effort and our nation’s civil rights history to ensure their legacies endure and their stories continue to inspire future generations; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 1944, the deadliest home front disaster of World War II took place when a tragic explosion occurred at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine killing 320 men (of whom 202 were African American) and wounding 390 (of whom 233 were African American); and WHEREAS, Port Chicago Naval Magazine was racially segregated and all sailors loading munitions at the time of the explosion were African American and surviving sailors were ordered back to handling high explosives before an investigation could determine the cause of the deadly explosion; and
WHEREAS, 258 ammunition handlers engaged in peaceful work stoppage rather than return under the same unsafe working conditions and fifty of these men were unlawfully charged with mutiny, prosecuted as guilty and sentenced to prison; and WHEREAS, Naval historians now recognize the actions of the Port Chicago 50 potentially saved lives and led to the desegregation of the Armed Forces by drawing attention to racial inequities in the Navy; and
WHEREAS, in 2015 and again in 2023, the City of Berkeley passed resolutions supporting local, state, and federal efforts to exonerate the Port Chicago 50.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budget, up to $500 per office, including $500 from the office of Councilmember Hahn shall be granted to the Port Chicago Alliance to support the Port Chicago Alliance’s Port Chicago Weekend, and that the City of Berkeley shall be an official Co-Sponsor of Port Chicago Weekend 2024.

CONSENT CALENDAR
November 7, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Author); [Mayor Arreguin, Councilmembers Bartlett and Taplin (Co-Sponsors)]
Subject: Resolution Supporting Efforts to Exonerate the Port Chicago 50

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a new resolution supporting local, State, and federal efforts to exonerate the Port Chicago 50; 50 Black sailors who were wrongfully convicted of mutiny during WWII in the wake of a massive, devastating explosion at the Port Chicago naval base near Concord, CA.

SUMMARY
The Port Chicago Disaster, a deadly munitions explosion that occurred in 1944 and killed 320 mostly-African American sailors and civilians, led to the wrongful and racist convictions of 50 Black sailors for so-called mutiny. President Bill Clinton granted the Port Chicago 50 a Pardon in 1999, which excuses but does not undo a wrongful conviction. There is a movement to set the record straight by obtaining a full exoneration for the wrongful and racist convictions.

The Port Chicago 50 were not responsible for the disastrous explosion and loss of life, and their refusal to continue working under the same hazardous conditions was an act of extreme courage, not mutiny. This item asks Berkeley City Council to join the cities of Albany, Antioch, Brentwood, Concord, Danville, Lafayette, Martinez, Orinda, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek by adopting a resolution in support of formal exoneration of the Port Chicago 50, and encourages other Alameda County jurisdictions to do the same.

BACKGROUND1
The Port Chicago Disaster and the Protest of Port Chicago Sailors During World War II, nearly a million Black Americans served in the U.S. Armed Forces, but the military at that time was racially segregated, and Black servicemen in the Navy were restricted to non-combat assignments. These assignments were usually the least desirable duties deemed unfit for White sailors, which ranged from menial tasks to the most back-breaking work.

At Port Chicago Naval Magazine near Concord, California, newly-arriving Black sailors hoped to serve at sea and engage in combat, but quickly learned their duties would be limited to the hazardous task of loading ammunition and explosives into Navy ships. 1 “The Port Chicago Disaster and the Protest of the Port Chicago Sailors.” Port Chicago Alliance.

Accessed October 16, 2023. https://portchicago50.com/history.html.

2 The naval base was racially segregated, so the commanding officers at Port Chicago were all White and the sailors loading were all Black. The work was grueling, and Jim Crow segregation policies were strictly enforced. For example, Black sailors were prohibited from using the "Whites only" restrooms aboard the ships they were loading, so they were made to walk a half- mile to use the restroom. Although loading bombs and explosives is extremely dangerous work, the Navy neglected to provide the sailors with adequate resources to safely carry out their duties. The sailors were not given specialized training in handling explosives. Basic gear like gloves to grip the grease-slathered bombs were not provided. Sailors who looked to officers for guidance on safest methods for carrying explosives were erroneously told the munitions could not explode because they had no fuses or detonators.

Ships were loaded non-stop, 24 hours a day with sailors working in three 8-hour shifts.

Commanders at Port Chicago wanted the ships loaded as quickly as possible, and following Naval safety regulations slowed production, so federally-mandated safety codes were ignored.

Sailors lifted live bombs by hand and were encouraged to roll heavier bombs along the dock.

Powered winches were used to lift heavy loads, and although the machinery was often in disrepair — with broken levers, valves, and even brakes — sailors were instructed to load these devices beyond their weight capacity to speed up the process. Naval officers also raced divisions of sailors against each other, betting on which group could load explosives the fastest.

Practices that prioritized speed over safety led to a dangerous working environment at Port Chicago, and many sailors felt the working conditions were unacceptable. Actor, singer, and civil rights icon Harry Belafonte, who served briefly at Port Chicago in 1944, wrote in 2011 about the dangers of loading munitions:
"Not only was this menial work, it was incredibly dangerous, the more so because none of us had had any training for it. We knew exactly why we'd been chosen. This was scut work for the lowliest and most expendable sailors in the U.S. Navy: the black ones." The sailors filed complaints with the Navy about unsafe procedures, requested a change of assignment, and asked to be transferred. Complaints and requests were ignored or denied. A year before the disaster, in a letter to a local attorney asking for assistance, the sailors wrote:
"We, the Negro sailors of the Naval Enlisted Barracks of Port Chicago, California, are waiting for a new deal. Will we wait in vain?”
The Port Chicago Disaster
On the night of July 17, 1944, two Liberty ships, the SS Quinault Victory and SS E.A. Bryan, were being loaded with explosive incendiary bombs, depth charges, and ammunition. At 10:18pm, two massive explosions at the docks, just seconds apart, lit up the sky. Fiery debris and chunks of metal rained down on the base and surrounding areas. Smoke and fire extended nearly two miles into the air.

All 320 of the men on duty that night died instantly, almost two thirds of whom were African American, amounting to 15% of all Black American military deaths during World War II. 390

3 civilians and military personnel were injured, many seriously. The Naval Magazine was completely destroyed.

As Port Chicago sailor Robert Routh recalled, "These were the kind of young Blacks that made the conditions tolerable because of their attitude and ready to joke and make you glad to be alive. And now to know that in three to four seconds their lives were just snuffed out... There was nothing said about this, the tragic loss of life. Where was the reporters then, writing about that?"
The nearby town of Port Chicago was severely damaged and the blast caused structural damage and broken windows in surrounding communities. The explosions were felt as far away as Nevada. It was the largest homefront disaster of the war.

The surviving Black sailors were off-duty that night, and many of them were injured from the blast as windows shattered in their barracks. Uninjured sailors fought valiantly to put out fires and contain the damage caused by the explosions. Afterwards, a Rear Admiral proclaimed, "I am gratified to learn that, as was expected, Negro personnel performed bravely and efficiently in the emergency."
In the days that followed, many of the surviving injured Black sailors, still shaken from the traumatic event, were tasked with cleaning up the remnants of the disaster, including the body parts of their brothers-in-arms. Port Chicago 50 sailor Jack Crittenden described the traumatic experience:
"It was a sight that you don't want to talk about. Arm here, leg here, head here, a shoe with a foot in it. This is on the water and on the ground and, oh man. Awful." Meanwhile, as the Black sailors were made to clean up the grisly scene, their White counterparts were granted a 30-day survivor's leave to return home, heal from their wounds, and visit family and loved ones. The Black sailors were never granted such a leave.

The Port Chicago Protest
Within days after the gruesome cleanup, with the war raging on and our troops still needing munitions overseas, the sailors were sent to Mare Island Naval Shipyard about 25 miles from Port Chicago in Vallejo, California. There they learned they would soon be again tasked with loading explosives onto ships. The Navy's investigation into the cause of the disaster was not yet complete, so sailors and commanding officers did not know what precautions to take in order to prevent another disaster. The sailors would be serving under the same leadership responsible for previous safety violations and there would be no changes to procedures, conditions, or safety practices.

On August 9, 1944, when 328 sailors were directed to march toward the ships to load munitions, the sailors all stopped in their tracks. When asked if they would resume handling explosives, the majority of them resisted. Some sailors were too traumatized from the events to continue

4 working with explosives. Others wanted to be assigned to different duties. Still others were tormented by the fact that White sailors were granted leave while Black sailors were not only denied leave but made to clean up body parts after the explosions. They all wanted their lives to be valued the same as the White sailors who were being safeguarded from the dangers of loading munitions.

When asked individually if they would follow orders to load, about 70 of the sailors agreed to return to loading duties. The remaining sailors explained to the officers they would serve their country performing other duties, they'd accept transfers, or fight overseas in combat, but would not continue loading munitions under the same dangerous conditions.

Rather than train the sailors, bring working conditions up to code, or reassign White sailors to loading duties, the Naval officers packed 258 of the Black sailors onto a prison barge and threatened them with death-by-firing-squad if they did not return to loading munitions. After over two days on the overcrowded barge, 208 of the sailors reluctantly returned to loading.

In an act of nonviolent civil disobedience, fifty of the sailors, now known as the Port Chicago 50, stood firm and refused to continue loading munitions until the Navy changed their policies and practices.

As sailor Freddie Meeks later recalled, "We said, 'If we're going to be shot, we'll be shot.' We were not going back to those conditions."
For this, the fifty sailors were to be charged with mutiny. Although the standard charge for disobeying an order is "insubordination," which carries a punishment of forfeiture of pay and dishonorable discharge, Port Chicago leadership pushed for a more severe charge of "mutiny" which carried a maximum wartime punishment of death.

The Navy’s Court of Inquiry
A Naval Court of Inquiry, or official investigation, began on July 21 but wasn't completed until August 29, twenty days after the sailors were directed to return to loading munitions. As part of the investigation, three senior officers and a judge advocate interviewed 125 witnesses over a month, only five of whom were Black sailors.

The inquiry report found Port Chicago leadership had shown a "general failure to foresee and prepare for the tremendous increase in explosive shipments." It also cited leadership's "failure to provide an adequate number of competent petty officers or even personnel of petty officer caliber."
In regard to hazardous working conditions and practices on the base, the report confirmed leadership's "failure to assemble and train the officers and crew for their specialized duties prior to the time they were required for actual loading." It found that Port Chicago leadership had violated safety code and regulations, encouraged competition, and promoted criminalized loading practices.

5 The facts and evidence included in the report were interpreted by Navy captains and commanders in a final "opinions" section. Although the report was unable to find evidence of a specific cause for the explosions, the "opinion" section theorized that if the explosions were caused by human error, it was likely caused by the deceased Black sailors themselves.

Specifically, the opinion was that the explosions were caused by "rough or careless handling by an individual or individuals", not any failures of leadership. To back this theory, Naval leadership included a racist theory that Black sailors were inherently inferior to White sailors, including the opinion that Black sailors were "neither temperamentally [nor] intellectually capable of handling high explosives."
The report ultimately absolved all White officers of wrongdoing by stating the aforementioned illegally-unsafe practices "were contrary to the Coast Guard ship loading regulations [but] were not dangerous and did not increase the hazards."
The Mutiny Trial
Following the release of the inquiry report on August 29, which confirmed negligence and hazardous working conditions at Port Chicago, it became clear to many why the sailors were hesitant to return to loading explosives. On September 2, just three days after the inquiry report was released, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent a letter to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal outlining his opinion on the sailors. The President's letter read:
"It seems to me we should remember in the summary court martials of these 208 men that they were motivated by mass fear and that this was understandable. Their punishment should be nominal."
Although the reasons for the sailors' collective disobedience was understandable to President Roosevelt, the Navy would grant no leniency for the Port Chicago 50. The mutiny trial was scheduled to take place at Treasure Island in the San Francisco Bay on September 14, 1944. It would be the largest mass mutiny trial in American history.

The U.S. military does not typically send public invitations to military trials, however the Navy made an exception in order to invite the national press to cover the mutiny trial. One member of the public attending the trial was future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, then a young civil rights lawyer for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), who observed the trial and heard statements from each of the sailors. He publicly stated that the Navy was mishandling the case and was attempting to cover up its racist policies and blatant negligence by shifting blame for the disaster onto the Black sailors. Unfortunately, as a civilian lawyer, Marshall could not represent the sailors in a military trial.

The fifty sailors were not granted the right to choose their own representation, and were denied their right to individual counsel, as the Navy appointed five Naval attorneys who represented blocks of ten sailors each. Additionally, the Navy-appointed attorneys were all made to play by Navy rules, which barred evidence of hazardous conditions and necessitated the young men be

6 instructed not to testify about things that could incriminate the Navy or Port Chicago leadership.

This left the sailors with very little recourse to prove their innocence, as the reasons they spontaneously refused to load munitions had much to do with hazardous working conditions caused by Port Chicago leadership's negligence and disregard for the Black sailors' safety. As a result, subjects like safety violations, unsafe practices, and racial discrimination were disallowed from the trial and not part of witness examination.

As the sailors were instructed to limit their answers to their own actions and behavior and not the mistakes of Naval leadership, many sailors could only respond to questioning with testimony of their personal feelings of fear and confusion or what we would now call post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD. These testimonies of fear and confusion were used to further Port Chicago leadership's racist narrative that Black sailors were inherently emotionally unstable, unintelligent, untrainable, and mistake-prone. To this end, officers testified about the sailors' mishandling of bombs and inability to be trained. From a legal perspective, this narrative had very little to do with proving a mutiny occurred, and more to do with establishing that the Black sailors, and not the Navy, were responsible for the Port Chicago disaster. Although this narrative had no bearing on the trial itself – and inadvertently made the sailors' case for granting them reassignment – the narrative of blame would be a stigma the sailors would find hard to shake.

After weeks of proceedings, evidence of a mutiny was scant, as an attempt to usurp power had not occurred and the sailors continued to follow all orders other than loading munitions. The "mutiny" narrative was especially hard to maintain once officers testified that sailors were respectful and followed every order except requests to load munitions. With the prosecution unable to present sufficient evidence of a mutiny, one would expect the Navy to proclaim the sailors innocent of mutiny, however the prosecution changed tactics mid-trial and attempted to prove the sailors were guilty of "conspiracy to commit mutiny." This charge inherently suggests that a mutiny never occurred, so prosecution would try to prove the sailors planned to eventually attempt a mutiny.

Reaching a verdict about collective planned action would theoretically require a careful examination of evidence and testimony for each sailor's alleged role in that action; a complicated task with fifty individual defendants. Additionally, a conspiracy charge would require the prosecution to show evidence of private conversations and alleged agreements, of which there were none. Making the task more difficult, was Naval leadership's inability to match the faces of the Black sailors to specific actions or events. Sailors testified that commanders never gave them direct orders to load munitions, only asked them questions about their willingness to perform the duties. A petty officer backed up the sailors' claims, saying he had never heard his division officer give the men an order to load ammunition. When the sailors' lead attorney asked a Naval commander if he could identify any of the fifty men he gave an order to, he replied, "No, I cannot."
In a flagrant violation of the sailors' rights to a fair trial, judges allowed the prosecution to submit unsubstantiated hearsay evidence and coerced involuntary confessions, while the defense was

7 not allowed to submit evidence of illegally-unsafe working conditions or unlawful orders. As Port Chicago sailor Joseph Small once said:
"That's why I always knew that the verdict was mandatory. The Navy was coming up with it regardless of what was brought out during the trial or what testimony was brought out, or who was found to be guilty of what, the verdict would have been the same. Not because the verdict would have been justified, but because it was the only way to save face." On October 24, 1944, after six weeks and 32 days of proceedings, the 7-member jury, composed of an Admiral and six high-ranking Navy officers, would need to arrive at a verdict.

There was insufficient evidence of a mutiny, insufficient evidence there was a plot to eventually attempt mutiny, and insufficient evidence that the sailors present in the courtroom were ever given a direct order at all. Nevertheless, the Naval jury deliberated for 80 minutes over lunch – which amounts to about 96 seconds deliberation per sailor – before delivering their verdict. The men were pronounced guilty of "conspiracy to commit mutiny" and were indiscriminately sentenced to 15 years prison and hard labor.

Desegregating the Navy
Mainstream press coverage of the mutiny trial widely reported the Navy's point-of-view that the sailors were cowards and traitors to their country. It also opened the Navy up to scrutiny for its policies of racial segregation. Many Black and liberal publications questioned the Navy's treatment of the Black sailors, as many Americans were unaware that segregation was being so strictly enforced in states like California where Jim Crow segregation was outlawed. These publications focused on the unethical treatment the sailors were subjected to because of the color of their skin. For many, the post-traumatic stress the sailors were experiencing after the disaster and cleanup was understandable, and some believed their request to be reassigned to alternative duties following the disaster was a reasonable request and should have been granted.

The ongoing trial was exposing racial inequality in the Navy for the first time. Under intense scrutiny, Naval leadership realized it needed to take steps to avoid future incidents like the one at Port Chicago. They concluded the Port Chicago protest could have been handled differently, and so in extreme cases commanders should be encouraged to assign Black sailors to alternative assignments, even if that means serving alongside White sailors.

As a result, on October 9, 1944, while the mutiny trial was still being conducted, the Navy's Bureau of Personnel released a directive titled "Negro Enlisted Personnel - Abolishment of Restrictions on the Assignment Of" which lifted restrictions for Black American assignments where "personnel problems" were present:
"In order to enable overall commands to deal successfully with personnel problems brought about by changing conditions and needs, authority is hereby granted addressees to assign Negroes under their cognizance to such activities, and in such numbers, as they see fit."

8 As a result, while the Port Chicago 50 were still on trial, the Navy ordered the formation of two divisions of White sailors to load munitions at Port Chicago and Mare Island. The racial integration of the Navy had officially begun, and it was in direct response to the Port Chicago protest.

For Black American military personnel around the world, the mutiny trial and verdict had a profound effect. It reinforced the perception that Black lives were not valued by the military, and it resulted in morale dropping to new lows. In the months following the verdict, resentment and frustrations with racially-discriminatory policies led to acts of protest throughout the military.

These acts of protest included a race riot in Guam in December 1944, a hunger strike of 1000 Navy Seabees in Port Hueneme in March 1945, and the Freeman Field "Mutiny" of April 1945 in which Black airmen refused to leave an all-White officers club.

The case of the Port Chicago sailors began to serve as an example of everything that was wrong with racial segregation in the military. The Navy's mistreatment of the sailors was being written about and published across the country with photographs, and it didn't sit well with many Americans, including those in military leadership.

Many in the Navy were becoming convinced that segregating enlisted men by race was no longer viable, and integrating personnel only under extreme circumstances was simply not enough. Some believed integration was good for national morale and harmony, while others believed all-Black divisions needed to end because they increased the potential for collective action and protest. Regardless of the reason, there was agreement on what needed to be done, and plans to fully integrate the Navy were underway.

In the months following the verdict, the NAACP publicly advocated for the Port Chicago 50 to be released from prison with their widely-distributed Mutiny pamphlet. The publication was distributed far and wide, including to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt who supported the campaign to have the men released. Letters from organizations were calling for justice for the Port Chicago 50 while organized drives were being held at churches to sign petitions to end segregation in the military.

In April 1945, on behalf of the fifty sailors, Thurgood Marshall appealed the case directly to the Navy's Judge Advocate General's Office in Washington DC. Although the Navy refused to publicly concede that racial discrimination and bias influenced its judgment of the sailors, just 205 days after Marshall's appeal case was denied, the sailors' sentences were commuted and they were quietly released from prison. Rather than allow the sailors to go home and join their families, the young men were given the "opportunity to complete their enlistments" serving the Navy overseas performing menial tasks like sweeping, picking up trash, and other menial tasks.

Just one month after they were released from prison, in February 1946, after intense public pressure initiated by the Port Chicago protest, subsequent protests, and a public appeal campaign, the Navy became the first branch of the military to end racial segregation. Two years later, the remaining branches of the U.S. Armed Forces integrated.

9 The 1994 Navy Review
45 years later, with the release of Robert Allen's definitive book "The Port Chicago Mutiny" in 1989, people were hearing the full history of Port Chicago for the first time. Many felt the sailors were unfairly treated and wrongfully convicted. Advocates like Robert Allen, Sandra Evers- Manly, and Reverend Diana McDaniel were joined by lawmakers Rep. George Miller, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Senator Barbara Boxer in urging the Navy to re-examine the mutiny case.

In 1992, after much advocacy from supporters – including high-profile entertainers Morgan Freeman, Danny Glover, and Louis Gossett Jr. – the Navy agreed to "examine all aspects of the allegations of racial prejudice and discrimination." Following a two year review, the final report found that "racial discrimination did play a part in the assignment of African-American sailors to load munition." According to the Navy's report, assignments were the only aspect of Naval life that was affected by racial discrimination. The report concluded that "neither racial prejudice nor other improper factors tainted the original investigations and trials" and "no error or injustice occurred."
At the time, one of the Port Chicago survivors said the Navy's ruling was "like saying it's raining everywhere but right here." Port Chicago sailor Harry Belafonte said "The Port Chicago mutiny was one of America's ugliest miscarriages of justice and a national disgrace. Those sailors were court-martialed... because they'd dared to stand up to blatant institutional racism." Advocates continued to make the case that, despite the Navy's conclusions, policies of racial segregation didn't just affect working assignments, but normalized racial discrimination throughout the Navy and encouraged behavior that devalued Black sailors. They maintained that documented racial prejudice and bias tainted the original investigation, charges, and trial.

Repairing the Sailors’ Legacies
Unrelenting in their goal to bring the sailors of Port Chicago justice, advocates next approached the sailors with the idea of requesting pardons from the President of the United States. Many of the sailors turned it down. On that subject, Port Chicago sailor Joseph Small once said, "We don't want a pardon because that means, 'You're guilty, but we forgive you.' We want the decisions set aside and reimbursement of lost pay."
By 1999, 47 of the 50 sailors had died. As one of the last three survivors, sailor Freddie Meeks believed seeking a presidential pardon would be a meaningful and lasting way to set the record straight and bring public attention to this little-known history. "After all these years, the world should know what happened at Port Chicago," he said. In December 1999, President Bill Clinton honored the Port Chicago 50 by granting Freddie Meeks a presidential pardon. The remaining two sailors declined, with sailor Jack Crittenden explaining that he refused to ask forgiveness for a crime he didn't commit.

Today, the sailors have all passed away, yet efforts to seek justice for their legacies continue.

Naval historians now say the heroic actions of the 50 sailors probably prevented another

10 disaster and likely saved lives. Acknowledging the racism the sailors experienced, President Barack Obama once wrote, "Faced with tremendous obstacles, they fought on two fronts – for freedom abroad and equality at home."
A growing chorus of Americans believe our nation owes the sailors a debt of gratitude for drawing attention to issues of racial inequality within the Navy and our society as a whole.

Celebrating the Sailors
The Port Chicago 50 are now being honored and celebrated as heroes in schools, parks, and public institutions. In 2021, the East Bay Regional Park District, the largest park district in the country, named a regional park in honor of Thurgood Marshall and the Port Chicago 50. The 2,540-acre Thurgood Marshall Regional Park - Home of the Port Chicago 50 in Concord, California will teach of the Port Chicago 50's courage and how their act of protest, and Marshall's public appeal campaign, forever changed our country for the better.

In 2022, Treasure Island Museum announced they are working with the National Park Service to honor and memorialize the fifty sailors at Yerba Buena Island in the San Francisco Bay where the mutiny trial took place. Plans for a hilltop park on the island include exhibits, panels, plaques, and an American flag waving in their honor.

Through education and advocacy, the legacies of the Port Chicago 50 and the brave fallen sailors of Port Chicago Naval Magazine lives on.

Previous action by the Berkeley City Council
In 2015, the Berkeley City Council adopted a resolution calling on President Obama to support justice for the Port Chicago 50 and exoneration for the convicted Port Chicago sailors. In light of renewed interest and momentum for exoneration, this item seeks to provide a more robust and updated statement of continued support.

FISCAL IMPACTS
N/A

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
N/A

CONTACT
Sophie Hahn, Council District 5, (510) 981-7150

11 RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL EFFORTS TO EXONERATE THE PORT CHICAGO 50
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1944, the deadliest home front disaster of World War II took place when a tragic explosion occurred at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine killing 320 men (of whom 202 were African American) and wounding 390 (of whom 233 were African American); and WHEREAS, Port Chicago Naval Magazine was racially segregated and all sailors loading munitions at the time of the explosion were African American; and WHEREAS, the surviving sailors were entitled to standard survivors’ leave but were denied leave and ordered to clean up after the disaster; and
WHEREAS, the surviving sailors were ordered back to handling high explosives before an investigation could determine the cause of the deadly explosion; and WHEREAS, 258 ammunition handlers engaged in peaceful work stoppage rather than return under the same unsafe working conditions; and
WHEREAS, fifty of these men were unlawfully charged with mutiny, prosecuted as guilty and sentenced to prison; and
WHEREAS, three weeks after the work stoppage, a Naval Court of Inquiry report confirmed working conditions and practices enforced by Port Chicago leadership were in violation of Naval safety regulations and federal safety code; and
WHEREAS, the actions of the sailors, the public mutiny trial, and public advocacy from their champion Thurgood Marshall, initiated the desegregation of the Navy in February 1946; and WHEREAS, there have been several attempts over the years to appeal the decision, but all have failed; and
WHEREAS, starting in the 1990s, Congressman George Miller worked to preserve the history of the Port Chicago 50 and worked towards their exoneration, and in 1992, his legislation designated the site of the Port Chicago Naval Magazine as a national memorial, which is managed by the National Park Service; and
WHEREAS, in 2009, President Obama signed legislation to incorporate Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial as a full and permanent unit of our National Park System; and WHEREAS, the East Bay Regional Park District received part of the Concord Naval Weapons Station through a Public Benefit Conveyance on July 19, 2019, and has named the park the Thurgood Marshall Regional Park – Home of the Port Chicago 50, which honors the courage

12 and legacy of the Port Chicago 50 and all those who sacrificed their lives in our nation’s ongoing struggle for social justice, racial equality, and workers’ rights; and WHEREAS, Naval historians now recognize the actions of the Port Chicago 50 potentially saved lives and changed the Navy for the better; and
WHEREAS, in 2022, the City of Concord, the City of Albany, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors passed resolutions supporting local, state, and federal efforts to exonerate the sailors wrongfully convicted of mutiny following the Port Chicago disaster of 1944.

WHEREAS, in 2022, the State of California successfully passed SJR-15 urging the President of the United States and Congress to restore honor to the sailors unjustly blamed for, and the sailors convicted of mutiny following, the Port Chicago disaster, and to rectify any mistreatment by the military of those sailors, including the full exoneration of those who were convicted at court-martial; and
WHEREAS, in 2023, US Representative Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11), US Representative Barbara Lee (CA-12) and US Representative John Garamendi (CA-08) introduced a resolution recognizing the victims of the Port Chicago disaster and calling for the exoneration of the Port Chicago 50; and
WHEREAS, in June 2023, the Philadelphia 15 were exonerated by Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Parker. This case serves as an example and pathway to exonerate the Port Chicago 50.

WHEREAS, in August 2023, Vice President Kamala Harris praised the Port Chicago 50, writing that they “pushed for progress, and our Armed Forces are stronger today because they reflect the diversity of our country.”
NOW, THEREFORE, The City of Berkeley DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City of Berkeley does hereby support all efforts to exonerate the Port Chicago 50 and recognize their service to our country.

Section 2. The City of Berkeley recognizes the efforts that this case presents in our nation’s struggle for social justice, racial equity, and workers’ rights.

Section 3. The City of Berkeley urges all Alameda County cities and the County of Alameda to adopt similar resolutions of support, and directs the City Manager to share this Resolution with all such jurisdictions and with Berkeley’s State and Federal representatives.

Section 4. The City of Berkeley affirms support for all future efforts which urge the President, Congress of the United States, and Secretary of the Navy to take all necessary actions to restore honor to, and rectify the mistreatment by the United States Military of, any sailors who were unjustly blamed for and convicted of mutiny after the Port Chicago disaster, which occurred in the town of Port Chicago, California, in 1944.

Cecilia Lunaparra
Councilmember, District 7
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Lunaparra
Subject: Amend Item to Remove the Dwight Way/Telegraph Avenue Intersection From the List of Intersections Being Considered for Additional Surveillance Technology

RECOMMENDATION
Amend Council action that was passed at the January 30, 2024 Council meeting to remove the Dwight Way/Telegraph Avenue intersection from the list of intersections being considered for additional surveillance technology.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On January 30, 2024, Council approved a budget referral to fund surveillance technology at various locations in Berkeley experiencing increased violent crime. The budget referral also instructed the City Manager to explore the possibility of implementing surveillance technology at an additional eight locations. One of the locations under consideration is the intersection of Dwight Way and Telegraph Avenue, located in District 7. At the time of passage, the Council did not have a District 7 representative. Moreover, the Dwight and Telegraph intersection is located just half a block away from People’s Park and the Chess Club, both of which have recently faced displacement and increased police and private security presence. The Dwight/Telegraph intersection is also the site of Chuck Herrick Peace and Freedom Memorial Park, also known as the Dwight Triangle, now a community gathering space where mutual aid, food distribution, and harm reduction programs have emerged, supplanting the void left by the People’s Park closure. Councilmember Lunaparra’s office is concerned about the further criminalization of unhoused residents who have increasingly lost access to public gathering spaces as well as the infringement on civil liberties associated with increased surveillance technology. This proposed item, as

15

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected] demonstrated in the attachment material, simply removes the one District 7 camera up for consideration in the action passed by Council on January 30, 2024.

Item 29 from the January 30 Council meeting, “Budget Referral: Additional Security Cameras at Intersections Experiencing Increased Violent Crime,” intended to “deter violent crime and obtain evidence”1 by installing cameras at intersections experiencing increased violent crime. Although the goal of this policy is commendable and important, the late inclusion of the Dwight and Telegraph intersection for additional surveillance is concerning, as it occurred just weeks after an assault on District 7 where hundreds of police officers barricaded People’s Park, confronted protesters, and demanded identification for all residents entering the neighborhood.

Based on Berkeley Police Department’s (BPD) Transparency Hub, from January 1, 2023 and June 1, 2023, there were seven disturbances, instances of burglary/theft, and assaults/battery at the Dwight/Telegraph intersection.2 Comparatively, from January 1, 2024 - June 1, 2024, there were 11 reports of violent crime at the Dwight/Telegraph intersection, seemingly representing a concerning increase in violent crime. However, four of those 11 reported instances occurred on January 4, 2024, the same day the UC Police Department, Berkeley Police Department, Cal State University Police, California Highway Patrol, and the Alameda County Sheriff's3 Office closed People’s Park and the surrounding areas, forcibly removing community members and arresting those non- violently protesting or unwilling to leave.4 While the initial report used data from the Transparency Hub up until January, we now have more recent data showing that the increase in violent crime from the same months in 2023 and 2024 is solely due to incidents that occurred on January 4th, which are not indicative of broader criminal trends. Without those four incidents, the rate of violent crime at Dwight and Telegraph remains unchanged.
1 City of Berkeley, "Budget Referral: Additional Security at Intersections Experiencing Increased Violent Crime," last modified January 30, 2024, accessed June 8, 2024, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-01- 30%20Item%2029%20Budget%20Referral%20Additional%20Security.pdf. 2Berkeley Police Department, "Crime Data," BPD Transparency Initiative, accessed June 6, 2024, https://bpd-transparency-initiative-berkeleypd.hub.arcgis.com/pages/crimes. 3 Jenny Kwon and Alex K. Fong, "People's Park: A Timeline of Berkeley's Iconic Landmark," San Francisco Chronicle, accessed June 7, 2024, https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2024/peoples-park- berkeley-timeline/.
4 Emilie Raguso, "Recapping 16 Hours: People’s Park, UC Berkeley Walls Off Historic Site," Berkeleyside, accessed June 7, 2024, https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/01/04/recapping-16-hours- peoples-park-uc-berkeley-walls-off-historic-site.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected]

BACKGROUND
At the January 30, 2024 Council meeting, the authors submitted revised agenda material to be considered as part of the item, but the motion to incorporate the material into the agenda failed. Council ultimately passed an amended item that was developed on the dais. For these reasons, our office has only included the proposed amended action from the minutes of the meeting as opposed to the original item, supplemental, and additional agenda material.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
N/A

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra, 510-981-7170

ATTACHMENTS
Amended action from January 30, 2024 Council meeting

Council Action Items

29. Budget Referral: Additional Security Cameras at Intersections Experiencing Increased Violent Crime 2
From: Councilmember Humbert (Author), Councilmember
Bartlett (Co Sponsor)
Recommendation: In order to deter violent crime and obtain evidence to solve criminal investigations, adopt the following recommendations:

1. Authorize the City Manager to install additional security cameras, prominent signage, and increased lighting in the public right-of-way at intersections experiencing a rise in violent crime and/or which include arterial streets offering entry/exit points for Berkeley.

2. Refer costs for security cameras and lighting to the next budget process.

Security camera footage would be used solely for the purpose of solving criminal investigations. The cameras are not intended and would not be used for continuous surveillance purposes. Cameras should ideally be compatible with those already in use at San Pablo Park under Contract Nos. 31900080 and 31900205 and those deployed at other intersections throughout the city.

Priority intersections for security camera installation would include: - Alcatraz and College; -Woolsey and Telegraph; -Woolsey and Shattuck; - Alcatraz and Adeline; and -Alcatraz and Sacramento.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Mark Humbert, Councilmember, District 8, (510) 981-7180 Action: M/S/Failed (Arreguin/Humbert) to accept revised material from Councilmember Humbert on Item 29.

Vote: Ayes – Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Humbert, Arreguin; Noes – Kesarwani, Taplin; Abstain – None; Absent – Wengraf.

Action: M/S/Carried (Arreguin/Hahn) to suspend the rules and allow for a 30- minute public comment period on Item 29.

Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Taplin, Bartlett, Hahn, Humbert, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Harrison, Wengraf.

Councilmember Harrison absent at 8:54 p.m.

Action: 21 speakers. M/S/C (Arreguin/Bartlett) to:

1. Pursuant to Berkeley Police Department Policy Numbers 351 and 1304, the City Council approves the following additional locations for the installation of External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras, signage and increased lighting at the following locations, and refer the costs for acquisition of cameras and lighting to the FY 2025 Budget process:
• Alcatraz and College
• Woolsey and Telegraph
• Woolsey and Shattuck

• Alcatraz and Adeline
• Alcatraz and Sacramento
• San Pablo Ave. and Gilman
Additional camera locations to be considered for potential future installation include:
• Telegraph and Dwight
• 5th Street and Gilman
• 4th Street and Hearst
• Cedar St. and Eastshore Hwy
• 4th Street and Virginia
• 8th Street and Harrison
• 2nd Street and Page
• University and San Pablo
The costs for installation and maintenance of cameras at additional authorized locations would be determined and approved separately during future budget processes.

2. Direct the City Manager to engage with the Police Accountability Board on this proposal and request their feedback to Council within 30 days of submission. The Council will take its comments into consideration during subsequent steps for final approval for purchase and installation of cameras at approved locations.

3. Direct the City Manager to prepare targeted amendments to various pertinent surveillance technology reports and policies in order to provide extra transparency beyond what is explicitly required by the Berkeley Municipal Code and Berkeley Police Department Law Enforcement Manual.

Security camera footage would be used solely in a manner consistent/compliant with existing ordinances and the Berkeley Police Department’s existing use policies, as enumerated in the Berkeley Municipal Code, the Berkeley Police Department Law Enforcement Manual. The cameras are not intended and would not be used for continuous surveillance purposes. Cameras should ideally be compatible with those already in use at San Pablo Park under Contract Nos. 31900080 and 31900205 and those deployed at other intersections throughout the city.

Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Taplin, Bartlett, Humbert, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – Hahn; Absent – Harrison, Wengraf.

Tuesday, January 30, 2024 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 14

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

ACTION CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager, Neighborhood Services Subject: Referral Response: Gap Analysis of Berkeley’s Homelessness System of Care

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file a report and presentation from staff, responding to the City Council’s July 13, 2021 referral to the City Manager to analyze current homelessness expenditures and programs and to explore recalibrating and prioritizing investments to align with the 1-2-4 All Home Regional Action Plan framework.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this recommendation. However, to right-size Berkeley’s homeless system of care across all components (prevention, shelter, and permanent housing) to be consistent with the All Home Regional action plan framework, the report anticipates total costs of about $300 million over five years. This expansion in services would require significant new resources above what the city, county, state, and federal governments are currently spending on homelessness services and housing in Berkeley. The projected need would require an additional $75 million per year on average (Exhibit A, p. 40).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In July 2021, the City Council adopted the All Home Regional Action Plan (RAP), committing Berkeley to an ambitious 75% reduction in unsheltered homelessness over three years. One of the core components of the RAP model is establishing a comprehensive system encompassing prevention, interim housing/shelter, and permanent housing in order to reduce and end homelessness. The July 13, 2021 action by Council referred to the City Manager an analysis, through the lens of the All Home framework, of our existing homeless services system. In January 2024, the City Manager’s Office procured consulting services from the Goldman School of Public Policy to provide recommendations to the City on prioritizing funding to align with the RAP goals.

The resulting report, attached to this memo, responds to Council’s 2021 referral.

As of 2023, as many as 2,000 Berkeley residents experienced homelessness over the course of a year. Most of these Berkeleyans are unsheltered, meaning that they sleep in

16

Gap Analysis of Berkeley’s Homelessness System of Care ACTION CALENDAR July 9, 2024

a tent, vehicle, or on the street. However, these numbers are shifting. Since this report was commissioned, Berkeley’s January 2024 Point in Time (PIT) count data was released and shows that street homelessness has decreased by 45% and sheltered homelessness has increased by 57%. In comparison, the 2022 Point in Time Count saw a slight reduction of sheltered homelessness due, in large part, to the reduction of shelter capacity as a response to COVID concerns. In the 2024 PIT Count, the shelter utilization rates rebounded and have increased by over 35% relative to the pre-pandemic 2019 PIT Count.

The attached report finds that homeless program enrollments have gradually increased since 2021, corroborating the 2024 PIT Count’s increase in shelter utilization. This reduction in street homelessness and increase in sheltered homelessness is in large part due to the City’s Measure P commitments, state homelessness funding, and COVID-era investments. However, in the face of state and local budget deficits, the biggest issue Berkeley will face is an imminent fiscal cliff (Exhibit A, p. 3) that may stall or even reverse these recent gains if not addressed. Failing to address this fiscal cliff threatens to jeopardize the positive momentum that we have built towards reducing and ending homelessness.

The report highlights three main goals for the City’s homeless system moving forward:
(1) accelerating the transition to non-congregate shelter, (2) funding permanent supportive housing, and (3) investing in homelessness prevention (Exhibit A, p. 4). The report also suggests exploring the expansion of medium-term subsidies and investments in homelessness prevention services (Exhibit A, p. 49). In addition, the report makes recommendations to reduce inflow into the homeless services system and increase interim housing and permanent housing solutions. Many of these recommendations are already in progress, including: regional efforts to launch new homeless prevention programs in Bay Area counties; looking for ways that Berkeley’s Housing Retention and Flex Fund programs can target insecurely housed households that are more likely to fall into homelessness, if not assisted; and facilitating care conferences with shelters and service providers that focus on participant document readiness in preparation of moving into permanent housing. (In the absence of new interim housing, this latter practice has the possibility of shortening shelter lengths of stays, thereby increasing the number of participants served at shelters.) Additionally, there are 39 deeply affordable housing units that will be available through a master lease and 188 permanent support housing (PSH) units in the Housing Trust Fund Program pipeline. All these efforts rely on continued and expanded funding.

BACKGROUND
The attached Gap Analysis of Berkeley’s Homelessness System of Care was referred to the City Manager as part of the City Council’s July 13, 2021 action endorsing the All Home Regional Action Plan. The resulting report (1) provides an overview of Berkeley’s current services, (2) analyzes the needs and demographics of people experiencing homelessness, and (3) projects the resources needed to achieve a significant reduction

Gap Analysis of Berkeley’s Homelessness System of Care ACTION CALENDAR July 9, 2024

in street homelessness (Exhibit A, p. 3). The report relies on Homeless Information Management System (HMIS) and PIT Count data and showcases the current service utilizers known to date.

As we have seen in the most recent PIT Count, unsheltered homelessness is down by 45% and sheltered homelessness has increased by 57%. It is difficult to determine exactly what is driving these changes to our homeless population, but finding an increase in the number of clients seen by our HMIS system (Exhibit A, p. 22) is consistent with the PIT Count results that show more people are accessing services and fewer people are experiencing homelessness without touching our homelessness response system. This also means that the demographics of our homeless population are more known to us now than ever before. The report confirms that (1) Measure P funding has been effective in addressing homelessness in our community, (2) fewer people are exiting Berkeley services back to homelessness compared to before the pandemic, and (3) we have succeeded in increasing our non-congregate shelter bed capacity and, as a result, have also increased the number of sheltered persons in our homeless population. The report also highlights that (1) racial inequity for African-American and Indigenous folks in our homeless population remains stark (Exhibit A, p. 22) and (2) vulnerable people are often stuck in the Coordinated Entry System’s bottleneck waiting for permanent housing (Exhibit A, p. 35).

These findings were presented to the Homeless Services Panel of Experts at their May 1, 2024 meeting.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE EFFECTS
There are no identifiable environmental impacts except that whenever unhoused persons are housed in Berkeley, it contributes to a better, healthier environment for all.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This report responds to a July 13, 2021 referral from the City Council to the City Manager to provide these analyses and to return to the Council with findings.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Josh Jacobs, Homeless Services Coordinator, (510) 225-8035 Attachments:

1. Exhibit A: Gap Analysis of Berkeley’s Homelessness System of Care.

Gap Analysis of
Berkeley’s Homelessness System of Care
SPRING 2024
Prepared by Zoe Klingmann
for the City of Berkeley City Manager’s Office
The author conducted this research as part of the program of professional education at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley. This paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the course requirements for the Master of Public Policy degree. The judgements and conclusions are solely those of the author, and are not necessarily endorsed by the Goldman School of Public Policy, by the University of California, or by any other agency.

2 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the City of Berkeley Homelessness Response Team and the Health, Housing, and Community Services Department—especially Joshua Jacobs, Peter Radu, Jennifer Vasquez, David Andujo-Walker, Myette Anderson, and Brittany Carnegie. I was extremely lucky to learn from Berkeley staff over the course of this project.

I am grateful to David Amaral of All Home, Jennifer Lucky of Alameda County, and Suzanne Trujillo and the rest of Alameda County’s HMIS team for lending their expertise to this project. I would also like to thank the service providers and advocates I interviewed for sharing their perspectives on the work they do to make safe and stable housing a reality for Berkeley residents.

3 Executive Summary

More than 2,000 Berkeley residents experience homelessness over the course of a year. Most of these Berkeleyans are unsheltered, meaning that they sleep in a tent, vehicle, or on the street. This report explores how the City of Berkeley can align with the All Home Regional Action Plan (RAP), which seeks to reduce unsheltered homelessness across the Bay Area by 75 percent. It provides an overview of Berkeley’s current services, analyzes the needs and demographics of people experiencing homelessness, and projects the resources needed to achieve a significant reduction in street homelessness.

Key findings

Berkeley will need more funding to keep up momentum. Berkeley has made strides in expanding services in recent years, but the resources the City has available now are not enough to reduce unsheltered homelessness. System modeling suggests that a 75 percent reduction in street homelessness will require an additional $300 million over five years, largely for new affordable housing.

More urgently, Berkeley faces a fiscal cliff in the coming years due to the volatility of local funding sources, state budget woes, and the end of pandemic-era programs.

Inflows to and outflows from homelessness add up to increasing need for services. The number of people accessing homelessness services in Berkeley increased 11 percent between 2022 and 2023. This increase comes down to a math problem: more people are entering or returning to homelessness than are exiting to housing.

Black and Indigenous Berkeleyans are dramatically overrepresented among people experiencing homelessness. Black people make up a majority of people who accessed homelessness services in Berkeley in 2023 but only eight percent of Berkeley residents. Indigenous people are similarly overrepresented. People of color in the Bay Area are more likely to face low incomes and high rent burdens, making them especially vulnerable to homelessness.

Berkeley has made progress in increasing its supply of permanent supportive housing (PSH) and non- congregate interim housing. Since 2021, Berkeley has more than tripled the number of shelter beds in non-congregate settings, where residents sleep in a private space rather than a dorm-style shelter. These new facilities have higher utilization rates and have successfully sheltered people who have been outside for years. The city now has nearly one hundred additional beds of permanent supportive housing, which serves vulnerable people who need support to stay housed.

Vulnerable people are still stuck in a bottleneck. Despite increases in supply, people eligible for permanent supportive housing still wait a long time for housing. More than 95 percent of people waiting on the housing queue have some form of disability.

Targeted prevention is key to reducing the number of people experiencing homelessness. Berkeley’s current housing retention programs have been successful at preventing evictions, but are not targeted to the people most likely to become homeless, many of whom do not have a formal lease. System modeling suggests that Berkeley will need to more than double the number of households served by targeted prevention in order to achieve a 75 reduction in unsheltered homelessness.

4 Recommendations

In order to effectively reduce unsheltered homelessness, Berkeley should look for opportunities to increase funding for homelessness services and affordable housing. The City should prioritize the following specific investments:

• Accelerating the transition to non-congregate shelter • Funding permanent supportive housing
• Investing in targeted homelessness prevention

In addition, the City should consider doing additional research into rapid rehousing and the needs of people with lower levels of acuity. More detail about these recommendations can be found in Part VII.

5 Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 3 Part I: Background ..................................................................................................................................... 6 A. Problem definition ........................................................................................................................ 6 B. Report background ....................................................................................................................... 7 Part II: Berkeley’s Current System of Care ................................................................................................. 9 A. Homelessness and affordable housing programs used by Berkeley residents ............................. 9 B. The City of Berkeley’s current investments in homelessness ..................................................... 18 Part III: Homelessness in Berkeley ........................................................................................................... 21 A. Overview of homelessness in Berkeley ....................................................................................... 21 B. Unsheltered homelessness in Berkeley ...................................................................................... 26 Part IV: Inflows and Outflows .................................................................................................................. 29 A. Inflows to homelessness ............................................................................................................. 29 B. Exits from homelessness ............................................................................................................. 32 C. Returns to homelessness ............................................................................................................ 37 Part V: Modeling Future Investments ...................................................................................................... 39 Part VI: Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 42 A. Impacts of maintaining current trends ....................................................................................... 42 B. Alternative: Focus on permanent supportive housing (PSH) ...................................................... 43 C. Alternative: Accelerate the transition to non-congregate interim housing ................................ 44 D. Alternative: Expand medium-term subsides ............................................................................... 45 E. Alternative: Invest in homelessness prevention services ........................................................... 46 Part VII: Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 49 Appendix A: Interviews ............................................................................................................................ 50 Appendix B: Model Methodology ............................................................................................................ 51 Appendix C: Model Projections ............................................................................................................... 56