Agenda packet, first session — Berkeley City Council, March 18, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

Tuesday, March 18, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 1

REVISED AGENDA
(REVISED TO ADD A TELECONFERENCE LOCATION)

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, March 18, 2025
6:00 PM
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702 TELECONFERENCE LOCATION - 181 WELLINGTON STREET W, TORONTO, ON M5V 0A1, CANADA
TELECONFERENCE LOCATION - 2928 LINDEN AVENUE, BERKELEY, CA 94705

ADENA ISHII, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SHOSHANA O’KEEFE DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – BRENT BLACKABY
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. Live captioned broadcasts of Council meetings are available on B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet video stream at http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=1244. All Council meetings are recorded.

To access the meeting remotely use this URL: https://cityofberkeley-info.zoomgov.com/j/1609781710. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” function in Zoom. To join by phone: Dial 1-669-254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 160 978 1710 . To provide public comment, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair. To submit a written communication for the public record, email [email protected].

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953 . Any member of the public may attend this meeting, however, if you are feeling sick, please do not attend the meeting in person.

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 behavior 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 legislative body, or engaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force.

Government Code Section 84308 (Levine Act) - Parties to a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use are required to disclose if they made contributions over $5 00 within the prior 12 months to any City employee or officer. Parties and participants with a financial interest are prohibited from making more than $500 in contributions to a decisionmaker for the 12 months after the final decision is rendered on the proceeding.

The above contribution disclosures and restrictions do not apply when the proceeding is competitively bid, or involves a personnel or labor contract. For more information, see Government Code Section 84308.

Rev - 1
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

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

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

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

Public Comment on Non-Agenda Matters: Up to ten persons will be selected to address matters not on the Council agenda. If five or fewer persons are identified to provide non-agenda comment, each person selected will be allotted two minutes each. If more than five persons are selected to address matters not on the Council agenda, each person selected will be allotted one minute each.

In-person attendees 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 the moment that the Presiding Officer calls for public comment on non - agenda items. Remote attendees must raise their hand in the videoconference application when the Presiding Officer calls for non-agenda speakers. The first five raised hands on the videoconference application will be selected to speak and the first five cards drawn at the meeting will be selected to speak. The number of in-person and remote speakers selected may be adjusted by the Presiding Officer if fewer than five speakers from either format are identified.

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.

Rev - 2
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 3
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.

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. If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking on an individual agenda item, each speaker may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue. 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 official capacity when addressing the Council in open session or workshops.

Consent Calendar

1. Contract No. 31900122-1 Amendment: Rolling Orange, Inc. for Website Maintenance and Support
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 31900122-1 with Rolling Orange, Inc. for additional website maintenance and support for an amount not-to-exceed $120,000 and a total contract value not-to-exceed $794,300 from March 1, 2019 to June 30, 2027.

Financial Implications: IT Cost Allocation Fund - $120,000 Contact: Kevin Fong, Information Technology, (510) 981-6500

2. Contract: Pride Industries for Citywide Custodial Services From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a three-year contract and any amendments with Pride Industries to provide Citywide Custodial Services at various City facilities and locations, twenty-one (21) in total, from April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2028, for a total not to exceed of $5,500,000, with an option of two (2) one-year extensions for a maximum term of five (5) years.

Financial Implications: Various Funds - $5,500,000
Contact: Terrance Davis, Public Works, (510) 981-6300
Rev - 3
Consent Calander
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 4

3. Contract: SubTerra Construction, Inc. for Adeline St, Shattuck Ave., Oxford St., Fulton St., University Ave., Kala Bagai Way, and Woolsey St.; Sewer Rehabilitation Project
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1. Approving plans and specifications for the Sanitary Sewer Project, located on Adeline St., Shattuck Ave., Oxford St., Fulton St., University Ave., Kala Bagai Way, and Woolsey St.; 2. Accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, SubTerra Construction, Inc.; 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 $8,962,808, which includes a 10% contingency of $814,800; and 4. Authorizing the City Manager to execute reimbursement contracts with the University of California ($210,000), Addison Labs Foundation (a 501.c.3 organization, $120,000), and Core Spaces ($120,000).

Financial Implications: Sanitary Sewer Fund - $8,962,808 Contact: Terrance Davis, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

4. Contract No. 32400141 Amendment: Mercury Associates, Inc. for Fleet Consulting Services
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32400141 with Mercury Associates, Inc. to complete a right sizing study and provide fleet consulting services. This amendment increases the contract amount by $100,000, for a new total amount not to exceed of $225,000 for the current contract period of December 1, 2023, through December 30, 2026.

Financial Implications: Various Funds - $100,000
Contact: Terrance Davis, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

5. Contract: APB General Engineering for Urgent Sewer Repair FY2025 Project From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1. Approving plans and specifications for the Urgent Sewer Repair FY2025 Project; 2. Accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, APB General Engineering; 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 $470,910, which includes a 10% contingency of $42,810.

Financial Implications: Sanitary Sewer Fund - $470,910
Contact: Terrance Davis, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

Rev - 4
Consent Calander
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 5

6. Fiscal Year 2026 Street Lighting Assessments – Initiating Proceedings From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt two Resolutions describing proposed improvements to be used to determine the annual assessments levied for Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 and Street Lighting Assessment District No. 2018, and ordering the preparation of Engineer’s Reports.

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

7. Establishing a Measure FF SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1. Establishing a SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee (SSCOC) to review expenditures and progress reports from the City Manager and City Auditor to ensure compliance with the intent of Measure FF, passed by voters on November 5, 2024, evaluating the impacts and outcomes of tax expenditures on stated goals and prepare public reports on the Committee’s findings; and 2. Authorizing the City Manager to further implement Section 7.11.040 of City Ordinance 7,952-N.S, to ensure compliance with all requirements.

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

Council Consent Items

8. California Triathlon Club: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds
From: Councilmember Lunaparra (Author)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including $500 from Councilmember Lunaparra’s discretionary fund and funds from any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute to the California Triathlon Club (Cal Tri) for the Fall 2025 Bearathlon Triathlon event with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose.

Financial Implications: Councilmember's Discretionary Fund - $500 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 the Action Calendar public comment period on the 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. If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking on an individual agenda item, each speaker 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 the ir time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Rev - 5
Action Calander
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 6
Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council.

The Presiding Officer may open and close an additional comment period for Action items on this agenda (excluding any public hearings, appeals, and/or quasi-judicial matters), at the start of the Action Calendar.

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

If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking during a public hearing, each speaker may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

When applicable, each member of the City Council shall verbally disclose all ex parte contacts concerning the subject of the hearing. Councilmembers shall also submit a report of such contacts in writing prior to the commencement of the hearing. Written reports shall be available for public review in the office of the City Clerk.

9. 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution adopting the 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and amending the General Plan to incorporate the 2024 LHMP.

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

Rev - 6
Action Calander – New Business
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 7

10. Formation of a Sex Trafficking Task Force to Address Current Sex Trafficking in Berkeley (Reviewed by Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Policy Committee)
From: Commission on the Status of Women
Recommendation:

To recommend to Council to refer to the City Manager to form a sex trafficking task force. The Task Force’s objective shall be two-fold: to develop recommendations of sex trafficking prevention strategies to be implemented including through social media and to provide recommendations for supports for women and girls seeking to exit sex trafficking.

That the Task Force be comprised as follows: 2 members of the Commission on the Status of Women (1 of whom will be a UC Berkeley student); 1-2 members of the Berkeley Police Department formerly or currently working on this issue in Berkeley as determined by the Berkeley Police Department; 2 members of the 2x2 Committee (1 of whom shall be a Councilmember and 1 of whom shall be a School Board member); 1 member of the City of Berkeley Youth Commission who is a Berkeley High School student; 1 person with knowledge and expertise in sex trafficking, prevention and resources, that person unidentified with a Berkeley City-funded agency so as to avoid any potential conflict of interest in the recommendations; 1 woman with a history of having been sex-trafficked (a stipend is recommended for that member of the Task Force); and 1 person with expertise in workplace development and related economic resources.

Policy Committee Recommendation: No final action taken. Item is automatically returning to Council agenda pursuant to the time limit for items referred to policy committees.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Okeya Vance-Dozier, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-7100

Rev - 7
Action Calander – New Business
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 8

11. Revised External Fixed Surveillance Camera Locations and Vendor Transition From: City Manager
Recommendation: We recommend Council approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to begin the Surveillance Technology Ordinance (STO) process with a proposal to transition the External Fixed Video Surveillance Camera program from Edgeworth Integration, LLC to Flock Safety. This proposal also reallocates camera placements away from corridors already served by the ALPR system and positions them in areas with high pedestrian traffic. The change addresses installation challenges such as PGE power limitations and Caltrans right-of-way delays and strengthens the City's ability to respond to and investigate crime. We recommend that the resolution authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary actions to implement this transition in compliance with applicable ordinances and policies. We also recommend that Council provide authorization as required by the STO to the City Manager to seek available grant funding for surveillance cameras.

The proposed camera placements result from a detailed review of key factors. We identified locations where monitoring would capture individuals entering or exiting areas of heavy pedestrian traffic. Analysis of crime trends and retail theft data revealed zones that would benefit most from surveillance. Local feedback from business districts and community meetings also indicated specific areas of concern.

These considerations have led us to propose camera sites adjacent to key intersections: - Center / MLK; - College / Ashby; - Milvia / Alston; - 9th / Gilman; - Center / Shattuck; - Solano / Colusa; - University / Shattuck; - 4th / Hearst; - Cedar / Shattuck; - Adeline / Fairview; - Durant / Telegraph; - Shattuck / Ashby; - 4th / Virginia; - 62rd / King; - University / MLK; - College / Alcatraz.

In the case that additional funding becomes available and/or Council wishes to authorize more locations, we propose additional camera sites adjacent to these intersections: Ashby / Domingo, Ashby / San Pablo, Ashby / 6th and University / San Pablo.

This revision responds to two main issues. First, camera placements along Ashby and San Pablo will encounter delays due to Caltrans right-of-way challenges and Edgeworth cameras have electricity requirements that cannot be accommodated within our flat-rate contracts for traffic signals with PGE, and installing a dedicated meter would be prohibitively expensive. These challenges render the installation of Edgeworth cameras unfeasible. Second, the widespread deployment of ALPRs now covers vehicle movements, which makes the previously approved locations redundant. The new approach concentrates on high-foot-traffic areas that promise improved evidence collection during incidents.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jennifer Louis, Police, (510) 981-5900

Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda
Adjournment
Rev - 8

Tuesday, March 18, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 9
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

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

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

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

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street, and through the City's online records portal:
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/.

Agendas, agenda reports, and revised/supplemental material may be accessed via the online agenda for this meeting at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas and may be accessed 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 [email protected], (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.

Rev - 9

Tuesday, March 18, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 10
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 Clerk prior to the meeting, and are to be returned before the end of the meeting.

Questions regarding public participation may be addressed to the City Clerk Department (510) 981 -6900 or by email at [email protected].

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 March 13, 2025.

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.

Bicycle Plan

1. Marc Hedlund, with Libby Lee-Egan

2. Marla Wilson

Construction on Webster

3. Joshua Sopher

Downtown Safety Concern

4. John Craner

5. Simone Arpaio (2)

6. Javier F. Suazo

7. Eduardo D (2)

Berkeley Marina

8. Gordon Meyer

Police Accountability Newsletter

9. Hansel Alejandro Aguilar

Hopkins/McGee

10. Shirley Kirsten (3)

Battery Recycling

11. Martin Bourque (2)

12. David Lerman (2)
Rev - 10

Tuesday, March 18, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 11

Community Vigil

13. Berkeley Network for Palestine (2)

14. Summer Brenner

TBS Today

15. Elsa Tranter

Berkeley Waterfront Park User Concern

16. Kirsten Mahoney

Encampments

17. Steven Donaldson

18. Joann Driscoll

UC Berkeley

19. John Craner

Housing Concern

20. Bingo Fantasy Football (3)

Public Comment Concerns

21. Jack Kurzweil

22. Summer Brenner

Aquatics Program Concerns

23. Florence Reinisch

Tree Cutting

24. Edward Brent (2)

2138 Kittredge St.

25. Sharon Gong

Proclamation Request

26. Walton Li

Use of Taxpayer Money

27. Martha Stackawicz

Street Lighting

28. David Lerman

Affordable Housing

29. Moni T. Law

Rev - 11

Tuesday, March 18, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 12
Insight Housing

30. Del and Kathy Totten

Civic Center Park

31. Jill Korte

32. John Rice

33. Jason McGatlin

34. Holly Scheider

35. Peggy Scott

36. Michael O’Heaney

37. Maria Schell Hassid

38. Cara Delacroix

39. Enrique Marisol

01Peace and Justice Commission Resolution

40. Rev. Niels Teunis and Rev. Angela Jernigan

41. Angela Isaacs

42. Dan Weinberg

Blind Intersection @ Hopkins CT and Hopkins Ave

43. Wahid Amiri

Chess Club

44. Jesse Sheehan (2)

URL’s

45. Russbumper

Middle East Conflict

46. Russbumper
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.

Rev - 12
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 AGENDA Page 1
AGENDA

ADENA ISHII, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda.

Page 1 ends

Tuesday, March 18, 2025 AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

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

The remainder of the speakers wishing to address the Council on non-agenda items will be heard at the end of the agenda.

Page 2 ends

Tuesday, March 18, 2025 AGENDA Page 3
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.

Consent Calendar

Financial Implications: IT Cost Allocation Fund - $120,000 Contact: Kevin Fong, Information Technology, (510) 981-6500

Financial Implications: Various Funds - $5,500,000
Contact: Terrance Davis, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

Page 3 ends

Consent Calander
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 AGENDA Page 4

Financial Implications: Sanitary Sewer Fund - $8,962,808 Contact: Terrance Davis, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

Financial Implications: Various Funds - $100,000
Contact: Terrance Davis, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

Financial Implications: Sanitary Sewer Fund - $470,910
Contact: Terrance Davis, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

Page 4 ends

Consent Calander
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 AGENDA Page 5

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

Council Consent Items

Financial Implications: Councilmember's Discretionary Fund - $500 Contact: Cecilia Lunaparra, Councilmember, District 7, (510) 981-7170

Page 5 ends

Action Calander
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 AGENDA Page 6
Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council.

Those who speak on an item during this comment period may not speak a second time when the item is taken up by Council.

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

Page 6 ends

Action Calander – New Business
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 AGENDA Page 7

Policy Committee Recommendation: No final action taken. Item is automatically returning to Council agenda pursuant to the time limit for items referred to policy committees.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Okeya Vance-Dozier, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-7100

Page 7 ends

Action Calander – New Business
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 AGENDA Page 8

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jennifer Louis, Police, (510) 981-5900

Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda
Adjournment

Page 8 ends

Tuesday, March 18, 2025 AGENDA Page 9
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

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

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

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.

Page 9 ends

Tuesday, March 18, 2025 AGENDA Page 10
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 Clerk prior to the meeting, and are to be returned before the end of the meeting.

Questions regarding public participation may be addressed to the City Clerk Department (510) 981 -6900 or by email at [email protected].

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Bicycle Plan

1. Marc Hedlund, with Libby Lee-Egan

2. Marla Wilson

Construction on Webster

3. Joshua Sopher

Downtown Safety Concern

4. John Craner

5. Simone Arpaio (2)

6. Javier F. Suazo

7. Eduardo D (2)

Berkeley Marina

8. Gordon Meyer

Police Accountability Newsletter

9. Hansel Alejandro Aguilar

Hopkins/McGee

10. Shirley Kirsten (3)

Battery Recycling

11. Martin Bourque (2)

12. David Lerman (2)

Page 10 ends

Tuesday, March 18, 2025 AGENDA Page 11

Community Vigil

13. Berkeley Network for Palestine (2)

14. Summer Brenner

TBS Today

15. Elsa Tranter

Berkeley Waterfront Park User Concern

16. Kirsten Mahoney

Encampments

17. Steven Donaldson

18. Joann Driscoll

UC Berkeley

19. John Craner

Housing Concern

20. Bingo Fantasy Football (3)

Public Comment Concerns

21. Jack Kurzweil

22. Summer Brenner

Aquatics Program Concerns

23. Florence Reinisch

Tree Cutting

24. Edward Brent (2)

2138 Kittredge St.

25. Sharon Gong

Proclamation Request

26. Walton Li

Use of Taxpayer Money

27. Martha Stackawicz

Street Lighting

28. David Lerman

Affordable Housing

29. Moni T. Law

Page 11 ends

Tuesday, March 18, 2025 AGENDA Page 12
Insight Housing

30. Del and Kathy Totten

Civic Center Park

31. Jill Korte

32. John Rice

33. Jason McGatlin

34. Holly Scheider

35. Peggy Scott

36. Michael O’Heaney

37. Maria Schell Hassid

38. Cara Delacroix

39. Enrique Marisol

01Peace and Justice Commission Resolution

40. Rev. Niels Teunis and Rev. Angela Jernigan

41. Angela Isaacs

42. Dan Weinberg

Blind Intersection @ Hopkins CT and Hopkins Ave

43. Wahid Amiri

Chess Club

44. Jesse Sheehan (2)

URL’s

45. Russbumper

Middle East Conflict

• 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.

Page 12 ends

Public
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
March 18, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Kevin Fong, Director, Information Technology Subject: Contract No. 31900122-1 Amendment: Rolling Orange, Inc. Website Maintenance and Support

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 31900122-1 with Rolling Orange, Inc. for additional website maintenance and support for an amount not-to-exceed $120,000 and a total contract value not-to-exceed $794,300 from March 1, 2019 to June 30, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for the additional professional services is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 and 2026 IT Cost Allocation fund as outlined below. Spending in future years for this amendment is subject to Council approval of the proposed citywide budget and annual appropriation ordinances.
$60,000 FY 2025: Professional Services
Budget Code: 680-35-361-000-0000-000-472-612990-
(IT Cost Allocation, Business Applications, Professional Services) $60,000 FY 2026: Professional Services
Budget Code: 680-35-361-384-0000-000-472-612990-
(IT Cost Allocation, Business Applications, Professional Services) $120,000 FY 2025 and FY 2026: Total Professional Services

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City partnered with Rolling Orange to launch a new website in May 2022 (https://berkeleyca.gov). Since the launch, Rolling Orange has worked extensively with the City to provide upgrades to functionality, software bug fixes, and security patches.

Improvements in 2024 included:
 Enhancements to site search functionality
 Updated design for legislative body meeting pages
 New file replacement functionality

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 13 ends

Public
Contract No. 31900122-1 Amendment: CONSENT CALENDAR
Rolling Orange, Inc. for Website Maintenance and Support March 18, 2025

Page 2 ends

 Accessibility fixes to ensure equal access for people of all abilities  Security upgrades to software and contributed modules As the digital front door to the City, berkeleyca.gov reached over 1 million users last year, with an average of 5,400 sessions each day. The City seeks additional spending authority to continue using Rolling Orange as our website support partner.

The website is a Strategic Plan Priority, advancing our goal to be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily accessible service and information to the community.

BACKGROUND
In February 2018, the City published Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 17-1118-C seeking a website redesign and new web content management system with secure, high- performance offsite hosting.

The City received twenty-five (25) responses. A multi-departmental team evaluated the proposals and conducted two rounds of interviews and software demonstrations. Rolling Orange was selected for the project after receiving the highest scores from both the evaluation team and other stakeholders who were invited to attend the demonstrations.

In October of 2018, by resolution No. 68,651-N.S., Council approved the City Manager to enter into a contract with Rolling Orange for Website Redesign, Web Content Management System and Support.

In early 2019, Rolling Orange began work with City staff to create a new website geared towards serving the community. In May, 2022, the City launched the new website.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The improvements in website ease-of-use and availability of online services helps reduce travel associated with on-site visits to City offices. The improved functionality of the website has increased the efficiency of internal processes by reducing paper-based processes resulting in an environmentally sound and cost-effective information technology infrastructure.

Additionally, moving the website from onsite to offsite hosting has reduced the City’s server and storage computing needs as well as ongoing maintenance needed to maintain the equipment. It also provides redundancy in case of a disaster such as earthquake, etc.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Rolling Orange was selected in an RFP (No. 17-1118-C) by a cross departmental team as the best provider for Website Redesign, Web Content Management System and

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 14 ends

Public
Contract No. 31900122-1 Amendment: CONSENT CALENDAR
Rolling Orange, Inc. for Website Maintenance and Support March 18, 2025

Page 3 ends

Support. Rolling Orange has provided excellent implementation services and continues to provide the same level of ongoing technical support.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative actions were not considered as Rolling Orange has provided an expert level of service and the City does not recommend proceeding without support.

CONTACT PERSON
Kevin Fong, Director, Information Technology, 510-981-6541 Attachments:
1: Resolution

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 15 ends

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

CONTRACT NO. 31900122-1 AMENDMENT: ROLLING ORANGE, INC. FOR WEBSITE

REDESIGN, WEB CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMS), AND SUPPORT WHEREAS, on February 27, 2018, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a website redesign and web content management system and received twenty-five qualifying vendor responses; and
WHEREAS, the RFP evaluation committee evaluated each proposal and determined that the Rolling Orange, Inc. proposal best met the City’s operational, technological, and fiscal requirements; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, by Resolution No. 68651-N.S., Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract with Rolling Orange for Website Redesign, Web Content Management System and Support; and
WHEREAS, the City launched the new website in May of 2022; and WHEREAS, funding for the maintenance and support is available in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 and 2026 IT Cost Allocation Fund, and spending in future years for this amendment is subject to Council approval of the proposed citywide budget and annual appropriation ordinances.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to amend Contract No. 31900122-1 with Rolling Orange, Inc. for website redesign and web content management system, increasing the amount by $120,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $794,300 from March 1, 2019 to June 30, 2027.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 16 ends

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvian 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
March 18, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Terrance Davis, Director, Public Works
Subject: Contract: Pride Industries for Citywide Custodial Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a three-year contract and any amendments with Pride Industries to provide Citywide Custodial Services at various City facilities and locations, twenty-one (21) in total, from April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2028, for a total not to exceed of $5,500,000, with an option of two (2) one-year extensions for a maximum term of five (5) years.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The funds for the contract will be available in each individual department’s budget on an annual basis for both the original three-year term and any of the exercised extensions through the annual budget process.

Funding is broken out between twenty-one locations and into six scopes of services (SOS), all located within the city limits of City of Berkeley:
 SOS#1 – HHCS: 1521 University Ave., 1535 University Ave., 2636 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, 2640 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
 SOS#2 – Public Works: 1947 Center St., 1901 Hearst St., 2939 Ellis St., 1900 Sixth St., 1011 University Ave., 2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Way  SOS#3 – Parks, Recreation and Marina Waterfront: 1720 Eighth St., 1301 Shattuck Ave., 2800 Park St., 1730 Oregon St., 2701 Telegraph Ave., 201 University Ave., 127 University Ave., Berkeley Marina/Shorebird/South Cove  SOS#4 – Berkeley Fire Department: 997 Cedar St.
 SOS#5 – Berkeley Police Department: 125 University Ave.  SOS#6 – Office of the Director of Police Accountability: 1900 Addison Ste. 300 & 350

Page 1 of 5 ends

Page 17 ends

Pride Industries for Citywide Custodial Services at Various Locations CONSENT CALENDAR March 18, 2025

Page 2 ends

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City released a solicitation for citywide custodial services on November 13, 2024, with a closing date of December 19, 2024. Eleven bids were received from prospective vendors. Upon reviewing the experience, cost, references and financial capabilities, the Pride Industries proposal was determined to offer the best value for the City based on the selection criteria included in the RFP. The facilities covered by the RFP include sites previously serviced under the current citywide custodial services contract. The services for these sites have been performed by an outside vendor and the RFP is the continuation of service. No City employees are displaced by this contract.

This supports the City’s Strategic Plan Goal to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

BACKGROUND
Pride Industries is currently contracted by the City to provide citywide custodial services and has done so since 2019. The contract was previously managed by the City’s General Service Department until it was transferred to Public Works in June 2024. A one-year contract extension was exercised to Pride Industries by the City in July 2024, to give the City time to complete a formal solicitation. On November 13, 2024, the City released RFP #25-11680-C to solicit bids for citywide custodial services. Public Works performed a pre-bid non-mandatory walkthrough tour of select city facilities for prospective bidders on November 21, 2024, with 15 custodial companies attending. At the closing of the solicitation on December 19, 2024, the City received proposals from eleven (11) custodial service providers.

A selection committee comprised of City staff who would receive services under the resulting contract reviewed the proposals. The committee evaluated and ranked the proposals in accordance with the criteria listed in the RFP:

Line # Proposal Criteria – RFP Only Points
1 Experience & Expertise: Contractor’s previous experience providing janitorial services, including performance of service under municipal contracts, references and details regarding any past contract terminations, if applicable, in the last five years
30 2 Operations Start-up Plan: Detailed start-up strategies – procedures, scheduling, equipment/supplies, security clearances and training certs. 20 3 Ongoing Operations Plan: Describe day-to-day approach of how Contractor will effectively manage the requirements of this project, including managerial oversite, supplies/materials/consumables plan, quality of service plan, communications structure and invoicing capabilities.
20 4 Price Proposal: Three (3) year total cost for each Scope of Service 15 5 Specialized Services: How well Contractor can perform specialized services, including the capacity to provide services such as on-call 15

Page 2 of 5 ends

Page 18 ends

Pride Industries for Citywide Custodial Services at Various Locations CONSENT CALENDAR March 18, 2025

Page 3 ends

emergency cleaning, biohazard cleaning, correctional facility cleaning, universal waste disposal and servicing historical buildings The committee identified the top three vendors to move forward in the selection process in order of ranking as, (1) Kleen-Tech, (2) Pride Industries and (3) IMPEC Group, LLC.

The top three vendor proposals were examined in more detail by Public Works Staff with a focus on cost effectiveness, operational needs, and reference check evaluations.

This comprehensive review found all three vendor proposals to be comparatively similar in services provided. Discernable differences are as follows; business models, depth of details provided in proposals specific to startup, transition-delivery plan, and cost effectiveness. Reference check evaluations reveal similar findings, each vendor demonstrates strengths in areas such as responsiveness, and adaptability. Notably, performance varies on a location-by-location basis. Overall, Pride Industries is a well- regarded provider known for adaptability, and strong management. They meet cleaning standards, respond promptly to urgent requests, and adjust to unique facility needs.

The review of costs considered additional factors such as Living Wage Ordinance (LWO) and consumables. The proposals for Kleen-Tech and IMPEC Group, LLC provide estimated pricing summaries for all services. However, neither of the proposals speak to the cost of consumables or the LWO being factored into their pricing. The proposal for Pride Industries accounted for the LWO and explicitly states, “our price includes the cost of consumables.” Pride also proposed a fixed cost for the initial three- year term of the contract. The totality of the selection process identified Pride Industries as the most responsive and responsible bidder for providing citywide custodial services.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The act of submitting a proposal is a declaration that the proposer has read the RFP and understands all requirements and conditions, inclusive of the City's environmental policy requirements, including the Environmental Preferable Purchasing Policy (EPP) and the Green Cleaning Policy. Prior to commencement of any services under the resulting agreement, the contractor is required to provide certification that custodial personnel have received health & safety training. A contractor must furnish to the City for its review and approval, a complete list of all chemicals and floor products, including Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and Product Data Sheets (PDS) verifying Green Seal Certification. As a result of the environmental policy requirements and certifications, there are no anticipated negative environmental effects or climate impacts of this action.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Pride Industries offers the best value in terms of its experience, met all of the City’s specifications and received a high rating from the selection committee. Based on these factors, Pride Industries is the recommendation for the next citywide custodial contract.

Page 3 of 5 ends

Page 19 ends

Pride Industries for Citywide Custodial Services at Various Locations CONSENT CALENDAR March 18, 2025

Page 4 ends

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None. The City went out to bid, exercised due diligence in evaluating the bids and satisfied the competitive process.

CONTACT PERSON
Peni Basalusalu, Deputy Director, Public Works, 510-981-6485 Joy Brown, Operations Manager, Public Works, 510-981-6629 Tucker Brofft, Senior Management Analyst, Public Works, 510-981-5375 Erika Barros, Associate Management Analyst, Public Works, 510-981-6462 Attachments:
1: Resolution

Page 4 of 5 ends

Page 20 ends

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

CONTRACT: PRIDE INDUSTRIES FOR CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES WHEREAS, custodial services are critical for cleaning and maintaining service at various City locations and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City does not have available staff to perform these custodial services at these sites; and
WHEREAS, the facilities covered by the RFP include sites previously serviced under the current custodial services contract; and
WHEREAS, the services for these sites have been performed by an outside vendor and the RFP is a continuation of this service; and
WHEREAS, no City of Berkeley employees are displaced by this contract; and WHEREAS, the contract for each of these various locations and facilities will expire on June 30, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on November 13 th released RFP #25-11680-C for citywide custodial services. The solicitation was open for thirty-six (36) days and the City received eleven (11) proposals; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the competitive proposal solicitation that was held for providing custodial services to various city locations and facilities, Pride Industries was determined to be the most responsive and responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, funding for the contract will be made available in each individual department’s budget through the annual budget process.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Pride Industries to provide Citywide Custodial Services at twenty-one (21) various City locations and facilities for the period April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2028, in an amount not to exceed $5,500,000 with an option for two (2) one-year extensions for a maximum five (5) year contract.

Page 5 of 5 ends

Page 21 ends

Page 22 ends

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
March 18, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Terrance Davis, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Contract: SubTerra Construction, Inc. for Adeline St, Shattuck Ave, Oxford St., Fulton St., University Ave, Kala Bagai Way and Woolsey St. Sewer Rehabilitation Project

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution:
1) Approving plans and specifications for the Sanitary Sewer Project, located on Adeline St., Shattuck Ave., Oxford St., Fulton St., University Ave., Kala Bagai Way, and Woolsey St.;
2) Accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, SubTerra Construction, Inc.;
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 $8,962,808.80, which includes a 10% contingency of $814,800.80; and 4) Authorizing the City Manager to execute reimbursement contracts with the University of California ($210,000.00), Addison Labs Foundation (a 501.c.3 organization, $120,000.00), and Core Spaces ($120,000.00).

SUMMARY
The base work of this project is required in order for the City to remain in compliance with the September 22, 2014, Consent Decree (CD) issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Planned work includes the rehabilitation of approximately 7,261 linear feet sanitary sewer mains varying in size from 15-inch to 45-inch diameter.

A significant portion of the work is located on Oxford Street fronting the University of California main campus. The low bid for this base work is $8,550,308.80, which includes a 10% construction contingency.

Additionally, this project coincides with developments by UC Berkeley, Addison Labs Foundation (ALF), and Core Spaces (CS) along Oxford Street fronting the University of

Page 1 of 9 ends

Page 23 ends

Contract: SubTerra Construction Inc. for Sanitary Sewer CONSENT CALENDAR Rehabilitation at Various Locations March 18, 2025

Page 2 ends

California main campus. This presents a rare opportunity to consolidate pedestrian, bus, bicycle and traffic disruptions, and sewage bypasses into a single coordinated project that is cost-neutral to the City. Eliminating multiple disruptions and consolidating construction operations into a single project requires the City enter into reimbursement contracts with UC, ALF, and CS. UC and ALF have expressed willingness to enter into reimbursement contracts with the City. Staff is negotiating these contracts with UC and ALF. The CS project is currently experiencing delays. However, Staff believes it is prudent to have the ability to negotiate and enter into a contract with CS within the time constraints of the City’s project with SubTerra Construction Inc, should CS overcome their delays.

The recommended Resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute four contracts:
 SubTerra Construction Inc Contract: will enable the City to comply with the consent decree requirements for a base cost of $8,550,308.80 which includes 10% construction contingency, plus the additional construction costs and construction contingencies as executed below;
 University of California Contract: will enable the City and UC to minimize public disruptions on Oxford Street for additional reimbursed construction cost of $210,000 which includes 10% construction contingency and 10% for the City’s expenses;  Addison Labs Foundation Contract: will enable the City and ALF to minimize public disruptions on Oxford Street for additional reimbursed construction cost of $120,000 which includes 10% construction contingency and 10% for the City’s expenses; and
 Core Spaces Contract: will enable the City and CS to minimize public disruptions on Oxford Street for additional reimbursed construction cost of $120,000 which includes 10% construction contingency and 10% for the City’s expenses.

The total construction value for the SubTerra Construction Inc. Contract, including the base cost, UC, ALF, CS, and 10% construction contingency is $8,962,808.80. These contracts will enable the City to comply with the requirements of the Consent Decree, while minimizing public disruptions on Oxford Street fronting the University of California main campus. Further, the City will be fully reimbursed for its expenses pertaining to UC, ALF, and CS.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Revenue sufficient to fund this project is available in the FY 2025 Sanitary Sewer Fund Low bid by SubTerra Construction, Inc.…………………$8,148,008.00 10% Contingency…….………...……………………………$814,800.80
Total construction cost $8,962,808.80

Page 2 of 9 ends

Page 24 ends

Contract: SubTerra Construction Inc. for Sanitary Sewer CONSENT CALENDAR Rehabilitation at Various Locations March 18, 2025

Page 3 ends

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
An Invitation for Bids (Specification. No. 25-11688-C) was released on December 10, 2024, and bids were opened on January 28, 2025. Two non-local bids were received, with a low bid of $8,962,808.80, and a high bid $9,332,081 (Attachment 3, Bid Results).

The engineer's estimate was $6,946,775. SubTerra Construction, Inc. of San Francisco CA, was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder with a bid of $8,962,808.80.

References for SubTerra proved satisfactory, thus staff recommends award of the contract to SubTerra. While the bid from the lowest responsive and responsible bidder was above the engineer’s estimate, staff continues to experience higher bid prices as a result of recent labor and material cost inflation across the construction industry, which is reflected in the accepted bid amount.

The sanitary sewer project is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

BACKGROUND
To remain compliant with the September 22, 2014 Consent Decree (CD), the City implemented a long-term Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Program to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and reduce storm water infiltration and inflow into the sanitary sewer system. Under this program, the City utilizes a comprehensive asset management approach based on complex and evolving hydrologic and hydraulic modeling and condition assessments to repair, replace, or upgrade the City's portion of the sanitary sewer system. These actions will help the City and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) to reach the goal of eliminating discharges from EBMUD’s wet weather facilities by the end of 2035.

This is the eleventh year of the twenty-two-year CD program, which stipulates that the City shall perform collection system repair and rehabilitation to control infiltration and inflow. This work supports the ongoing work previously identified in the City's Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) and Asset Management Implementation Plan (AMIP).

The project is located at various locations throughout the City as shown on the Location Map (Attachment 2). The terms of the CD require rehabilitation of the pipes to prevent pipe failures, sewer blockages, and leakage problems. Field investigations performed using a closed circuit television camera revealed deteriorated piping and pipe defects in the existing sanitary sewer mains. Additionally, this project coincides with developments by UC Berkeley, Addison Labs Foundation (ALF), and Core Spaces (CS) along Oxford Street, presenting the rare opportunity to consolidate much pedestrian, bus, bicycle and traffic disruptions, and sewage bypasses into a single event. Eliminating multiple disruptions requires the City to enter into cost-neutral reimbursement agreements with UC, ALF, and CS. The City would be reimbursed for all expenses through these agreements.

Page 3 of 9 ends

Page 25 ends

Contract: SubTerra Construction Inc. for Sanitary Sewer CONSENT CALENDAR Rehabilitation at Various Locations March 18, 2025

Page 4 ends

Planned work includes the rehabilitation of approximately 7,261 linear feet sanitary sewer mains varying in size from 15-inch to 45-inch diameter; replacement of 230 linear feet of 8-inch sanitary sewer force main; maintenance hole rehabilitation; replacement of 4-inch and 6-inch diameter sanitary sewer laterals, and other related work.

City staff proactively approached UC, ALF, and CS regarding installation of maintenance holes required for their developments on Oxford Street. As a result, the project includes provisions to reduce public disruptions by installing maintenance holes for developments while reimbursing the City for all expenses. To reduce traffic impacts, minimize inconvenience to the public, and reduce cost, a majority of the work will be performed using the pipe bursting and cured-in-place-pipe methods. These trenchless methods allow replacement of pipelines without the need for a traditional open trench construction and allow for cost savings and avoid street closures and traffic disruptions caused by open trenches.

The Living Wage Ordinance does not apply to this project as this contract is subject to State prevailing wage laws. SubTerra submitted a Certification of Compliance with the Equal Benefits Ordinance. The Community Workforce Agreement applies to this project because the estimated value of the project exceeds $500,000. Given the CWA requirement, SubTerra and all subcontractors will be required to sign an agreement to be bound by the terms of the Agreement.

The City filed a Notice of Exemption declaring this work is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This notification was filed with Alameda County to fulfill the requirement for public notification. No comments, questions, or protests were received.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Improvements to the City's sanitary sewer system will help protect water quality by reducing the frequency of SSOs, and infiltration and inflow into the City's sanitary sewer system that can negatively affect the San Francisco Bay.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Contracted services are required for the specialized services of this project, as the City lacks in-house resources needed to complete scheduled sanitary sewer rehabilitation and replacement projects. Further, the City must take timely action to address urgent/emergent sewer repairs without delay. Finally, subject to fines and stipulated penalties, the CD requires sewer main rehabilitation and replacement at an average annual rate of no less than 22,120 feet on a three-fiscal-year rolling average. The pipeline work in this project is essential for the City to maintain compliance with the three-year annual average.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Taking no action will result in the City violating the CD and becoming subject to fines and penalties. No reasonable alternative exists as the City's sanitary sewer pipelines

Page 4 of 9 ends

Page 26 ends

Contract: SubTerra Construction Inc. for Sanitary Sewer CONSENT CALENDAR Rehabilitation at Various Locations March 18, 2025

Page 5 ends

are in poor condition and in need of timely rehabilitation to prevent an increased probability of infiltration and inflows, sanitary sewer leakages, and backup problems in the sanitary sewer system.

CONTACT PERSON
Wahid Amiri, Deputy Director, Public Works, (510) 919-4502 Ronald Nevels, Manager of Engineering, Public Works, (510) 981-6439 Daniel Akagi, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works, (510) 981-6394 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Location Map
3: Abstract of Bid Worksheet

Page 5 of 9 ends

Page 27 ends

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

CONTRACT: SUBTERRA CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION – ADELINE STREET, SHATTUCK AVENUE, OXFORD STREET,

FULTON STREET, UNIVERSITY AVENUE, KALA BAGAI WAY, AND WOOLSEY STREET
WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer Project is part of the City's on-going Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Program to rehabilitate or replace the aging and deteriorated sanitary sewer system; and;
WHEREAS, the project can reduce repetitive disruptions to pedestrian, bus, bicycle, and transportation by the City including maintenance hole and service connection work in the project for UC Berkeley, Addison Labs Foundation, and Core Spaces through individual agreements with each entity that will reimburse the City for all costs associated with the work for these entities; and
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Program is a requirement of compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board Consent Decree; and
WHEREAS, the City has neither the Staff nor the equipment necessary to undertake this Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project and other urgent/emergent sewer repairs; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 2024 the City released an Invitation for Bids (Specification No. 25-11688-C) for sanitary sewer rehabilitation and replacement; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2025 the City received two bids, and SubTerra Construction, Inc. was found to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

WHEREAS, funds are available in the FY 2025 budget Sanitary Sewer Fund 611; and WHEREAS, the City filed a Notice of Exemption on May 24, 2024 declaring this work is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Plans and Specifications No. 25-11688-C for the Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation FY 2025 Project are approved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with SubTerra Construction, Inc., until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications for the Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project located on Adeline Street, Shattuck Avenue, Oxford Street, Fulton Street, University Avenue, Kala Bagai Way, and Woolsey Street, in

Page 6 of 9 ends

Page 28 ends

March 18, 2025

Page 2 ends

an amount not to exceed $8,962,808.80 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.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to execute a reimbursement contract not to exceed $210,000.00 with the University of California for work on Oxford Street, and execute a reimbursement contract not to exceed $120,000.00 with Addison Labs Foundation for work on Oxford Street, and execute a reimbursement contract not to exceed $120,000.00 with Core Spaces for work on Oxford Street. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments will be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Page 7 of 9 ends

Page 29 ends

BANCROFT WAY

DURANT AVENUE

SHATTUCK AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE

BERKELEY WAY

HEARST AVE

OXFORD ST

CENTER ST

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

ADDISON ST

DELAWARE ST

VIRGINIA ST

FRANCISCO ST

WALNUT ST OXFORD ST

SPRUCE ST

ARCH ST

HENRY ST

FULTON ST

HAROLD WAY

OXFORD LANE

ELLSWORTH ST

KITTREDGE ST

ALLSTON WAY

DURANT AVE

KALA BAGAI WAY

BLAKE STREET

MILVIA STREET

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY

GRANT STREET

DERBY STREET

PARKER STREET

CARLETON STREET

WARD STREET

STUART STREET

OREGON STREET

RUSSELL STREET

ASHBY AVE
SHATTUCK AVE.

ADELINE ST

ASHBY AVE
MLK
WAY

ELLIS ST

HARPER ST

TREMONT ST

DOVER ST

HARPER ST

WHITNEY ST
65TH ST

FAIRVIEW ST
66TH ST

WOOLSEY ST

PRINCE ST

ESSEX ST

EMERSON ST

LORINA ST

NEWBURY ST

OTIS ST

PRINCE ST

WOOLSEY ST

STUART STREET

OREGON STREET

RUSSELL STREET
SHATTUCK AVE.

BERKELEY

OAKLAND

FAIRVIEW ST

Page 8 of 9 ends

Page 30 ends

Finance Department
General Services Division
Cratus Inc
Bidders
Subterra Construction
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704
Tel: 510.981.7320 TOD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7390
E-mail:[email protected]
City of Berkeley
Abstract of Bid Worksheet
BASIS OF AWARD:

Base Bid Package A +
Bid Packaae D
$ 8,243,710.00
$ 7,773,008.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Bid Recorder: Nancy Melendez
Bid Opener: Talia Stewart
Project Manager: Felix Meneau
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FOR: Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project: FY2025 Adeline, Shattuck Rehab Spec. # 25-11688-C
$
$
Base Bid
Package A
8,098,910.00
7,448,208.00
Bid Package B, Bid Package C, Bid Package D, Bid Package E, Bid Alternate #1 Bid Alternate #2 Bid Alternate Bid Alternate #4 #3 $ 75,000.00 $ 90,000.00 $ 144 800.00 $ 75,000.00
$ 175,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 324,800.00 $ 100,000.00
Bid Date: January 28, 2025
required w/ bid
Bid
Bond Addenda SC LW WF EBC OS
X X
X X
X
X
Date 01/29/2025
Date 01/29/2025
Date 01/29/2025
X X
X X
ATTACHMENT 3

Page 9 of 9 ends

Page 31 ends

Page 32 ends

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/

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32400141 with Mercury Associates, Inc. to complete a right sizing study and provide fleet consulting services. This amendment increases the contract amount by $100,000, for a new total amount not to exceed of $225,000 for the current contract period of December 1, 2023, through December 30, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding is available in FY2025 and FY2026 baseline budgets of Fund 671 Equipment Replacement Fund in the amount of $50,000 and Fund 672 Equipment Maintenance Fund in the amount of $50,000.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Mercury Associates has been actively working with the Public Works’ Equipment Maintenance Division in conducting a comprehensive fleet analysis, reviewing vehicle replacement policies, fleet size optimization, and vehicle standardization. The consulting services include evaluating the current processes and policies and providing recommendations. They are also supporting the City with implementing AssetWorks (the City’s new work order and equipment asset management software) which went live in May 2024. Due to technical difficulties and ongoing data clean up, Staff have continued using both FUND$ and AssetWorks. The contract amendment authorization will ensure continued support for AssetWorks implementation, and the execution of recommendations outlined in the Fleet Replacement Fund Short Millions Audit Report1 (Fleet Audit), including the finalization of the right sizing assessment.

Additionally, recent staffing vacancies in the Equipment Maintenance Division and the Administrative and Fiscal Division of Public Works, have created operational challenges. Mercury Associates are providing critical guidance on best practices to 1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Fleet-Replacement-Fund-Short-Millions.pdf

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 33 ends

Contract No. 32400141 Amendment: Mercury Associates, Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR for Fleet Consulting Services March 18, 2025

Page 2 ends

current staff, which will help support the Departments recruitment of a new Superintendent and Mechanics to the Equipment Maintenance Division.

Amending this contract is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

BACKGROUND
The Department collaborated with General Services to release a Request for Proposals - Specification No. 22-11496 on May 3, 2022, for an Equipment Maintenance/Fleet Study as a response to the Fleet Audit. Two vendors responded, and Mercury Associates, Inc. was selected as the most responsive and responsible vendor. While Mercury Associates, Inc. was not the lowest bidder, their references, experience, and staff qualifications led the evaluation committee to select them as the top submittal. The Equipment Maintenance Division requires ongoing consulting support to improve its overall management of staff, fleet assets, and to respond effectively to the Fleet Audit’s recommendations.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are potential impacts to environmental sustainability and climate impacts that will be clarified by the fleet right sizing assessment which may reduce the number of overall fleet vehicles, which could lead to lower fuel consumption and emissions. Ensuring that fleet reductions and replacements align with California’s Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) regulations, helping the City comply with upcoming zero-emission fleet requirements.

The assessment will also support the overall fleet transition away from fossil fuels to electricity.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City conducted a competitive procurement process and Mercury Associates was selected the most responsive and responsible vendor. The Department has a critical business and operational need for these consulting services, particularly due to staffing shortages and technical challenges. Additional funding will ensure successful implementation of the fleet audit study recommendations, improve efficiency, and enhance fleet sustainability.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The Department considered completing the right-sizing assessment and fleet policy updates in-house. However, due to staffing shortages and the specialized expertise required, this option was deemed infeasible. Contracting with an alternative vendor was also considered, but switching consultants at this stage would cause delays and additional costs. Extending Mercury Associates’ contract remains the most efficient and cost-effective solution.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 34 ends

Contract No. 32400141 Amendment: Mercury Associates, Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR for Fleet Consulting Services March 18, 2025

Page 3 ends

CONTACT PERSON
Joy Brown, Operations Manager, Public Works, 510-981-6629 Don Colbert, Acting Equipment Maintenance Superintendent, Public Works, 510-981- 6467
Carisa Lubeck, Acting Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager, Public Works, 510- 981-6403
Attachment:
1: Resolution

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 35 ends

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

CONTRACT NO. 32400141 AMENDMENT: MERCURY ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR

FLEET REPLACEMENT/MAINTENANCE STUDY AND CONSULTING SERVICES WHEREAS, the City released Specification No. 22-11496 on May 3, 2022 for an Equipment Maintenance /Fleet Study; and
WHEREAS, two vendors responded, and Mercury Associates, Inc. was found to be the most responsive and responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Equipment Maintenance Division requires consulting services to perform a comprehensive analysis of the fleet, policies and procedures related to vehicle replacement, usage, size, and vehicle standardization.

WHEREAS, Mercury Associates, Inc. will also provide as needed fleet consulting services including best utilization of AssetWorks; and
WHEREAS, funding for FY2025 is available in Equipment Maintenance Fund 672.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council authorizes the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32400141 with Mercury Associates, Inc. to provide fleet replacement/equipment maintenance study and consulting services in an amount not to exceed $225,000.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 36 ends

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
March 18, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Terrance Davis, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Contract: APB General Engineering for Urgent Sewer Repair FY2025 Project

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution:
1) Approving plans and specifications for the Urgent Sewer Repair FY2025 Project;
2) Accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, APB General Engineering; 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 $470,910, which includes a 10% contingency of $42,810.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding is available in the FY 2025 Sanitary Sewer Fund.

Low bid by APB General Engineering...............................$428,100 10% Contingency ..................................................................$42,810 Total construction cost $470,910

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
An Invitation for Bids (Specification. No. 25-11693-C) was released on January 3, 2025, and bids were opened on January 23, 2025. Eleven non-local bids were received, ranging from a minimum of $428,100 to a maximum of $1,063,500, as detailed in Attachment 3 (Bid Results). The Engineer's estimate for the project was $850,000.

Upon review of the bid results, three bids were found to have arithmetic errors.

Corrections to the three bids did not affect the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. APB General Engineering, headquartered in San Pablo, California, was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder with a bid of $428,100, and references were
satisfactory. Staff recommend that a contract be awarded to APB General Engineering.

Page 1 of 6 ends

Page 37 ends

Contract: APB General Engineering for Urgent Sewer Repair FY2025 CONSENT CALENDAR Project March 18, 2025

Page 2 ends

This sanitary sewer project supports the City's Strategic Plan goals of providing state-of- the-art, well-maintained infrastructure amenities and protecting the environment.

BACKGROUND
To remain compliant with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Consent Decree issued September 22, 2014, the City has implemented a long-term mandated Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Program to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and to reduce storm water infiltration and inflow into the sanitary sewer system.

Under this program, the City utilizes a comprehensive asset management approach based on complex and evolving hydrologic and hydraulic modeling and condition assessments to repair, replace, or upgrade the City's portion of the sanitary sewer system. Ultimately, these actions will assist East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) in eliminating discharges from their wet weather facilities by the end of 2035.

This is the eleventh year of the twenty-two-year Consent Decree program, which stipulates that the City shall perform collection system repair and rehabilitation to control infiltration and inflow. This supports ongoing work previously identified in the City's Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) and Asset Management Implementation Plan (AMIP).

This sanitary sewer project is part of the City's ongoing program to rehabilitate or replace its aging sanitary sewer system and eliminate potential health hazards to the public. The project is located throughout the City as shown on the Location Map (Attachment 2). These sanitary sewer collection facilities need immediate rehabilitation to prevent pipe failures, sewer blockages, and leakage problems. Field investigations using a closed-circuit television camera revealed deteriorated piping and pipe defects in the existing sanitary sewer mains. These conditions are similar to problems previously found in other sanitary sewer mains before their replacement.

Planned work entails point (spot) repair of 6-inch and 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer pipe at twenty-four locations; rehabilitation of approximately 636 linear feet of sewer mains; rehabilitation of four maintenance holes; and any related work. These repairs will correct existing acute defects including imminent structural failures identified during the FY2024 sewer main inspection and condition assessment program. The planned scope of work also includes provision for emergency/urgent work related to acute sewer system defects at other locations that may arise during FY 2025. As required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Consent Decree, such acute defects must be addressed within one year of being identified. The contract’s ninety working day term includes a fifty working day construction period, and an additional forty working days for project closeout. A 10% contingency is included for related construction events.

Page 2 of 6 ends

Page 38 ends

Contract: APB General Engineering for Urgent Sewer Repair FY2025 CONSENT CALENDAR Project March 18, 2025

Page 3 ends

The Living Wage Ordinance does not apply to this project as Department of Public Works construction contracts are subject to State prevailing wage laws. APB General Engineering has submitted a Certification of Compliance with the Equal Benefits Ordinance.

The City filed a Notice of Exemption declaring this work is exempt from the California.

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This notification was filed with Alameda County to fulfill the requirement for public notification. No comments, questions, or protests were received.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Improvements to the City's sanitary sewer system will help protect water quality by reducing the frequency of SSOs and infiltration and inflow into the City's sanitary sewer system that can negatively affect the San Francisco Bay.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Contracted services are required for the specialized services of this project, as the City lacks the in-house resources needed to complete scheduled sanitary sewer rehabilitation and replacement projects. Further, the City must take timely action to address urgent/emergent sewer repairs without delay. Finally, subject to fines and stipulated penalties, the Consent Decree requires the City to repair the acute defects embraced in this project by June 30, 2025.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No reasonable alternative exists as the City's sanitary sewer pipelines are in poor condition and need timely rehabilitation to prevent an increased probability of infiltration and inflows, sanitary sewer leakages, and backup problems in the sanitary sewer system.

CONTACT PERSON
Wahid Amiri, Deputy Director of Public Works, Public Works, (510) 981-6396 Ronald A. Nevels, Manager of Engineering, Public Works, (510) 981-6439 Daniel Akagi, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works, (510) 981-6394 Francisco Alonso, Junior Public Works Engineer, Public Works, (510) 981-6405 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Location Map
3: Bid Results

Page 3 of 6 ends

Page 39 ends

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

CONTRACT: APB GENERAL ENGINEERING FOR URGENT SEWER REPAIR FY2025 PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Sanitary Se wer Project is part of the City's on-going Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Program to rehabilitate or replace the aging and deteriorated sanitary sewer system; and
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Program is a requirement of compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Consent Decree; and WHEREAS, the City has neither the staff nor the equipment necessary to undertake this Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project and other urgent/emergent sewer repairs; and WHEREAS, on January 3, 2025, the City released an Invitation for Bids (Specification No. 25-11693-C) for sanitary sewer rehabilitation and replacement; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2025, the City received eleven bids, and APB General Engineering was found to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and WHEREAS, the City filed a Notice of Exemption on May 29, 2024, declaring these urgent repairs are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, funds are available in the FY 2025 budget Sanitary Sewer Fund 611.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Plans and result of Specification No. 25-11693-C for the Urgent Sewer Repair FY2025 Project are approved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with APB General Engineering, until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications for the Urgent Sewer Repair FY2025 Project in an amount not to exceed $ 470,910, 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.

Page 4 of 6 ends

Page 40 ends

U.C. BERKELEY

EL CERRITO
ALBANY

Page 5 of 6 ends

Page 41 ends

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 6 of 6 ends

Page 42 ends

Internal
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
March 18, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Terrance Davis, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Fiscal Year 2026 Street Lighting Assessments – Initiating Proceedings

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt two Resolutions describing proposed improvements to be used to determine the annual assessments levied for Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 and Street Lighting Assessment District No. 2018, and ordering the preparation of Engineer’s Reports.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Staff will prepare the Engineer’s Reports for Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 (1982 District) and Street Lighting Assessment District No. 2018 (2018 District). This effort to prepare the reports has been included in the budget process for the City’s operation and maintenance of the street lights. These reports will be prepared in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Act), promulgated in California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et seq., and are required to be prepared for each fiscal year (FY) for which assessments are to be levied and collected.

In FY 2026, the assessments for the 1982 District and the 2018 District will generate approximately $2.3 million in revenue for the Street Lighting program Fund 142.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Act requires the City’s governing body to adopt a resolution generally describing any proposed new improvements to be used to determine the annual assessments levied for the City’s street lighting districts, and order the preparation of Engineer’s Reports for the assessments. These are the first steps in allowing the City to levy and collect the assessments necessary to operate and maintain the street lighting districts.

The improvements to be made in these assessment districts are generally described as maintenance and/or servicing of existing and future public lighting facilities including:
traffic signals; installation and construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks or paving; water, irrigation, or drainage related to operation of the public lighting facilities.

Collecting the street lighting fees are necessary to maintain and implement needed improvements and services to support the Strategic Plan goals of creating a resilient,

Page 1 of 5 ends

Page 43 ends

Internal
Initiating Proceedings - FY 2026 Street Lighting Assessment Districts CONSENT CALENDAR March 18, 2025

Page 2 ends

safe, connected, and prepared city and of providing state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

BACKGROUND
The 1982 District was established in accordance with the requirements of the Act on July 27, 1982 (Resolution No. 51,449-N.S.). The 2018 District was established in accordance with the requirements of the Act on June 12, 2018 (Resolution No. 68,482- N.S.). The Act requires the City prepare Engineer’s Reports for each fiscal year for which assessments are to be levied and collected. City staff and Consultants will prepare the reports in accordance with the Act.

The City’s original assessment structure for the 1982 District failed to generate sufficient revenue to sustain the long-term operations of the City’s Street Lighting Program (Program). For a period beginning in FY 2006 and running through FY 2017 the City used General Funds to sustain operations necessary to the Program. To establish financial sustainability for the Program and to avoid significant reductions to service in the future, the City moved forward with the formation of the 2018 District. This district was formed separately from the 1982 District, leaving the 1982 District’s structure and rates in place. Assessments for the 2018 District were first levied in FY 2019. Allowable annual inflation adjustments of the 2018 District assessment rates are expected to raise revenues over the coming years.

The 2018 District boundaries are generally described as all assessor parcels within the City limits. A diagram is included in the Engineer’s Report filed in FY 2019. A diagram of the 1982-1 District is included in the 1983 Engineer’s Report prepared by John H.

Heindel.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The City exclusively uses LED (light emitting diode) street lighting. LED lights achieve the City’s illumination standards and last longer than high-pressure sodium lamps, reducing maintenance costs, and providing environmental benefits by reducing the level of greenhouse gases emitted, reducing the level of toxic materials disposed, and maximizing energy efficiency. Assessing and levying the street lighting fees for the 1982 District and the 2018 District will allow the City to sustain environmental benefits of the LED lights.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Failure to adopt Resolutions ordering the preparation of Engineer’s Reports for the City’s street lighting assessments would result in non-compliance of the requirements set forth in the Act. Failure to comply with the Act would jeopardize the City’s ability to levy and collect assessments in Fiscal Year 2026. The collection of these assessments is needed to establish financial sustainability for the Program and to avoid significant reductions in service.

Page 2 of 5 ends

Page 44 ends

Internal
Initiating Proceedings - FY 2026 Street Lighting Assessment Districts CONSENT CALENDAR March 18, 2025

Page 3 ends

CONTACT PERSON
Wahid Amiri, Deputy Director, Department of Public Works, (510) 981-6396 Ronald A. Nevels, Manager of Engineering, Public Works (510) 981-6439 Attachments:
1: Resolution – Initial Proceedings – Street Lighting Assessment District 1982-1 2: Resolution – Initial Proceedings – Street Lighting Assessment District 2018

Page 3 of 5 ends

Page 45 ends

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

INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR BERKELEY STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1982-1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 AND ORDER CITY STAFF TO PREPARE AND FILE THE ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
WHEREAS, on July 27, 1982, the Council of the City of Berkeley Adopted Resolution No. 51,449–N.S. that completed proceedings to form the Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 pursuant to Chapter II of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 Streets and Highways Code Section 22585-22613; and WHEREAS, Section 22622 of the Street and Highway Code requires the City Council to adopt a resolution generally describing any proposed new improvements to be used to determine the annual assessment levied for any assessment district created under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, Section 22622 further requires that the City Council order the preparation of an Engineer’s Report prior to initiating proceedings to set the annual levy and collection of assessments for such assessment districts.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that improvements to be included in Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982- 1 for assessing Fiscal Year 2026 fees are generally described as maintenance or servicing, or both, of existing and future public lighting facilities, including, but not limited to, traffic signals and the installation and construction of public lighting or the maintenance or servicing thereof, including but not limited to grading, clearing, removal of debris, installation and construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalk or paving, or water, irrigation, or drainage related to operation of the public lighting facilities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Street and Highways Code Section 22622, that City Engineer is hereby directed to prepare the annual Engineer’s Report prior to initiating proceedings to levy and collect the annual assessment for Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 in Fiscal Year 2026.

Page 4 of 5 ends

Page 46 ends

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

INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2018 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 AND ORDER CITY STAFF TO PREPARE AND FILE THE ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2018, the Council of the City of Berkeley Adopted Resolution No. 68,432–N.S. that completed proceedings to form the Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 pursuant to Chapter II of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Act) Streets and Highways Code Section 22585-22613; and
WHEREAS, Section 22622 of the Street and Highway Code requires the City Council to adopt a resolution generally describing any proposed new improvements to be used to determine the annual assessment levied for any assessment district created under the Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 22622 further requires that the City Council order the preparation of an Engineer’s Report prior to initiating proceedings to set the annual levy and collection of assessments for such assessment districts.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that improvements to be included in Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 for assessing Fiscal Year 2026 fees are generally described as maintenance or servicing, or both, of existing and future public lighting facilities, including, but not limited to, traffic signals and the installation and construction of public lighting or the maintenance or servicing thereof, including but not limited to grading, clearing, removal of debris, installation and construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalk or paving, or water or irrigation, drainage related to operation of the public lighting facilities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that SCI Consulting Group is hereby designated as Engineer of Work for purposes of these proceedings and is hereby ordered to prepare an Engineer’s Report in accordance with Street and Highways Code Section 22622. Upon completion, the Engineer shall file the Engineer’s Report with the City for submission to the City Council.

Page 5 of 5 ends

Page 47 ends

Page 48 ends

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
March 18, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Terrance Davis, Director, Public Works
Subject: Establishing a Measure FF SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution:

1. Establishing a SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee (SSCOC) to review expenditures and progress reports from the City Manager and City Auditor to ensure compliance with the intent of Measure FF, passed by voters on November 5, 2024, evaluating the impacts and outcomes of tax expenditures on stated goals and prepare public reports on the Committee’s findings; and

2. Authorizing the City Manager to further implement Section 7.11.040 of City Ordinance 7,952-N.S, to ensure compliance with all requirements.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The SSCOC will require Public Works staff time to manage the scheduling, public facility usage, communications, agendas, progress reports and Council reporting processes. An existing fulltime Public Works staff member will be appointed by the Director to serve as Committee Secretary, managing the SSCOC’s operational and communication needs.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Requirements for establishing the SSCOC through Council Resolution are explicitly laid out in Section 7.11.040 of City Ordinance 7,952-N.S, with a specific membership composition detailed in Section 7.11.040 (B):

B. Composition:

1. The SSCOC shall consist of seven members, as follows:
a. Two members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission
b. One member of the Environment and Climate Commission c. Four members of the public who are Berkeley residents

2. SSCOC members from commissions shall be appointed by their respective bodies, and members of the public shall be appointed by

Page 1 of 20 ends

Page 49 ends

Establishing a Measure FF SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee CONSENT CALENDAR March 18, 2025

Page 2 ends

the City Council as a whole. Members of the public shall be required to have a background in civil engineering, transportation engineering, infrastructure program management, or the implementation of municipal bond or tax measures.

3. The SSCOC annually shall elect one of its members as the chairperson and one of its members as the vice-chairperson.

The aforementioned Commissions will be required in their next public meetings (following Council adoption of this Recommendation and Resolution) to appoint their representatives and report these to the City Clerk, including the appointments in the public posting of their meeting minutes.

Members of the public, meeting the background requirements in Section 7.11.040(B) of City Ordinance 7,952-N.S, may submit a completed SSCOC commission application and affidavit of residency form to the Office of the City Clerk for referral to the Council.

The deadline for submission will be April 15, 2025, by 5pm. Applicants may submit their applications to the email: [email protected] with the following email title, “SSCOC Membership Appointment- Applicant Name.” If an insufficient number of applicants are received by the initial April 15 deadline, the City Manager will extend the application process timeline until an adequate number of candidates are received. The Council’s selection of candidates will be added to the Council Meeting agenda for the June 3, 2025, Regular Council Meeting.

As stipulated in Ordinance 7,952-N.S, the Committee will meet no less than four times per year. The attached Council Resolution requires four meetings and allows the elected Committee Chair to set additional meetings if they are determined to be needed by a majority vote of the Committee members, and if staffing budget can meet that need.

Upon certification by the City Clerk that the full appointment of the SSCOC has been completed, City Staff will create and maintain a webpage hosted by the City’s main website (www.berkeleyca.gov). The committee shall establish a regular place and time for meeting. All meetings shall be noticed as required by law and shall be scheduled in a way to allow for maximum input from the public.

Additionally, in accordance with Ordinance 7,952-N.S. Section 7.11.040 (E-F):

E. The committee may make and alter rules governing its organization and procedures which are consistent with this Chapter or any other applicable ordinance of the City. A majority of the members appointed to the committee shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the members appointed is required to take any action.

Page 2 of 20 ends

Page 50 ends

Establishing a Measure FF SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee CONSENT CALENDAR March 18, 2025

Page 3 ends

F. The Committee shall prepare an annual independent report of progress and performance. Each report shall be made publicly available on the City's website and submitted to the City Council.

The annual independent report will be drafted by SSCOC members with assistance from the Committee Secretary and the appropriate city staff.

If there are remaining funds or remaining reporting requirements after the completion of the 14-year period of SAFE STREETS implementation, completion of these requirements may be fulfilled by the SSCOC as a subcommittee to be absorbed by either the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission or the Environment and Climate Commission, or their successors, as deemed appropriate by the City Manager.

The establishment of the SSCOC aligns with the City’s Strategic Plan, advancing our goal to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities, as well as provide an efficient and financially-health City government.

BACKGROUND
Measure FF, also known as the known as the Sustainable and Accountable Funding for Equitable Street Transformation, Revitalization, Enhancements, and Essential Traffic Safety (SAFE STREETS) Initiative, was passed by voters on November 5, 2025, and adopted as Ordinance 7,952-N.S. on December 10, 2025, requires the establishment of the SSCOC in Section 7.11.040.

The SAFE STREETS Initiative authorizes an annual parcel tax of $0.17 per square foot for residential properties and $0.25 per square foot for other properties over a 14-year period. This measure is projected to generate approximately $15 million annually, dedicated to funding street and sidewalk repairs, safety improvements, and environmental infrastructure projects.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
All City departments strive to reduce paper usage. The SSCOC will strive to operate with a digital document retention practice, rather than traditional paper records, unless otherwise required for accessibility purposes.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager and Council are required by Ordinance 7,952-N.S. to establish the SSCOC.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative action is available, as the City Manager and Council are required by Ordinance 7,952-N.S. to establish the SSCOC.

Page 3 of 20 ends

Page 51 ends

Establishing a Measure FF SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee CONSENT CALENDAR March 18, 2025

Page 4 ends

CONTACT PERSON
Terrance Davis, Director, Public Works, 510-981-6302
Amanda Montez, Senior Management Analyst, Public Works, 510-981-6317 Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Ordinance 7,952-N.S, SAFE STREETS Initiative (Adopted December 10, 2024)

Page 4 of 20 ends

Page 52 ends

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

ESTABLISHING A MEASURE FF SAFE STREETS CITIZEN OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, Measure FF, also known as the known as the Sustainable and Accountable Funding for Equitable Street Transformation, Revitalization, Enhancements, and Essential Traffic Safety (SAFE STREETS) Initiative, was passed by voters on November 5, 2025 and adopted as Ordinance 7,952-N.S. on December 10, 2025, requires the establishment of the SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee (SSCOC) in Section

7.11.040; and
WHEREAS, Implementation of SAFE STREETS Initiative will be managed by the Department of Public Works in alignment with existing City Plans, as detailed in Ordinance 7,952-N.S.; and
WHEREAS, Requirements for establishing the SSCOC are explicitly laid out in Section

7.11.040 of City Ordinance 7,952-N.S, with a specific membership composition detailed in Section 7.11.040 (B).

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that the SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee is hereby created.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, According to Ordinance 7,952-N.S., Section 7.11.040 (B):

2. SSCOC members from commissions shall be appointed by their respective bodies, and members of the public shall be appointed by the City Council as a whole.

Members of the public shall be required to have a background in civil engineering, transportation engineering, infrastructure program management, or the implementation of municipal bond or tax measures.

3. The SSCOC annually shall elect one of its members as the chairperson and one of its members as the vice-chairperson.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SSCOC is established to review expenditures and progress reports from the City Manager and City Auditor to ensure compliance with the intent of Measure FF, passed by voters on November 5, 2024, evaluating the impacts and outcomes of tax expenditures on stated goals and prepare public reports on the Committee’s findings.

Page 5 of 20 ends

Page 53 ends

March 18, 2025

Page 2 ends

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the committee may make and alter rules governing its organization and procedures which are consistent with this Chapter or any other applicable ordinance or resolution of the City. A majority of the members appointed to the committee shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the members appointed is required to take any action.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Committee shall prepare an annual independent report of progress and performance. Each report shall be made publicly available on the City's website and submitted to the City Council.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SSCOC shall sunset pursuant to BMC 7.11.030 and Section 7 of Ordinance 7,952-N.S.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if there are remaining funds or remaining reporting requirements after the completion of the SAFE STREETS implementation, completion of these requirements may be fulfilled by the SSCOC as a subcommittee to be absorbed by either the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission or the Environment and Climate Commission, or their successors, as deemed appropriate by the City Manager.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to further implement Section 7.11.040 of City Ordinance 7,952-N.S, to ensure compliance with all requirements.

Exhibits
A: Ordinance 7,952-N.S, SAFE STREETS Initiative (Adopted December 10, 2024)

Page 6 of 20 ends

Page 54 ends

Page 7 of 20 ends

Page 55 ends

Page 8 of 20 ends

Page 56 ends

Page 9 of 20 ends

Page 57 ends

Page 10 of 20 ends

Page 58 ends

Page 11 of 20 ends

Page 59 ends

Page 12 of 20 ends

Page 60 ends

Page 13 of 20 ends

Page 61 ends

Page 14 of 20 ends

Page 62 ends

Page 15 of 20 ends

Page 63 ends

Page 16 of 20 ends

Page 64 ends

Page 17 of 20 ends

Page 65 ends

Page 18 of 20 ends

Page 66 ends

Page 19 of 20 ends

Page 67 ends

Page 20 of 20 ends

Page 68 ends

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 18, 2025

To: Honorable Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Lunaparra (author)
Subject: California Triathlon Club: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including $500 from Councilmember Lunaparra’s discretionary fund and funds from any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute to the California Triathlon Club (Cal Tri) for the Fall 2025 Bearathlon Triathlon event with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose.

BACKGROUND
The Bearathlon Triathlon, hosted by Cal Tri, is an annual endurance event that brings together student-athletes, community members, and elite competitors from across the region. As one of the premier collegiate triathlons on the West Coast, Bearathlon has provided a competitive and accessible race experience for athletes of all backgrounds while promoting fitness, community engagement, and environmental sustainability.

Beyond the exciting race atmosphere, the Bearathlon Triathlon unites a broad spectrum of the community—local families, amateur athletes, and professional competitors—in a single venue that showcases the best of Berkeley’s waterfront. This event not only promotes a healthy, active lifestyle but also fosters neighborhood pride and supports local businesses.

The event takes place at the Berkeley Marina, featuring a swim in the San Francisco Bay, a bike course along the waterfront, and a scenic run through César Chávez Park.

Bearathlon has a longstanding history of fostering a welcoming environment for participants of all skill levels, from first-time triathletes to national champions.

Additionally, the race serves as a critical fundraising source for the UC Berkeley Triathlon Team, which offers training, mentorship, and leadership development opportunities for student-athletes. With the cost of hosting the event rising since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the team has struggled to barely break even each year.

Cal Tri is one of the largest sports clubs at UC Berkeley, among the top 3 largest triathlon teams in the nation, and one of the most decorated collegiate triathlon teams in history. Since 1989, the team has grown to over 200 members, including National Champions and Olympic hopefuls as well as first ever swimmers, cyclists, and runners

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 69 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected] trying out the sport. The team has won two overall national titles, six women’s national titles, one men’s national title, two mixed team relay national titles, and two individual nationals winners – 13 titles in total. In September of 2023, the team was ranked third best triathlon program in the country by Triathlon Magazine. Cal Tri is open to all skill levels and abilities and highly encourages beginners to participate.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Despite its success, the rising costs of hosting a large-scale endurance event— including permitting fees, safety measures, and infrastructure—have placed a financial strain on the organizing team. Specifically, ever-increasing city fees have caused the Bearathlon organizers to consider moving the event to a location outside of Berkeley.

They are seeking financial support to offset the growing expenses associated with event logistics, including but not limited to:
● Permit and safety fees (including police, waterfront usage, and road closures) ● Equipment rental for race setup and athlete support
● Hydration and nutrition stations for participants
● Medals, T-shirts, and awards to enhance athlete experience With the cost of hosting the event exceeding $30,000, financial support to offset rising city fees would help ensure Bearathlon’s continued success and allow the team to focus on delivering a high-quality event without excessive financial burden or having to move the event away from Berkeley.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No General Fund impact. $500 is available from the Councilmember’s office budget discretionary account.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Bearathlon prioritizes environmental responsibility by implementing waste reduction strategies, such as using compostable race materials, minimizing single-use plastics, and organizing post-race cleanup efforts to preserve the natural beauty of the Berkeley Marina.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra, 510-981-7170
Jonah Gottlieb, Chief of Staff

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 70 ends

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

SUPPORT FOR THE CALIFORNIA TRIATHLON CLUB’S FALL 2025 BEARATHLON

TRIATHLON
WHEREAS, the California Triathlon Club (Cal Tri), a registered 501c(3) organization is one of the largest sports clubs at UC Berkeley, among the top 3 largest triathlon teams in the nation, and one of the most decorated collegiate triathlon teams in history; and WHEREAS, The Bearathlon Triathlon, hosted by Cal Tri, is an annual endurance event that brings together student-athletes, community members, and elite competitors from across the region; and
WHEREAS, rising costs, including increased city fees, could force Bearathlon organizers to move the 2025 event away from Berkeley; and WHEREAS, Councilmember Lunaparra has surplus funds in her office expenditure account.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Berkeley City Council that up to $500 relinquished by Councilmembers – including $500 from Councilmember Lunaparra – shall be granted to the California Triathlon Club for the 2025 Bearathlon Triathlon.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 71 ends

Page 72 ends

PUBLIC HEARING
March 18, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: David Sprague, Fire Chief
Subject: 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, 1) adopt a Resolution adopting the 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and amending the General Plan to incorporate the 2024 LHMP.

SUMMARY
Staff has developed the 2024 LHMP to update the 2019 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

The LHMP identifies Berkeley’s natural hazard vulnerabilities and outlines a five-year strategic plan to reduce those vulnerabilities. Adoption of the LHMP is required for the City to receive mitigation grant funding, and maximizes the City’s post-disaster recovery funding. The 2024 LHMP has undergone a thorough technical development and community review process and has been recommended for Council adoption by the Planning Commission and the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission (DFSC). Staff has determined, and the Planning Commission concurred, that the LHMP project is “exempt” from CEQA. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has approved the Plan pending adoption by the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Following City Council’s adoption of the 2024 LHMP, the City of Berkeley will be eligible to:
1) Apply for federal pre- and post-disaster mitigation funding through federal mitigation grant programs.
2) Receive additional post-disaster recovery funding from the State of California.

Following a disaster, recovery costs are generally borne as: 75% federal, 18.75% state, 6.25% city. If the City has a current, adopted LHMP, the Governor and State Legislature can vote to authorize the State to cover the 6.25% City share.

In a catastrophic disaster with public infrastructure losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars, this 6.25% cost share would be significant.

Page 1 of 422 ends

Page 73 ends

March 18, 2025

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City of Berkeley’s Disaster Mitigation Plan was originally adopted by the City Council on June 22, 2004 and updated in 2014 and in 2019. The LHMP identifies natural hazards and their possible impacts on the Berkeley community and outlines a five-year strategic plan to protect the Berkeley community from future disasters. The plan must be updated once every five years. To update the Plan for 2024, staff followed much of the same multi-phased and broadly-inclusive process used to develop the original plan in 2004, and the 2014 and 2019 plan updates. The resulting 2024 plan reflects community concerns.

The 2019 LHMP expired on December 10, 2024. Currently, the City of Berkeley is out of compliance and not eligible for certain mitigation grant funding described above in Fiscal Impacts of Recommendation.

BACKGROUND
The City writes the LHMP every five years to meet federal requirements as outlined in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. By fulfilling these requirements, the City of Berkeley remains eligible for federal Hazard Mitigation grant funding.

The LHMP has two functions. First, it identifies natural hazards in Berkeley and their possible impacts on Berkeley’s people, buildings, infrastructure, and environment.

Because of their potential to catastrophically impact Berkeley, earthquake and wildland- urban interface fire are considered to be Berkeley’s hazards of greatest concern. Other hazards of concern include landslide, flooding, tsunami, extreme heat, high wind, poor air quality, infectious disease, utility interruption, sea level rise, and hazardous materials release.

Second, the LHMP outlines a five-year strategy to reduce Berkeley’s vulnerabilities to these potential impacts. The multi-faceted strategy builds on collaboration among City government, external partners, and community members to implement mitigation programs. Proposed Actions include strengthening Berkeley’s building stock and other infrastructure, reducing fire risk through code enforcement and vegetation management, improving responder access in Fire Zones 2 and 3, and continuing research to better understand all hazards.

The City has also initiated a separate but related process to comprehensively and substantively update the General Plan Safety Element and create a new Environmental Justice Element. Staff and the consultant team are currently analyzing existing conditions and kicking off public engagement. More information is available at www.berkeleyca.gov/prepared-safe-healthy.

Plan Development
In June 2023, the City convened an interdepartmental planning team to develop the

Page 2 of 422 ends

Page 74 ends

March 18, 2025
First Draft 2024 LHMP. Over many months, this Core Planning Team collaborated with numerous scientists and hazard experts to update information in the 2019 Hazard Analysis. The 2024 LHMP accounts for new scientific research on the hazards that could affect Berkeley, areas of Berkeley exposed to each hazard, and their potential impacts.

City and partner representatives worked with the project manager to identify Berkeley’s progress on mitigation actions identified in 2019. Next, the project manager, City representatives, and partner representatives combined information on the success of 2019 actions, updates to the hazard analysis, and guidance from the City’s General Plan to identify “pre-draft” actions for the 2024 Mitigation Strategy.

These pre-draft actions were initially vetted by the City’s Core Planning Team in August 2023. The Core Planning Team revised actions to reflect feedback received from community partners and the public, then incorporated the actions into a complete 2024 First Draft Plan.

Public Outreach Process
In May 2024, the City posted the First Draft Plan on the City website for review and comment by the Berkeley community. All City commissions were invited to provide feedback on the Plan. The Project Manager presented the First Draft Plan to the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission and the Planning Commission and received feedback from Commissioners and community members. Staff also presented to the City Council’s Safety Committee in July 2024.

To support and encourage community members to provide feedback at their convenience, staff created and posted short, accessible videos introducing the hazards in the plan, along with their associated Actions in the Mitigation Strategy. These videos were accompanied by an email address where community members could share their ideas.

The City also held two in-person workshops for the First Draft Plan, offering the public an opportunity to engage with staff on the Plan’s content. The first workshop was at the Tarea Hall Pittman South Branch Library on July 20, 2024; the second was at the Central Library on June 3, 2024. The workshops included a short presentation introducing the Plan, followed by a community feedback session where participants could review individual poster boards describing each hazard in the First Draft Plan, ask staff questions, and provide written and spoken feedback on their ideas.

The City received 20 letters from Commissions, partners, organizations, and community representatives on First Draft Plan, totaling in over 100 separate questions and comments. During the public workshops at the Public Libraries, the City received over 50 comments on the First Draft Plan.

Page 3 of 422 ends

Page 75 ends

March 18, 2025
Final Draft Plan Development Process
Following the comment deadline, City staff reviewed community and commission feedback and incorporated appropriate changes into the Final Draft Plan. Changes are documented in the Summary of Changes to the First Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, available at www.BerkeleyCa.gov/mitigation.

Five topics emerged repeatedly in community responses to the First Draft 2024 LHMP:

1. Scope and Detail of the Mitigation Plan
Community comments included a number of questions and suggestions regarding hazards, topics, and programs to consider for inclusion in the LHMP.

Many of those suggestions related to disaster readiness, but were not within the scope of the LHMP.

Mitigation describes pre-disaster activities that prevent an emergency, reduce the chance of an emergency happening, or reduce the damaging effects of emergencies. Typical mitigation measures include retrofitting buildings against earthquake damage and managing vegetation to reduce wildfire risk. Activities that increase a community’s ability to respond when a disaster occurs, such as emergency notifications and conducting trainings, are considered preparedness and not in the scope of the LHMP.

2. Hard to read maps: Digital LHMP
Many community members mentioned that the maps in the plan were hard to read. In PDF format with 8.5” x 11” pages, it was hard to engage with the maps and to see the data completely. To address this gap and make the plan more user-friendly for community members, the Office of Emergency Services created an online interactive storymap, available at www.BerkeleyCa.gov/Mitigation. This web-based tool highlights key hazard information and interactive maps in a much more user-friendly interface than can be provided in the static PDF format required by FEMA. Staff hopes that this structure helps to better educate the community about the key information contained in the plan.

3. Hazardous Vegetation
Many responses included concerns about a lack of detail regarding hazardous vegetation in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire section of the Risk Assessment.

To address this feedback:

A) A new section called “Hazardous Vegetation” is now included in the Risk Assessment, outlining what characteristics are the most concerning and

Page 4 of 422 ends

Page 76 ends

March 18, 2025
contribute to wildfire risk. This new section also describes the importance of maintenance and placement of vegetation.

B) Readers are directed to Element C: Mitigation Strategy learn more about programs in place to support residents with home hardening and defensible space.

C) Readers are directed to Element C: Mitigation Strategy to learn more about the City’s collaborative regional efforts to remove and/or clean up the understory of hazardous trees that are likely to burn and potentially impact people and infrastructure. Element C details these programs, including the Eucalyptus Understory Clean Up Program.

4. Evacuation in the Berkeley Hills
Many responses included concerns about Wildland-Urban Interface Fire risk in the Berkeley Hills and how people will evacuate. The City is finalizing its Evacuation and Response Time Study with KLD Engineering, which will meet unfunded State evacuation planning mandates outlined in SB99, AB747, and AB1409.

The results of the Evacuation and Response Time Study will help us to understand the time it will take residents to evacuate in the event of a wildfire, and how development and road design may have on those emergency response times.

5. Land Use Controls’ Impacts on Emergency Services
Some responses expressed concern about development in the Berkeley hills and throughout the city and how that development impacts emergency services. A new Action was included in the 2025 Mitigation Strategy to reflect the ongoing collaborative work between the Fire Department and the Land Use Planning Division of the Planning Department. The Action is as follows, “Ensure that Fire Department staff have the opportunity to review any proposed revisions to land use controls that would increase allowed densities, evaluate how the revised land use controls could impact the provision of emergency services, and convey that information to City Council prior to final action.”
Further, the Evacuation and Response Time Study is modeling various development scenarios that can inform future proposed revisions to land use controls.

Page 5 of 422 ends

Page 77 ends

March 18, 2025
State and Federal Review
The LHMP is written in accordance with federal requirements so that Berkeley can maintain eligibility for federal mitigation grant funding. First, the Final Draft LHMP was reviewed by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). After some edits, Cal OES sent the Final Draft Plan for assessment by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in November 2024. On January 13, 2025, FEMA determined the Final Draft LHMP to be eligible for final approval pending its adoption by the Berkeley City Council.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The environmental impacts of the LHMP, from a CEQA standpoint, are inconsequential.

The proposed action is the adoption of a plan that identified natural hazards in Berkeley and outlines a five-year strategy of possible future efforts to further protect Berkeley’s citizens, buildings, infrastructure and environment from those hazards. Many actions in the plan’s mitigation strategy focus on studies and inter-agency programs, for which the City of Berkeley is not the Lead Agency. Other types of mitigation programs that may be undertaken would require specific CEQA review, once they are better understood and a scope is established.

Staff has determined, and the Planning Commission concurred, that the LHMP project is exempt from CEQA based on the following four sections of the CEQA Guidelines:
 15183(d) – the LHMP is consistent with the General Plan;  15262 – the LHMP involves only feasibility or planning studies;  15306 – the LHMP consists of basic data collection and research; and  15601(b)(3) – the LHMP does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Final Draft Plan Approval and Adoption Process
At its January 22, 2025, meeting, the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission approved the following motion:
“The Commission recommends that City Council adopt the 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP),and reminds Council of the LHMP's important role as part of the City's General Plan: to serve as a guiding document to ensure that hazard mitigation goals are integrated into all city planning decisions and activities, including land use decisions. This integration into the General Plan is described in Element E: Plan Update of the final draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan:
"As with prior LHMP updates, this Plan will be well-integrated into the City’s existing and future plans and planning mechanisms."

Page 6 of 422 ends

Page 78 ends

March 18, 2025
Vote: 8 Ayes: Murphy, Bradstreet, Gordon, Katz, Darling, Dean; Noes: None; Abstain: None; Absent: Wilson (LOA), Kinosian
The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on February 5, 2025 to consider public input and comment on the 2024 LHMP and proposed changes to the General Plan.

At the meeting, the Planning Commission approved the following motion:

Motion/Second/Carried (Vincent/Kahn) at 7:49pm to recommend to City Council to adopt a resolution to adopt the 2024 LHMP, make the General Plan findings, and amend the General Plan Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element to reference the updated LHMP.

Ayes: Vincent, Merker, Oatfield, Twu, Kahn and Capitelli. Noes: None. Abstain:

None. Absent: Marthinsen, Hauser, and Owens (6-0-0-3)

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
This 2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was one of the first in the nation to incorporate climate change as a hazard of concern. The 2019 Plan further described this hazard of concern. The 2024 LHMP recognizes that climate change impacts every hazard of concern and has been thoroughly integrated throughout the Plan.

Implementing mitigation actions included in the plan’s mitigation strategy will help to sustain and protect Berkeley’s natural and built environment and the Berkeley community overall.

The 2024 LHMP is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is no subject to CEQA. The 2024 LHMP provides hazard mitigation strategies but does not implement any specific project, action, or funding.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt the 2024 LHMP. The LHMP has undergone a thorough technical development and community review process. Adoption of the 2024 LHMP will make the City eligible to spend earmarked mitigation grant funding, and to apply for additional federal mitigation grants. Adoption of this plan will also make the City eligible to receive post-disaster recovery funding from the State.

Page 7 of 422 ends

Page 79 ends

March 18, 2025
Staff also recommends that Council adopt draft language for the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the General Plan (Attachment 1) which references the 2024 LHMP into the General Plan.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSONS
Jamie Albrecht, Emergency Services Coordinator, Fire Department, (510) 981-5514 Alisa Shen, Planning Commission Secretary, Planning Department (510) 981-7489 Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution to Adopt the 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and amend the General Plan
a. Exhibit A: 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)
b. Proposed Amendment to the General Plan to Update Reference to the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and Findings

2. Draft Notice of Public Hearing

3. January 13, 2025 FEMA Approval Pending Adoption Letter

Page 8 of 422 ends

Page 80 ends

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

ADOPT THE 2024 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (LHMP) and AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN TO INCORPORATE 2024 LHMP
WHEREAS, City Council adopted the Disaster Mitigation Plan on June 22, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Plan was updated in 2014 and in 2019; and
WHEREAS, the 2019 Plan has expired; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley (“City”), in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 65300 et seq., is required to adopt a General Plan for its long- range development, and further to periodically update that plan to reflect current conditions; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of a current Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and an associated amendment to the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the City’s General Plan to explicitly reference the adoption year of the LHMP will maintain the City’s compliance with 44 CFR Part 201, Section 201.6, and Government Code 65302.6 requirements, and associated eligibility for mitigation grant funding; and WHEREAS, City staff has collaborated with numerous partner representatives, scientists and hazard experts to develop the LHMP; and
WHEREAS, City staff has collaborated with numerous partner representatives, scientists and hazard experts to develop a First Draft Plan; and
WHEREAS, from May 24, 2024 through August 8, 2024, the community and all City commissions and boards were invited to provide feedback on the First Draft Plan, and these comments were reviewed and incorporated into the Final Draft 2024 LHMP; and WHEREAS, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency reviewed and determined the Final Draft LHMP to be eligible for final approval on January 13, 2025 (pending its adoption by the Berkeley City Council); and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2025, the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission reviewed the Final Draft 2024 LHMP and voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the LHMP; and WHEREAS, on February 5, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider public input and comment on the Final Draft 2024 LHMP and to consider changes to the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the General Plan to update the LHMP reference in the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to recommend adoption of the LHMP; and

Page 9 of 422 ends

Page 81 ends

WHEREAS, the proposed Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption);
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is hereby adopted and the General Plan is hereby amended, as shown in Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

Page 10 of 422 ends

Page 82 ends

Internal
City of Berkeley
2024 Local Haz
ard
Mitigation Plan
Final
March 18, 2025

Page 11 of 422 ends

Page 83 ends

Internal
Acknowledgements
City Council
Adena Ishii, Mayor
Rashi Kesarwani, District 1
Terry Taplin District 2
Ben Bartlett, District 3
Igor Tregub, District 4
Shoshana O’Keefe, District 5
Brent Blackaby, District 6
Cecilia Lunaparra, District 7
Mark Humbert, District 8
City Manager
Paul Buddenhagen
Disaster and Fire Safety Commission
Andy Katz
Michael Wilson
Weldon Blackstreet
Todd Darling
Robert Kinosian
Shirley Dean
Gregory Murphy
Theo Gordon
Planning Commission
Blaine Andrew Merker
Jeff Vincent
Darrell Ben-Lee Owens
Christina Oatfield
Charles Kahn
Emily Marthinsen
Alfred Twu
Savlan Hauser
Project Manager
Jamie Albrecht, Emergency Services Coordinator, City of Berkeley City of Berkeley Project Team
Galadriel Burr, Community Services Specialist, Building and Safety Zoe Covello, Assistant Planner, Land Use Division
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Dan Green, Assistant Fire Chief, Wildland Urban Interface Division Colin Arnold, Assistant Fire Chief, Wildland Urban Interface Division Ashley James, Senior Planner, Land Use Division

Page 12 of 422 ends

Page 84 ends

Internal

Meagan Jones, Health Services Program Specialist
Ruth Raisner, Health Services Program Specialist
Sarah Moore, Community Services Specialist
Steve Riggs, Fire Marshal

Technical Reviewers
Patricia Tam, Emergency Services Coordinator, California Office of Emergency Services Annika Braucher, Environmental Planner, California Office of Emergency Services Avery Frank, Community Planner, Federal Emergency Management Agency

Page 13 of 422 ends

Page 85 ends

Final Dra
ft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan A-1
A. Planning Process
Note: Meeting minutes, sign- in sheets, and other supporting documents to described activities are provided for State and federal reviewers in Attachment 1: Documentation.

A.1 Plan Development Process
Planning Process Overview
The City of Berkeley’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was originally adopted by the City Council on June 22, 2004, following a process that built on years of disaster mitigation activities. An update to the Plan was adopted on December 16, 2014 and again on December 20, 2019. To create the 2024 LHMP update, Berkeley followed the same multi- phased, broadly-inclusive process used to update the Plan in 2019.

LHMP Kickoff Meeting and Formation of Core Planning Team On June 20, 2023 the City of Berkeley kicked off the 2024 LHMP Planning Process by convening a Core Planning Team made up of City Staff representing the many departments and divisions most involved in mitigation efforts. The Core Planning Team met monthly throughout the development process. The Core Planning Team included the following City Staff:
• Jamie Albrecht, Emergency Services Coordinator, Office of Emergency Services • Galadriel Burr, Community Services Specialist, Building and Safety • Zoe Covello, Assistant Planner, Land Use Division

Page 14 of 422 ends

Page 86 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan A-2

• Scott Ferris, Director, Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront • Dan Green, Assistant Fire Chief, Wildland Urban Interface Division • Ashley James, Senior Planner, Land Use Division
• Ruth Raisner, Health Services Program Special, Public Health Emergency Preparedness
• Meagan Jones, Health Services Program Specialist, Public Health Emergency Preparedness
• Sarah Lana, Emergency Services Manager, Office of Emergency Services • Sarah Moore, Community Services Specialist, Office of Energy and Sustainable Development
• Steve Riggs, Fire Marshal, Fire Department
Development of First Draft Plan
Throughout 2023 and in early 2024, the Project Manager collaborated with numerous City staff, hazard experts, and community partners to update the plan’s hazard analysis, progress on 2019 actions, and to develop the 2024 mitigation strategy. During this time City leaders provided guidance to the Project Manager through participation in the Core Planning Team. As the Project Team developed the First Draft 2024 LHMP, they engaged key partners and community members to update hazard and risk assessments and mitigation initiatives in the Plan, including the new section in the hazard analysis on mitigating individual and household risk for each hazard. The Core Planning Team worked with key partners to identify opportunities for collaboration on new Actions in the 2024 mitigation strategy.

The list of City Staff and hazard expert representatives as well documentation of their

Page 15 of 422 ends

Page 87 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan A-3

participation is in the Attachment.

Public Review of First Draft Plan
In May 2024, the City posted the First Draft Plan on the City website for review and comment by the Berkeley community. All of the City’s commissions were invited to provide feedback on the Plan. The Project Manager presented the First Draft Plan to the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission and Planning Commission, offering an opportunity for feedback from Commissioners and community members. The City also offered to meet with Council Members one-on-one to discuss the Plan and hear their feedback. In response to this offer, Council Members suggested a presentation to the Safety Committee, which staff gave in July 2024.

To support and encourage community members to provide asynchronous feedback, the City posted created videos introducing Risk Assessment content in an accessible and short format . These videos are accompanied by an email address where community members can share their ideas.

The City also held two First Draft Plan Workshops, offering the public an opportunity to engage in person with staff on the Plan’s content. The Workshops included a short presentation introducing the Plan and then an opportunity to comment on poster boards describing each hazard in the First Draft Plan.

This public review process is considered a key step in the City Council’s adoption of the 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. See Element F: Plan Adoption for details on the public review process.

Page 16 of 422 ends

Page 88 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan A-4

A.2 Stakeholder Engagement
In August 2023, the Core Planning Team invited Community Partners to help develop the First Draft 2024 LHMP. Community Partners included local and regional agencies, neighboring communities, representatives from business, academia, and other organizations, as well as local non- profit and community groups. Each Community Partner was asked via email to submit their risk assessment information, mitigation strategy approaches, successes, and ideas for collaboration. The City incorporated this feedback into the Plan.

The Project Manager collaborated with these agencies to include detailed information about
partners’ hazard and risk assessments and mitigation initiatives in the hazard analysis section of the Plan. Additionally, Community Partners were invited to review and provide comment on proposed actions as part of the process to develop the First Draft 2024 LHMP
. The list of Community Partner representatives as well documentation of their invitation to participate is in the Attachment.

Community Partners are also invited to provide feedback on the First Draft Plan as part of the public process.

Page 17 of 422 ends

Page 89 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan A-5

A.3 Public Engagement during
Drafting Stage
In order to involve the public early in the mitigation planning process, the City of Berkeley’s Office of Emergency Services spoke to people about the Plan at community events, like National Night Out . During National Night Out, staff went to neighborhoods across Berkeley where residents were hosting free block parties. The block parties were out on the streets or green space of the neighborhood, blocked off to traffic, making them open and accessible to anyone who was available to join. Questions focused on top hazards of concern and how community members can take mitigation and preparedness actions to reduce risk.

The Office of Emergency Services also hosted three community workshops focused on offering the public mitigation actions that could easily take as well as collecting input into the Plan. These workshops included one on all Berkeley’s Hazards in central Berkeley, one on Tsunamis at the waterfront, and a Winter Weather Workshop held in north Berkeley. These workshops were held at different times to accommodate a variety of schedules: one on a weekday evening, one on a Saturday morning, and one on Saturday morning and afternoon. Locations were all public transit accessible.

For individuals that could not attend in person events, there was always an option to email staff at [email protected]. This email a ddress was advertised as part of outreach materials such as newsletters and at community events for people to share.

Page 18 of 422 ends

Page 90 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan A-6

This public engagement led to the decision to remove climate change as its own standalone hazard and instead integrate it more thoroughly into each hazard of concern.

Many community members expressed that it didn’t make sense to have it so separate from the other hazards. Climate change is now more of framing discussion throughout each hazard section.

Page 19 of 422 ends

Page 91 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan A-7

A.4 Update of Technical
Information
The Project Manager worked with City staff, hazard experts, and community partners to update information in the Risk Assessment, accounting for new scientific research on hazards that could affect Berkeley, their areas of exposure and their potential impacts.

The Endnotes Section of the Element B: Risk Assessment provides a detailed listing of technical information incorporated into the plan.

Page 20 of 422 ends

Page 92 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-1

B. Risk Assessment
To become disaster resilient, a community must first understand the existing hazards and their potential impacts. Berkeley is exposed to a number of hazards that vary in their intensity and impacts on the city. This mitigation plan addresses hazards: earthquake, wildland-urban interface (WUI) fire, flood, rainfall -triggered landslide, tsunami, extreme heat, hazardous materials release, poor air quality, sea level rise, infectious disease, high wind events, and utility interruption. Each of these hazards can occur independently or in combination, and can also trigger secondary hazards.

Describing Likelihood and Impacts
Using a structure outlined by Saunders, Beban and Kilvington (2013 draft), the table below summarizes these hazards, their relative likelihoods, and the relative severities of their potential consequences.

Relative degrees of likelihood are described as:
• Likely: The event may occur several times in your lifetime, up to once every 50 years
• Possible: The event might occur once in your life time, once every 51 – 100 years • Unlikely: The event does occur somewhere from time to time, once every 101 – 1,000 years
• Rare: Possible but not expected to occur except in exceptional circumstances, once every 1,001 to 2,500 years
• Very rare: Conceivable but highly unlikely to occur, once every 2,500+ years

Page 21 of 422 ends

Page 93 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-2

Relative severity of hazard impacts is described using the following terms, which are defined by matrix of factors, including Social/Cultural, Buildings, Critical Buildings, Lifelines, Economic and Health and Safety:
• Catastrophic
• Major
• Moderate
• Minor
• Insignificant

Hazard Likelihood Severity of Impact
Earthquake Likely Catastrophic
Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Likely Catas trophic
Extreme Heat Likely Moderat e to Catastrophic
Poor Air Quality Likely Mino r
High Wind Likely Mino r
Rainfall-Triggered Landslide Likely Minor to Catastrophic Tsunami Possible Minor to Catastrophic
Sea Level Rise Likely Minor to Major
Floods Likely Mino r

Page 22 of 422 ends

Page 94 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-3

Utility Interruption Likely Minor to Major
Hazardous Materials Release Likely Minor to Catastrophic Infectious Disease Likely Minor to Catastrophic

B.1.a Description of Hazards
Sections B1-B13 describe hazards and how they occur in Berkley. They also describe how related hazards can trigger or be triggered by the hazard in question.

Natural Hazards
Originally, the natural hazards included in this plan were first identified through a community-based process during the revision of the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, adopted in 2002. The General Plan is the result of four drafts, approximately 100 hours of public workshops, meetings, and hearings, almost 1,000 pages of policy suggestions submitted by Berkeley citizens, and the hard work and dedication of the Berkeley community and Berkeley Planning Commission

1. Specialists
from the California Geological Survey, US Geological Survey, UC Berkeley, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and many others worked with the city on programs and research that were incorporated in the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element.

Since then, the natural hazards in the plan included in the Plan have been updated with each cycle. Updates are based on new science, recent hazard occurrences, and community feedback during the drafting stage.

Page 23 of 422 ends

Page 95 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-4

• In 2014, the LHMP added Climate Change as a hazard of concern. • In 2019, the LHMP added extreme heat as a specific hazard. • In 2024, the LHMP added poor air quality, infectious disease, high wind, sea level rise, and utility disruption as specific hazards. The LHMP removed Climate Change as its own hazard and integrated into each specific hazard, inspired by community feedback during the drafting stage.

Hazards Not Considered in the Plan
Other natural hazards that are extremely rare in Berkeley are not included in this plan; these include prolonged low temperatures, hail, and small tornados and waterspouts. This plan does not focus on these hazards because they are not as likely to occur or to create damage that is as serious as the hazards addressed in detail. California is not generally exposed to the large tornado events experienced in the Midwest. Berkeley’s geographic location and moderate climate typically shelters it from prolonged cold. Ocean temperatures moderate the power of tropical storms, lessening the effects of low barometric pressure and storm surge. However, these hazards may become more prevalent in Berkeley with the changing climate.

B.1.b
Hazard Location
Sections B.1.b – B.13.b maps the locations in Berkeley that are particularly prone to specific hazards.

B.1.c Hazard Extent and Anticipated Intensities
Sections B.1.c – B.13.c describe the range of anticipated intensities of the hazard, usually

Page 24 of 422 ends

Page 96 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-5

shown with a chart or scale.

B.1.d Previous Hazard Events
Sections B.1.d – B.13.d detail the previous hazard events, including state and federal major disaster declarations since the last update, of all hazards addressed in this hazard analysis.

B.1.e Probability of Future Hazard Events
Sections B. 1.e – B.13.e detail the probability of future hazard events for all hazards addressed in this hazard analysis.

B.1.f Vulnerabilities
Vulnerability to Current and Future Assets
Sections B.1.f – B.13.f describe risk to assets including people, structures, systems, natural, historic, and cultural resources, and activities of value to the Berkeley community.

Access and Functional Needs
This plan also recognizes that there are many individuals that are still disproportionately impacted during disasters. People with access and functional needs are defined as community members who may have additional needs before, during and after an incident in functional areas, including but not limited to: maintaining independence, communication, transportation, supervision, and medical care. Individuals in need of additional response assistance may include those who have disabilities, live in institutionalized settings, are elderly, are children, are from diverse cultures, have limited English proficiency, or are non-English speaking, or are transportation disadvantaged. An

Page 25 of 422 ends

Page 97 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-6

individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who had a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. The ADA does not specifically name all of the impairments that are covered.

Underserved Communities and Marginalized Populations
Disasters also disproportionally impact undeserved communities and marginalized populations. For example, people of color and people with low incomes have been historically denied access to housing and resources, increasing their vulnerability to these shocks. In the 2024 LHMP, actions are considered for how they prioritize underserved communities and marginalized populations. Further, the 2024 LHMP includes a list of mitigation actions for individuals and households that are designed to be approachable and accessible to a variety of circumstances.

B.1.g
Risk and Loss Estimates
Sections B.1.g – B.13.g describe the consequences or effects of the hazard on the assets.

Impacts are estimated quantitatively, when possible. Economic losses are described when possible.

GFOA Analysis
Some hazard sections Risk and Loss Estimates include analysis from the GFOA. In 2023, the City of Berkeley has been considering the implication that extreme events, like natural disasters, could have on the City government’s financial condition, particularly its reserve

Page 26 of 422 ends

Page 98 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-7

levels for the general fund. The City engaged the GFOA to produce a recommendation to help it decide the appropriate reserve level for the general fund, given the risks from extreme events. GFOA is a non- profit association of more than 23,000 state and local government finance professionals and elected officials from across North America. A key part of GFOA’s mission is to promote best practices in public finance, including reserve policies. The analysis by GFOA also shed light on the potential broader economic losses to the community from the risks posed by extreme events.

Any “risk” can be thought of as the downside to an uncertain event. The next section describes GFOA’s approach to uncertainty.

B.1.h
The Approach to Uncertainty
The accomplished forecasting scientist, Spyros Makridakis, suggests a “Triple- A” approach for dealing with highly uncertain phenomena.

Accept. First, we must accept that we are subject to uncertainty . For example, the severity and timing of an earthquake is unpredictable. Berkeley could go years without experiencing a serious earthquake or one could occur next month! Assess. Next, w e must assess the potential impact of the uncertainty , with history providing a useful reference point. The experiences of other local governments are also a good reference point. For example, we used the historical experiences of Berkeley and other relevant municipalities to estimate the potential impact of future extreme events.

However, historical experiences are not perfectly predictive of the future.

Augment. The range of uncertainty we face will almost always be greater than what we

Page 27 of 422 ends

Page 99 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-8

initially assess it to be. Therefore, we must augment our understanding of risk beyond what our historical experiences show us. For example, very few people saw the 2008 Great Recession coming or thought it could be as bad as it was. They were unprepared for this historically unprecedented recession. We can augment our understanding of risk using a technique called “Probability Management.”
2 Probability Management is an
application of modern information processing technology that allows us to simulate thousands of potential events (e.g., floods, recessions, etc.) so that we can observe the probability of events of various magnitudes coming to pass. The statistical technique that Probability Management is based on is called “Monte Carlo analysis.” This technique was established in the late 1940s, but until very recently required special computers and software to use. Modern information technology has made Monte Carlo analysis accessible to anyone with a personal computer.

In order to use Probability Management, we express any given type of extreme event as a range of possibilities that the City might experience. This range is called a “distribution.” A distribution is a shape that signifies how frequently the City might expect to experience a certain type of event and/or how severe the event might be.

The most common type of distribution is called the “normal distribution,” more popularly known as the “bell curve.” Many phenomena fit a bell curve. To help us understand how to read a distribution, we can start with an example that is related to everyday life: the height of American men.

Exhibit 3.1 shows a bell curve for the height of American men. The horizontal axis of Exhibit 3.1 represents height. The vertical axis represents frequency. The most common

Page 28 of 422 ends

Page 100 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-9

height is 5’9”, so it is shown at the top of the curve. Much taller men, like NBA centers, would be found on the right -hand side of the curve. Very short men would be found on the left.

Exhibit 1. Bell curve for the height of American men.

Exhibit 3.1 – The Normal Distribution for American Men

Frequency
Exhibit 2.

Height

Very Short Very Tall
Average
5’9”

Page 29 of 422 ends

Page 101 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-10

Exhibit 3. Sample Asymmetrical Distribution
The normal distribution
can help analyze risk. To
illustrate, the severity of
an economic downturn is
roughly normally
distributed. A few
downturns are slight, few
are severe, but most are
closer to average.

Another type of distribution we use in our analysis is an asymmetrical distribution, shown in Exhibit 3.2. Earthquakes fit an asymmetrical distribution. Exhibit 3.2 shows that tre mors
are the most common. Full- fledged earthquakes are relatively rare. The distribution is “asymmetrical” because the frequency with which we will experience these events are not evenly distributed around the middle of the distributi on. Put another way, there are far more tremors that are smaller than the “average” earthquake. Yet, there are far fewer earthquakes (“the big one”) that are larger than the average earthquake.

Expressing Berkeley’s vulnerability as distributions allows us to calculate the probability that an event of a given magnitude will come to pass. When we associate a dollar amount with that event, we can estimate the probability or chance that Berkeley will need to have a given amount of money on-hand to respond.

Exhibit 3.3 is not a distribution but is a type of graphic we use in our work . It is called a Exhibit 3.2 – Sample Asymmetrical Distribution

Frequency
of Qua
ke

Severity of Quake 
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%
Ear
thquake
Tremor
"The Big One"

Page 30 of 422 ends

Page 102 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-11

“cumulative probability chart.” The example in Exhibit 3.3 shows the economic losses to the entire Berkeley community from earthquakes over the course of 10 years.

Earthquakes are rare events, so over a ten- year period there is a chance that there are no earthquakes at all. Hence, the red line intersects the vertical axis at about 50% (there is about a 50% chance of no earthquake). We then see the red line go up and to the right from the vertical axis. This means that the chance of larger and larger losses become increasingly remote. To illustrate, the red line intersects 70% at about $300 million. This means there is a 70% chance that total economic losses are $300 million or less (or a 30% chance that losses will be more). The red line insects 80% at $670 million, which means there is an 80% chance that losses will be less than that (or a 20% chance that losses will be more).

Page 31 of 422 ends

Page 103 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-12

Exhibit 4. – Cumulative Chance of Economic Losses to Berkeley Community from Earthquakes over 10 Years
Chance that Economic Losses will be EQUAL TO OR LOWER THAN that the indicated percentage
Time Horizon 95% 90% 50% 10%
10-Year $2,700M $1,600M $24M 0*
*Consult the graph for the precise chance that losses are equal to or lower than zero

Another of chart and one we will use to show community -wide losses in this report is a loss exceedance curve. A loss exceedance curve is another way of looking at the same concept as we saw in Exhibit 3.3. Exhibit 3.4 shows the loss ex ceedance curve for the same earthquake data. It just presents it in an inverse way. So, the 20% point on the vertical axis is $670 million because there is a 20% chance that damages will be more than that. Exhibit 3.4 showed there was an 80% of damages being less.

Exhibit 3.3 – Cumulative Chance of Economic Losses to Berkeley Community from Earthquakes over 10 Years
Chance that
Economic Losses
will be EQUAL

TO OR LOWER
THAN the
amount shown on
the graph

Damages in Millions of Dollars

Page 32 of 422 ends

Page 104 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-13

Exhibit 5. Loss Exceedance Curve for of Economic Losses to Berkeley Community from Earthquakes over 10 Years

Chance that Economic Losses Will Exceed Dollar Amounts (Millions) Indicated Below*
Time Horizon 5% 10% 50% 90%
10-Year $2,700M $1,600M $24M NA
*Not Applicable (NA) means that the loss exceedance curve intersects zero before this point. See the graph to see where the curve meets the vertical axis for the chance of losses exceeding zero.

Both cumulative probability charts and loss exceedance curves are commonly used when quantifying risk. In our work with the City we will use loss exceedance curves to show economic losses to the entire Berkeley community and cumulative probability charts to show losses to just City government. In this particular report, we will be focusing on economic losses to the entire community, so we will show loss exceedance curves. GFOA is working with the City of Berkley on a separate report about financial losses to City government. Our intent is to make it easier to distinguish between charts that depict community versus city government losses by giving each type of loss a distinctive chart (and a different color line), for those readers that will use both reports.

Exhibit 3.4 Loss Exceedance Curve for of Economic Losses to Berkeley Community from Earthquakes over 10 Years
Chance that
damages will be

EQUAL TO OR
MORE THAN the
amount shown on
the graph

Damages in Millions of Dollars
0%
10%
20%
30%
40 %
50%
60%
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000
Millions

Page 33 of 422 ends

Page 105 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-14

B.1.i NFIP-Insured Structures
The City of Berkeley does not have NFIP -insured structures that have been repetitively damaged by floods.

Page 34 of 422 ends

Page 106 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-15

B.2 Earthquakes
B.2.a Description of Earthquakes and Related Hazards
An earthquake is the ground shaking caused by a sudden slip on a fault. Stresses in the earth’s outer layer push the sides of the fault together. Stress builds up and the rocks slip suddenly, releasing energy in waves that travel through the earth's crust and cause the shaking that we feel during an earthquake.

Shaking and Ground Failure
The most significant physical characteristic of a major earthquake is the ground shaking.

During an earthquake, the ground can shake for a few seconds or up to a minute or more.

The strength and duration of ground shaking is affected by many factors, including the types of soils underneath, and the distance, size, depth, and direction of the fault rupture that caused the quake.

The strongest shaking is typically close to t he fault where the earthquake occurs.

Horizontal shaking in particular causes most earthquake damage, because structures often have inadequate resistance to this type of motion.

Earthquakes can cause the ground to fail in several ways, resulting in additional hazards:
surface fault rupture, liquefaction, and seismically-triggered landslides.

Surface fault rupture: Surface fault rupture occurs when movement on a fault deep within the earth breaks through to the surface. This can severely damage structures that cross the fault, including buildings, roads, pipelines, and train tracks.

Page 35 of 422 ends

Page 107 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-16

Liquefaction: Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs in wet, sandy, or silty soils. When shaken, the soil grains consolidate, pushing water towards the surface and causing a loss of strength in the soil. The ground surface may sink or spread laterally.

Seismically-Triggered Landslides : Ground shaking from an earthquake can trigger landslides. This landslide movement can range from a few inches to tens of feet. Ground surface displacements as small as a few inches are enough to break typical foundations.

Fire Following Earthquake3
Fires break out following all major earthquakes. Fire following earthquake presents a significant problem in dense urban environments, where many simultaneous ignitions lead to a firestorm. In these cases, fire damage is even more severe than damage from earthquake shaking.

Earthquake shaking can start fires in numerous ways, such as:
• Tipping over appliances with pilot lights
• Damaging electrical equipment leading to sparks
• Exposing materials to open flames from stoves, candles, fireplaces and grills Post-earthquake fires can also spread quickly when flammable chemicals spill.

Ground failure due to liquefaction, surface fault rupture and landslide can rupture gas lines (both underground and at the private gas meter). These ruptures can start and fuel fires, which also spread more quickly after major earthquakes because earthquakes damage the infrastructure needed to mitigate or respond to fires:

Page 36 of 422 ends

Page 108 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-17

• Within a building, earthquake shaking and ground failure can damage a building’s active fire protection systems (e.g., fire alarms and sprinkler systems), as well as its passive fire protection systems (construction features designed to slow/stop fire, e.g. fire walls, fire-rated floor-ceiling assemblies, and fire doors). • Within a community, fires also spread more quickly after major earthquakes because earthquakes damage the infrastructure needed to fight them. Earthquake shaking and ground failure due to liquefaction, surface fault rupture and landslide can simultaneously break water mains, damage electrical systems necessary to provide energy to pump water, damage communication infrastructure, impede emergency transportation routes with debris or landslides, and jam firehouse doors, preventing apparatus from responding. Fires can occur in the days or months following an earthquake due to the to electrical systems, fire protection systems, and gas lines.

Connection to sea level rise
The United States Geological Survey predicts that sea level rise will lead to rising water tables. Higher water tables in turn increases the risk of liquefaction during earthquakes, as more soils become wet, sandy, or silty. This means as climate change continues and sea level rise increases, liquefaction will be a concern for more areas in Berkeley.

Connection to utility disruption
All utilities are vulnerable to disruption from earthquake shaking and ground failure. See the Vulnerabilities and Risk and Loss sections of this Earthquake section for more details.

B.2.b
Locations of Earthquakes and Related Hazards
Map 1 shows the City of Berkeley and its proximity to known active geologic faults in the San Francisco Bay Region. This map shows most the San Francisco Bay Area, with the City of Berkeley shaded in dark gray. Many green lines move across the map in a northwest to southeast direction:
• On the western side of the picture, in the Pacific Ocean, multiple green lines move

Page 37 of 422 ends

Page 109 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-18

along the coast, starting and stopping. One of these lines begins in Marin, stretches through the ocean, and then continues through Daly City and down the peninsula, off the picture. This is the San Andreas Fault. • On the right side of the frame, another set of green lines starts and stops, showing earthquake faults in the East Bay. One of these lines stretches from the middle of San Pablo Bay, crosses directly through the eastern section of Berkeley, and continues down the East Bay past Union City. This is the Hayward fault, which stretches to Milpitas, and is of particular concern in Berkeley.

A large earthquake on any of the illustrated faults could impact Berkeley. For example, the 1989 M 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake was a rupture of the San Andreas fault, and the 2014 M 6.0 South Napa earthquakes occurred along the West Napa fault.

Page 38 of 422 ends

Page 110 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-19

Page 39 of 422 ends

Page 111 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-20

Location of Surface Fault Rupture:

Map 2 shows the location of the Earthquake Fault Planning Zone, which illustrates the location of the Hayward Fault and the area in Berkeley exposed to surface fault rupture.

Map 2 presents Berkeley, with borders outlined in a thick black line. The Surface Fault Rupture Zone is presented as a thick red line running along the base of the Berkeley hills in a northwest to southeast direction. The line is approximately ¼-mile wide.

Page 40 of 422 ends

Page 112 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-21

Page 41 of 422 ends

Page 113 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-22

Location of Liquefaction
The USGS classified sediments in the Bay Area based on their susceptibility to liquefaction. Map 3 depicts the areas in Berkeley where soil types and groundwater conditions are more susceptible to liquefaction.

The following areas are shown in deep green, meaning they are in the liquefaction zone and experience liquefaction risk:
• The entire Berkeley Marina and Eastshore State Park
• Interstate 80
• Aquatic Park
• Codornices Creek and Strawberry Creek.
• In Northwest Berkeley the zone begins at the shoreline and ends at San Pablo Ave • In Southwest Berkeley the zone begins at the shoreline and ends at McGee Ave

Page 42 of 422 ends

Page 114 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-23

Page 43 of 422 ends

Page 115 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-24

Location of Seismically-Triggered Landslides
The California Geological Survey has identified the areas of Berkeley with potential to experience earthquake-induced landslide. All areas underlain by known active or dormant landslides are included in the zone. These areas are identified by combining information on rock or soil strength, slope gradient (steepness), and anticipated future shaking levels.

In Berkeley, the potential for landslide from seismic activity is high in the hill areas and along creek banks. Map 4 indicates that significant portions of the Berkeley hills have the potential to experience earthquake- induced landslide. These areas are shown in light brown on Map 4 throughout the Berkeley hills.

Page 44 of 422 ends

Page 116 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-25

Page 45 of 422 ends

Page 117 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-26

Map 5, created by Alan Kropp and Associates, focuses on a specific area in the northern part of the Berkeley hills, bordered by Virginia Street to the south and Summit Reservoir to the north. On the map, red and yellow blobs run approximately northeast to southwest, with arrows pointing in a southwestern direction.

This map illustrates this area in particular it has active landslides, indicated in red on the map. Potentially -active slides are indicated in yellow. In a Hayward fault earthquake, significant movement is likely in active landslide areas. Earthquake shaking and active slides together could activate other potentially-active slides.

While this map is outdated, it is included in the LHMP because it’s the only map of its kind that exists. Alan Kropp and Associates studied this specific area in Berkeley, whereas most other maps available publicly today are not based on this in depth of a local analysis.

Unfortunately, there are not currently resources available to recreate this map.

Page 46 of 422 ends

Page 118 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-27

Page 47 of 422 ends

Page 119 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-28

Location of Fire Following Earthquake
Fire following earthquake is a threat throughout Berkeley making it impossible to map the potential locations. We do know that seismically vulnerable buildings also likely to be a key source of earthquake- caused fires when gas or electricity lines break or rupture.

Additionally, Berkeley has many older multi-unit apartment buildings without fire sprinkler systems. These build ings could both cause and feed fires following an earthquake.

Ultimately, densely-populated neighborhoods with wooden homes, such as most of the residential areas in Berkeley, are at high risk of fire spread following a major earthquake.

However, even buildings that survive earthquake shaking can succumb to fire, including those buildings that have been seismically retrofitted.

B.2.c
Extent of Earthquakes and Anticipated Intensities
Magnitude and intensity are the two commonly -used scales to represent different earthquake characteristics.4
Magnitude: An earthquake has a single magnitude, which indicates the overall size and energy released by the earthquake. Magnitude is measured using moment magnitude (M).

Intensity: In the same earthquake, different locations will experience different amounts of shaking. The shaking experienced at different locations varies based on:
• The earthquake’s overall magnitude
• The distance from the fault that ruptured in the earthquake • The ground type: thick valley deposits shake longer and harder than rock.

Page 48 of 422 ends

Page 120 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-29

Intensity measures the strength of earthquake shaking at a particular location. Intensity is measured using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. Intensity is based on observed effects. The MMI value assigned to a specific site after an earthquake provides a more meaningful measure of the earthquake’s severity at that location than the magnitude, which applies one value to the entire earthquake.

MMI descriptions5
The MMI scale is composed of twelve increasing levels of intensity that range from imperceptible shaking to catastrophic destruction. Lower numbers on the intensity scale generally deal with the manner in which the earthquake is felt by people. Higher numbers on the scale are based on observed structural damage. Levels are as follows:
• MMI Level I (White): Shaking Not Felt: Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions.
• MMI Level II (Lavender): Weak Shaking: Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings.
• MMI Level III (Aq ua): Weak Shaking: Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.
• MMI Level IV (Blue): Light Shaking: Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.
• MMI Level V (Gray): Moderate Shaking: Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened.

Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.
• MMI Level VI (Light Yellow): Strong Shaking: Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.

Page 49 of 422 ends

Page 121 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-30

• MMI Level VII (Medium Yellow): Very Strong Shaking: Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly build or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken.
• MMI Level VIII (Orange): Severe Shaking: Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.
• MMI Level IX (Red): Violent Shaking: Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shift off foundations. • MMI Level X+ (Dark Red): Extreme Shaking: Some well -built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent.

Berkeley could experience earthquakes that span the range of the MMI scale. However, the most concerning is when the shaking is strong, very strong, violent, or extreme. To understand what this means for Berkeley, Map 6 shows most of the San Francisco Bay Area and the different levels of shaking intensity anticipated with a hypothetical magnitude

7.0 earthquake on the Hayward fault. Shaded in colors of yellow, orange, and red, the map shows that very strong, severe, and violent shaking will be felt all along the East Bay, stretching from Pinole to south of Hayward.

Berkeley is outlined with a thick black line and is shaded in colors of orange and red, indicating that in this scenario, the Berkeley flats will experience MMI Level VII (severe shaking), and eastern Berkeley will experience MMI Level IX (violent shaking).

Page 50 of 422 ends

Page 122 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-31

Page 51 of 422 ends

Page 123 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-32

B.2.d Previous Earthquakes
The strongest, most recent earthquakes occurred in the Bay Area in 2022. A magnitude

5.1 earthquake struck near San Jose in October and a magnitude 3.6 struck near El Cerrito in December. Both of these earthquakes had minimal reported damages . There have been no federally-declared earthquake disasters in Berkeley since the last update.

Destructive earthquakes struck the Bay Area in 1838, 1868, 1898, 1906, 1911, 1989, and 2014. Impacts of the earlier earthquakes in Berkeley are not well documented, but the damage of the 2014 magnitude 6.0 South Napa Earthquake is fresh in the memory of many Berkeley residents. It killed two people, injured 300 others, and caused moderate to severe damage to more than 2,000 structures.
6 Electricity and water services sustained
disruptions and there was minor damage to roads, water and natural gas lines, and wastewater treatment facilities.

The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquak e also informs the Bay Area’s understanding of earthquakes. Sixty-two people died in the Bay Area as a direct result of this earthquake.

Most of the fatalities, 42, were caused by the collapse of a two-level elevated highway in Oakland only a few miles from the Berkeley city limits. Damage in the City of Berkeley was minor in comparison to many of its neighbors. Many residential structures experienced collapse of unreinforced masonry chimneys, and new cracks were found in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Civic Center Building. The earthquake epicenter was far from Berkeley, but region- wide impacts and disruption increased the Berkeley community’s awareness of the high-risk Berkeley faces from much closer earthquakes.

The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake caused struc tural damage in Berkeley, including

Page 52 of 422 ends

Page 124 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-33

chimney cracking and collapse, and considerable damage to some public buildings including Berkeley High School structures. 7 Other “small” earthquakes in Berkeley over the years have caused slight damage to and in some buildings.

B.2.e Probability of Future Events
Earthquakes, especially smaller ones, are a part of life in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Smaller earthquakes happen regularly and sometimes cause damage, especially inside of homes when furniture or other items move. Although small earthquakes can cause some damage, they are not as concerning as a catastrophic earthquake with a magnitude of 6.0 or more.

According to the US Geological Survey, there is a 72% probability of one or more M 6.7 or greater earthquakes from 2014 to 2043 in the San Francisco Bay Region. 8 There is a
33% chance that a 6.7 or greater will occur on the Hayward fault system between 2014 and 2043.
9 This means that it is likely that many Berkeley residents will experience a severe earthquake in their lifetimes.

Researchers are still trying to understand how climate change is impacting the probability of future earthquakes. According to the United States Geological Survey, there is currently no pattern of earthquakes occurring more frequently during periods of heavy precipitation or drought.
10 B.2.f Vulnerabilities
People
People with disabilities and people with access and functional needs, students, and low-

Page 53 of 422 ends

Page 125 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-34

income individuals may live in older housing units that are more vulnerable to collapse or damage from earthquakes. These groups may also have less socioeconomic means to prepare for and recover from an earthquake that damages their home. Earthquakes cause power outages, and people who are dependent on medical or other assistive devices that use electricity are especially vulnerable. Significant damage to streets, curbs, and transportation systems may prevent people with disabilities and people with access and functional needs from navigating to their destinations. Earthquake damage to and reduced functionalit y of communication systems may create additional challenges for people to get assistance from their families, friends, and caregivers.

Structures
Several types of seismically vulnerable buildings are located throughout Berkeley, including wood- framed buildings with soft, weak or open front conditions (SWOF), unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, tilt -up and other rigid wall -flexible diaphragm (RWFD) buildings, and non-ductile concrete buildings. Other wood-framed buildings with seismic deficiencies include those with inadequate anchorage to foundation and/or inadequate cripple wall bracing, multi-family “weak story” buildings, one-story open-front buildings, and buildings with unique configurations.

Map 7 shows Berkeley’s Inventory of Potentially Seismically Vulnerable buildings, developed in 2023. Potentially soft, weak or open front (SWOF) buildings are somewhat evenly spread throughout the City. Potentially non- ductile concrete buildings and ri gid wall-flexible diaphragm buildings are more heavily concentrated along commercial corridors and west of San Pablo Avenue. Non- ductile concrete buildings are also

Page 54 of 422 ends

Page 126 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-35

clustered in central Berkeley, and near the UC Berkeley Campus. Soft story buildings are depicted in blue, non- ductile concrete buildings in orange, rigid wall -flexible diaphragm buildings in purple, and unreinforced masonry buildings in red.

Page 55 of 422 ends

Page 127 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-36

Page 56 of 422 ends

Page 128 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-37

Soft, Weak or Open Front (SWOF) Buildings
Soft story buildings are characterized as multi-story wood-frame buildings with extensive ground story openings such as windows, storefronts, garage openings, or open- air spaces such as parking. These buildings may have few perimeter or interior walls at the ground level, leading to a relatively soft or weak lateral load resisting system in this lower story.

Exhibit 6. Example soft story construction

Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Buildings
Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings are generally constructed of brick, block, tile, stone, or other types of masonry, and were built prior to modern earthquake- resistant design. During an earthquake, unreinforced masonry walls that were originally built without adequate reinforcement (from embedded steel bars) are susceptible to collapse.

In addition, URM buildings often include unreinforced masonry parapets, chimneys, and high brick veneers that tend to disconnect from the building and fall outward, creating a hazard for people below, and in some instances causing the building to collapse. Weak or nonexistent connections between the masonry walls and the floors and roofs place

Page 57 of 422 ends

Page 129 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-38

occupants, pedestrians, and adjacent buildings in harm’s way.

Exhibit 7. Example of unreinforced masonry construction

Rigid Wall-Flexible Diaphragm (RWFD) Buildings, Including Tilt-Up Buildings Tilt-up or other rigid wall-flexible diaphragm building types are typically one- or two-story commercial buildings with reinforced concrete or reinforced masonry (brick or concrete block) walls. A “tilt -up” building is distinguished by its method of construction, using precast concrete walls. RWFD have “flexible” roof diaphragms that consist of wood or steel beams, trusses, or rafters with wood sheathing or metal decking above. They may also have flexible diaphragms at intermediate floor levels. These buildings commonly include warehouses, manufacturing facilities, large retail stores, and other similar structures. The most common deficiency is an inadequate connection between the rigid walls and the roof (and floors), leading walls to pull away and collapse during ground shaking.

Page 58 of 422 ends

Page 130 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-39

Exhibit 8. Example of Rigid Wall-Flexible Diaphragm Construction

Non-Ductile Concrete Buildings
Non-ductile concrete buildings built prior to the mid- 1970’s and modern seismic code standards have performed very poorly in recent earthquakes, and have resulted in catastrophic collapses. In older concrete buildings, the detailing and construction of the reinforcing steel may be inadequate to safely resist large seismic forces caused by ground motions on these heavy structures. The most vulnerable buildings contain elements like columns, wall piers, and joints of beams and slabs that can fail in an earthquake. These buildings are considered “non-ductile” (i.e. brittle) concrete buildings and pose a high risk during a major earthquake. Retrofits of these buildings can vary widely in terms of scope and level of difficulty, and are often expensive to retrofit or rebuild.

Other Wood-Framed Buildings with Seismic Deficiencies
Throughout Berkeley, the most prevalent group of wood- framed buildings vulnerable to significant damage from an earthquake are those constructed prior to 1960 with inadequate cripple wall bracing and/or anchorage to the foundation, which can result in buildings sliding off supporting foundations and cripple wall collapses. These include hillside houses with increased risks of failure to cripple walls and poorly braced extra-tall

Page 59 of 422 ends

Page 131 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-40

walls along the sloping sides.

Multi-family Weak-Story Buildings
In Multifamily Weak-Story buildings (3+ stories), the lowest story of the building may be vulnerable to significant damage due to high demand to-capacity ratios. Multi-family Weak Story buildings are primarily found among the areas of multi -family residential buildings to the south of UC Berkeley (Southside) and extending along College Avenue and nearby streets.

One-Story Open-Front Buildings
One-story open-front buildings, while having less mass to drive seismic response than multi-story buildings, are still anticipated to have very significant torsional response and to have potential concerns of partial or complete collapse. Single-story Open Front buildings can be found along the major commercial corridors, such as Telegraph Avenue, University Avenue, College Avenue, and similar locations.

Buildings with Unique Configurations
Buildings with unique configurations are also potentially vulnerable to an earthquake and are anticipated to be of an age that engineering for seismic loading would not have been provided at the time of construction. These buildings have been observed throughout the City’s building stock.

Homes
Berkeley has about 50,046 housing units 11, serving the city’s population of 124,321 12.

Most were built before 1980, meaning that few of Berkeley’s homes were constructed to modern building code standards, which require earthquake-resistant structural measures,

Page 60 of 422 ends

Page 132 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-41

fire-resistant materials, and landslide- resistant siting and landscaping . As described above, many people throughout Berkeley live in buildings with seismic vulnerabilities.

City-Owned Buildings
The City of Berkeley owns or leases approximately 221 buildings and structures. These facilities have multiple uses, including running City government, providing emergency services, low - income housing, and recreation. In recent years, the City has been seriously examining the risk to its buildings from disasters, particularly earthquakes. Many important City buildings have been assessed for seismic safety and, when possible, strengthened or replaced. However, additional assessments of City buildings are needed to further determine their level of vulnerability to seismic events. Some buildings’ earthquake vulnerabilities may pose risks to life and/or emergency operations, including Old City Hall (2134 Martin Luther King, Jr Way) and Veterans’ Memorial Building (1931 Center Street).

City-Owned Critical Response Facilities
Most of the City’s critical response facilities have been strengthened or retrofitted because of their importance to continuing emergency services, as well as day-to-day operations.

The Civic Center Building’s isolation system and retrofit elements were designed to provi
de life safety and limited repairable damage in a Design Basis Earthquake (DBE), and life safety and repairable damage in the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE).

Although the building’s base isolation system would meet the essential services standard of the 2010 California Administrative Code, the building was not built to essential services standards. The nonstructural systems and equipment in the Civic Center Building would

Page 61 of 422 ends

Page 133 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-42

need to be evaluated to ensure that their support and bracing systems also meet essential services requirements. Nonstructural elements along the access path to the essential services area should also be evaluated to ensure unobstructed access to these areas in the aftermath of an earthquake.

Hospitals
There is one acute care hospital in Berkeley, Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, owned and operated by the Sutter East Bay Hospitals. The hospital has two campuses in Berkeley: Alta Bates and Herrick.

The Alta Bates campus is a full -serv ice acute care hospital, while the Herrick campus provides acute care limited to mental health and cancer care services. Alta Bates is comprised of eight buildings used to provide acute patient care, f ive of which were built to pre-1973 sei
smic standards. These buildings are not considered a threat to life safety, but may not be functional or repairable after an earthquake.13 The Hospital Seismic Safety Act requires these buildings to be retrofitted or replaced by 2030 to meet standards to be repairable or functional following an earthquake. Three additional buildings at Alta Bates and three at Herrick have already met this standard.
14 Four buildings at the Herrick
Campus are considered to be a significant risk to life safety. 15 Acute care functions formerly housed in these buildings have been relocated into seismically compliant portion of the Herrick campus and/or to the Summit Campus.

Businesses
Businesses are vital to the economy of the city and provide jobs to city residents. Damage to commercial buildings could adversely impact business operations, increase economic

Page 62 of 422 ends

Page 134 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-43

losses, disrupt supply distribution, disproportionately harm small businesses, reduce affordable commercial spaces, and slow recovery after a major earthquake. Ensuring that businesses and employers can return to normal function quickly will in turn ensure that the city recovers quickly from a disaster.

As described above, many Berkeley businesses operate from buildings with seismic vulnerabilities. Buildings of potentially non -ductile concrete construction or rigid wall - flexible diaphragm buildings have been observed along numerous commercial corridors within the city.

Systems
Berkeley’s electrical, natural gas, aviation fuel, telecommunications, and potable water supply systems are not under the City’s control, and are owned and managed by other quasi-governmental, private, or special district entities. Berkeley’s transportation systems are managed by the City and other public entities.

All of these systems have earthquake exposure and vulnerabilities:

Electricity
Electricity is managed by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Berkeley’s electricity system is almost entirely aboveground. Earthquakes can topple or break utility poles, and falling trees or collapsing structures can damage utility lines. Earthquakes can damage electrical switches and transformers in the distribution system, along with equipment at substations and transmission lines, possibly leading to systemwide loss of these utilities.

Because electrical system infrastructure exists throughout Berkeley, earthquake shaking,

Page 63 of 422 ends

Page 135 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-44

liquefaction, fault rupture and earthquake- induced landslides can all damage this infrastructure both above and below the ground. This means that a major earthquake will cause significant power loss to Berkeley.

Natural gas
Natural gas is managed by PG&E. A natural gas transmission line runs the length of Berkeley (north-south direction) under Seventh Street, the area of Berkeley that is more susceptible to liquefaction. In an earthquake, if soils are shaken hard and long enough, liquefaction can occur, causing pipelines in liquefiable soils to tear apart. Underground systems are particularly prone to damage from ground failure in earthquakes and landslides. Underground damage is harder to detect and repair, and the length of service losses may be greater than for aboveground systems. Additionally, rupture compromises this lifeline unless redundant connections unaffected by the earthquake are available.

Natural gas line rupture is one of the chief causes of post -earthq uake fires. Additionally,
natural gas line rupture has climate implications. The main component of natural gas is methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas that is 25 times more harmful to the atmosphere over a 100-year per
iod than carbon dioxide.16
Potable water
Potable water is m anaged by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). EBMUD provides drinking water to approximately 1.4 million people and sewer services to 640,000 in the East Bay. EBMUD was created in 1923, and the age and extent of its system makes it particularly vu lnerable to damage in earthquakes. Because the potable water system exists throughout Berkeley, its infrastructure will be subject to shaking and ground failure,

Page 64 of 422 ends

Page 136 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-45

including liquefaction, surface- fault rupture, and landslide, leading to many pipeline breaks.

Sanitary sewer system
The City of Berkeley’s sanitary sewer system is made up of pipelines with large diameter (six inches to 120 inches). Of the 260 miles of pipelines in the sanitary sewer system:
• 50 miles or 19% is in the Earthquake-Induced Landslide Planning Zone • 29 miles or 11% is in the Fault Rupture Planning Zone. • 101 miles or 39% is in the Very High, High or Moderate Liquefaction Zone.

Because the sanitary sewer system exists throughout Berkeley, its infrastructure will be subject to shaking and ground failure, including liquefaction, surface- fault rupture, and landslide.

Storm Drainage System
Areas of the city’s storm drainage system are known to be extremely weak and at risk of collapse. Ground shaking, liquefaction, fault rupture and landslides as a result of an earthquake would cause significant damage to this system. If the next earthquake occurs during or shortly before a rainstorm, the city could experience significant flooding in areas that have not seen floodwaters previously.

Of the 94 miles of the storm drain system:
• 13 miles or 14% is in the Earthquake-Induced Landslide Planning Zone. • 8 miles or 9% is in the Fault Rupture Planning Zone.

Page 65 of 422 ends

Page 137 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-46

• 48 miles or 48% is in the Very High, High, or Moderate Liquefaction Zone.

Transportation systems
Transportation systems are managed by the City and other public entities, including Caltrans, Amtrak, Bay Area Rapid Transit, and Union Pacific. • Nearly half of all City streets are have a moderate or greater exposure to liquefaction, meaning that vehicle movement throughout the city is likely to be impacted. This movement will also affect aboveground infrastructure (streets, curbs and sidewalks.)
• To Berkeley’s east, 17 percent of City streets are situated in the earthquake- induced landslide planning zone. Landslides in this area could distort major and minor roads. This would make access difficult or impossible for firefighters and other emergency responders. It would also complicate evacuation for residents in the Berkeley hills.
• Fault rupture, if it occurs, could damage important east-west streets along the fault, making travel between the hills and flatland areas difficult where displacements are large. Interstate 80 is highly susceptible to earthquake- induced liquefaction and is main thoroughfare for Berkeley and the Bay Area.

Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) provides an important public transportation link between Berkeley, San Francisco, and other Bay Area locations to 172,000 riders daily, as of September 2023. In the 1960s, Berkeley taxpayers issued a separate tax to have the BART facilities in Berkeley (three stations and over four miles of tunnel) put underground. These tunnels are generally considered low risk by BART engineers. While the BART system is not exposed to landslide or surface- fault rupture from earthquakes, BART infrastructure in Berkeley will be subject to severe shaking and possibly to liquefaction in a catastrophic earthquake.

Page 66 of 422 ends

Page 138 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-47

Telecommunications
Telecommunications are managed by a variety of private partners, including Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast, among others. Communications infrastructure is spread throughout Berkeley, and thus is exposed to all earthquake ground failure hazards.

Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials are managed by private and public entities. The shaking and ground failure that can accompany earthquakes could cause hazardous materials release.

Following an earthquake, building structural failur es, dislodging of asbestos or encapsulated asbestos, laboratory spills, transportation accidents, pipeline breaks, storage tank failures, and industrial equipment problems will be the major sources of hazardous materials release.

The City carefully tracks and regulates hazardous materials in both public and private structures through its Toxics Management Division. See the section on Hazardous Materials Release for details.

Aviation fuel
Aviation fuel is managed by Kinder Morgan, Inc. Two aviation and multipurpose pipelines run along the railroad tracks from Richmond to the Oakland Airport, through western Berkeley. These pipelines run along the Union Pacific railroad right-of-way in the western part of the city. S oils in this area are potentially susceptibl e to liquefaction. Rupture of these aviation fuel lines during an earthquake could spark and feed a dangerous fire.

Page 67 of 422 ends

Page 139 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-48

Natural, historic, and cultural resources
Natural Resources
Parks and natural spaces are situated throughout Berkeley and may be damaged fr om shaking and ground failure based on their locations. Berkeley watersheds (see Floods section) and the San Francisco Bay Shoreline are vulnerable to hazardous materials release. All natural resources are vulnerable to and post-quake fire.

Historic Resources
Because historic structures were not built to meet current building and fire codes, they are especially vulnerable in earthquakes. Historic structures throughout Berkeley are vulnerable to earthquake shaking and ground failure based on their locations. All locations could be subject to hazardous materials release and post-quake fire.

Cultural Resources
Berkeley’s culture comes from the people who make up the Berkeley community.

Residents, businesses, and the UC Berkeley community are critical parts of Berkeley’s culture and will all be impacted in a catastrophic earthquake. The Risk and Loss section below also describes impacts to natural and historical resources. • Berkeley Resident Community: Based on experiences in large urban areas being rebuilt following disaster, planners expect that rebuilding activities will begin quickly, but will prove expensive as construction professionals around the Bay Area are overloaded with work. Owners of damaged multi-unit rental housing may not be able to rebuild affordable housing, and may choose to build condominiums or other higher-profit housing to replace the damaged structures. Many residents will discover they are underinsured for earthquake and fire damage, making it difficult or impossible for them to rebuild. Rebuilt homes, meeting modern codes and style considerations, will change the look of the city. • Although much harder to predict, demographic shifts may also follow an upended housing market. Older homeowners may be unable or unwilling to rebuild, for

Page 68 of 422 ends

Page 140 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-49

example, and young families may need to relocate, at least temporarily, to ensure the continuity of their children’s education. The likely loss of older, more affordable housing stock will also change Berkeley’s economic profile, creating displacement of thousands of households.
• Businesses may rebuild or may move to new, cheaper locations. Many local, independent businesses will need to make the tough decision to rebuild or close shop. Retail businesses will be affected by demographic changes after an earthquake. Businesses located in neighborhoods with significant damage will suffer as customer demand changes, even if the businesses themselves are undamaged by the earthquake.
• After a catastrophic earthquake, e nrollment at UC Berkeley may slow for a few years, depending on the level of damage experienced on campus. In the unlikely but possible event of a catastrophic incident, such as significant loss of life in a residence hall or classroom building, declines in enrollment will be significant.

Remaining students, currently about 30 percent of the city’s population, may struggle to find affordable housing.

B.2.g
Risk and Loss Estimates
No one knows what the characteristics of the next damaging quake to strike Berkeley will be. A quake could occur on any of the regional faults, be deep or shallow under the ground, and shake for a few seconds or up to nearly a minute. The degree of shaking and resulting damages will vary greatly depending on these characteristics.

Currently, there is not sufficient data or understanding of how climate change is impacting earthquakes. However, the cascading impacts from an earthquake might be more severe due to climate change. For example, areas in Berkeley might be even more susceptible to liquefaction due to sea level rise and shallow ground water rise.

Berkeley’s population is expected to keep growing steadily. With more people in Berkeley, the more people are exposed to the catastrophic earthquake risk and the greater potential for impacts and losses. With population and housing demands, Berkeley has regular new development. Current building standards are high, resulting in safer structures that will

Page 69 of 422 ends

Page 141 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-50

suffer minimal damage. High housing costs and insufficient supply of low-income housing today means that after a catastrophic earthquake, there will be even greater levels of homelessness and displacement.

FEMA developed the Hazards US (HAZUS) software to help estimate the consequences of different earthquake scenarios. HAZUS runs a computer model of a hypothetical earthquake, defining the earthquake’s magnitude, epicenter location, rupture mechanism and time of day. Using this information, HAZUS estimates losses for that particular earthquake. These theoretical losses will not exactly predict the actual damage of the scenario earthquake. Instead, they provide reasonable data to help guide earthquake readiness activities.

Scenario Predictions
This section references three different HAZUS analyses:
• For the 2004 version of this plan, a magnitude 6.9 scenario earthquake on the Hayward fault underneath Berkeley was simulated using HAZUS.17 In 2014, these loss estim ates were combined with impact descriptions from newer HAZUS scenarios for a larger earthquake.18 Because Berkeley’s increased population and density since 2004, it is likely that these predictions underestimate the impacts and associated costs of such an event.
• For the HayWired Earthquake Scenario, a magnitude 7.0 scenario earthquake on the Hayward fault epicenter in Oakland was simulated using HAZUS. Predictions from this scenario consider all losses across the Bay Area, not just those in Berkeley specifically.
• Together, these HAZUS analyses create a broad picture of the impact to Berkeley and the Bay Area overall from a catastrophic earthquake:

People
• One hundred people in Berkeley could be killed by this earthquake. Fifty more will

Page 70 of 422 ends

Page 142 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-51

be in critical condition requiring urgent medical care. Three hundred additional people will need hospitalization and 1,000 people will require first aid. • From 3,000 to 12,000 households will be displaced from their homes after the quake. 200 more households will be forced to leave their homes due to fire damage. These numbers combined represent up to one quarter of households in Berkeley. One thousand to 4,000 of those households will seek temporary shelter provided by the City and the Red Cross. The remainder may stay with fr iends, relatives or in hotels.

Structures
• Over $2 billion19 of building damage could occur in Berkeley. Commercial corridors will see damage to URM buildings. Damage to tilt -up buildings will impact businesses in the western area of the city. Soft-story buildings, which are situated throughout Berkeley, will be damaged. 620 buildings will be completely destroyed. 21,000 more will have slight to moderate damage, primarily residential structures. • Low-income and student populations disproportionately live in soft-story multi-unit apartment buildings, older buildings with weak foundations, and other vulnerable types of structures. Much of the damage to residential structures will occur in housing for these populations.
• Following the earthquake, the city will nee d to remove and dispose of up to 570 tons of debris, consisting of building materials, personal property, and sediment will be generated by the earthquake.
• In the first day following the earthquake
20, fires could ignite in six to twelve 21
different locations around the city. Outside fire departments may not be able to provide mutual aid. Emergency personnel will be stretched thin fighting these fires and may need to use a temporary, aboveground water supply system to pump water from the Bay. Fire could burn for hours or days in a worst -case scenario.

Post-earthquake fires could add $40 to $80 million
22 of damage to structures in
Berkeley.

Systems
• Electricity: Immediately following the earthquake, 29,000 homes, more than 60% of Berkeley households, will be without electricity. Power will be down for days to a week.
• Natural Gas: The HayWired Scenario provides estimates for restoration of natural gas in the City of Oakland, to Berkeley’s south. HayWired estimates that fifty percent of Oakland buildings will have service restored within 10 days of the quake,

Page 71 of 422 ends

Page 143 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-52

and 90 percent will have service restored after 36 days. • Water: EBMUD’s 4,162 miles of pipe suffer about 1,800 breaks and 3,900 leaks during the earthquake sequence. The average EBMUD customer would be without water for 6 weeks, some for as many as 6 months.23
• Sewer: Interceptors ( large sewer pipes) will suffer major damage following an earthquake. Loss of electrical power will render pumping plants unusable, causing sewage backups and spills through the street access holes, posing potential public health concerns. Open trenches may be necessary to carry sewage for short distances. Sewer pipeline breaks may cause “sinkholes” that undermine roads and buildings.
• Highways: In Oakland, Highways 580, 880, 980, and 24, where they form the MacArthur Maze, a complex of elevated interchange structures, are built on liquefiable soils. Closure of sections of the Maze due to inspection or damage will restrict access into and throughout areas of need in the East Bay. • BART: BART could be damaged in neighboring cities on all sides, shutting off a major mode of public transit to San Francisco, Oakland and other destinations.

The BART Berkeley Hills Tunnel which crosses the Hayward fault would be damaged in a major earthquake on that fault, cutting a key commuting link.

Additional ferries and bus lines could be established within a week to provide substitutes for BART.
• Communications: Communications systems, particularly telephone networks, will sustain damage that reduces capacity. Power outages will reduce functionality in situations when the outages last longer than the performance of battery backup and maybe even generator refueling. Congestion will also reduce functionality to a great degree, for several hours or more.
24 • Business closures: Additional losses to income will likely occur due to Berkeley business closures, estimated at $357 million.
25 GFOA Analysis
Berkeley is susceptible to earthquake risk. Map 8 provides a map of major fault lines in the region.

Page 72 of 422 ends

Page 144 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-53

Page 73 of 422 ends

Page 145 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-54

To address earthquakes, we obtained a data set of simulated earthquakes from Aon for the Contra Costa and Alameda County area. The simulation includes projected economic losses for earthquakes. We then scaled these losses to Berkeley by comparing Berkeley’s share of total property value to the rest of the two-county area. Berkeley comprises about 4% of the total property value, so we assumed Berkeley would experience about 4% of the economic losses from a given quake. We also set a limiter in our model to only address quakes above a 6.0 in magnitude. In the USGS report that Exhibit 3 came from describes the potential damage of a 6.0 quake as “light” so earthquakes below that might not cause a material amount of economic loss. That said, our model does provide the ability to manually adjust the threshold downward to include other quakes.

Page 74 of 422 ends

Page 146 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-55

Exhibit 9. Provides a loss exceedance curve for ten years and 1 year, showing total economic losses for Berkeley.

Loss Exceedance Curve for Economic Losses from Earthquakes, Over 10 Years and 1 Year Chance Losses will Exceed Dollar Amount on Horizontal Axis

Time Horizon 5% 10% 50% 90%
1-Year $89M NA NA NA
10-Year $2,700M $1,600M $24M NA
*Not Applicable (NA) means that the loss exceedance curve intersects zero before this point. See the graph to see where the curve meets the vertical axis for the chance of losses exceeding zero.

Page 75 of 422 ends

Page 147 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-56

B.3 Wildland Urban Interface Fire
B.3.a Description of Wildland Urban Interface Fire and Related Hazards Fire has always been a natural part of the California and East Bay wildland ecosystem.

Fire has historically been a way to maintain forest health, control invasive species, and to provide a rich habitat for wildlife. In Berkeley, densely -built homes and vegetation have been introduced to hillside areas that otherwise required burning to maintain ecological balance. For many years people have tried to prevent fire in forests and developed areas, disrupting this balance. As a result, c atastrophic fires are now occurring throughout the Bay Area and the world.

There are two primary types of wildfire: “wildland” fire and “wildland- urban interface” (WUI) fire. WUI fires, the primary concern in Berkeley, occur where the natural landscape and urban-built environment meet or intermix. It is especially difficult to control a fire in the wildland-urban interface, where homes and other infrastructure are close to and within wildland areas.

Ignition
WUI fires can be sparked by both human activity and natural causes. Human activity examples include power lines, sparks from campfires, fireworks, cigarettes, and arson.

The only natural cause of wildfire is lightning strikes. In a study of wildfires of the United States from 1992 to 2015, human -caused wildfires accounted for 97% of the residential homes threatened (within 1 km of a wildfire) and nearly a third of suppression costs. 26 This study also shows that the WUI, which accounts for only a small portion of U.S. land

Page 76 of 422 ends

Page 148 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-57

area (10%), hosts a major portion of fires, as these fires are almost exclusively human- started.

Spread
Low humidity and high sustained winds create the most dangerous conditions for wildfire spread. While WUI fires can occur at any time of the year, they are especially dangerous in fall when the landscape and vegetation are dry , and strong, hot, dry offshore winds further desiccate vegetation and can push a fire down or up a slope with amazing speed.

Under these conditions, traditional firefighting becomes far more difficult.

Connection to climate change
Climate change is resulting in longer and drier summer conditions leading to wildfires of greater frequency and duration. Increased drought conditions cause fuels to become extremely dry and more fire prone. Additionally, climate change causes more frequent bouts of extreme weather, including low humidity and high winds associated with fire weather.

Connection to earthquakes
Earthquakes often spark fires, fueled by damaged gas or power lines. Damage to water pipes from earthquake shaking or ground failure can limit fire suppression. This sequence of events could grow into a firestorm, threatening neighboring jurisdictions. For information on Fire Following Earthquakes, see the Earthquake Section.

Connection to poor air quality
Air pollution from fires both in Berkeley and throughout the region can cause eye and

Page 77 of 422 ends

Page 149 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-58

respiratory illnesses, and can exacerbate asthma, allergies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other cardiovascular diseases. For more information see the Poor Air Quality Section.

Connection to landslides and flooding
WUI fires can increase an area’s risk of landslide. When all supporting vegetation is burned away, hillsides become destabilized and prone to erosion. The charred surface of the earth is hard and absorbs less water. Winter rains in burned areas lead to increased runoff, erosion and landslides in hilly areas. Erosion and land slippage subsequent to fires can lead to temporary or permanent displacement and property damage or loss, 27 28
making erosion a secondary hazard that must be mitigated immediately after a fire.

Connection to power outage
Fire is related to power outage in two ways: preemptive power shutoff by utilities, or event- caused outages when fires damage power infrastructure.

Pacific Gas & Electric, Berkeley’s electric utility, uses two approaches to preemptively cut power to reduce the likelihood of fire ignition. The first, Public Safety Power Shutoffs, involves preemptive cuts to power on specific power lines during times of high fire threat.

See the Utility Outage section to learn more. Another PG&E approach is Enhanced Powerline Safety Settings (EPSS), which allow power lines to automatically turn off power within one-tenth of a second when there is a hazard, such as a tree branch falling into a power line. Some PG&E equipment in the Berkeley Hills areas have EPSS protection.

According to PG&E, in 2022 there was a 68% reduction in ignitions on EPSS -enabled powerlines.

Page 78 of 422 ends

Page 150 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-59

Loss of power can lead to many cascading and significant consequences, such as impacts to vulnerable infrastructure, inability to operate fuel and water systems that require electricity, communication and service disruptions, loss of heating or cooling, and loss of critical functions for people who rely on power for survival. Locations of Wildland Urban Interface Fire
Berkeley is most vulnerable to a wind- driven fire incident originating in an area adjacent to the City’s eastern border, in land owned by UC Berkeley, the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, the East Bay Regional Park District, the City of Oakland, or Contra Costa County.

B.3.b
Locations of WUI Fires and Related Hazards
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Map 9 presents the State’s Very High and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The State Fire Marshal is mandated to classify lands within State Responsibility Areas into Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). Fire Hazard Severity Zones fall into one of the following classifications: Moderate, High, and Very High.

As shown in Map 9, the lands to Berkeley’s east are almost uniformly the highest hazard classification, shown in in red and orange to the east of Berkley’s border.

Page 79 of 422 ends

Page 151 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-60

Page 80 of 422 ends

Page 152 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-61

The WUI fire risk facing Berkeley’s wildland-urban interface area is compounded by the area’s mountainous topography, dense fuel loads, constrained access and egress routes, and its location, overlaid upon the Hayward Fault.

Since before the 1920s, the City of Berkeley has established and adjusted fire zones in Berkeley. While the zones were initially established to address urban fire issues, they have evolved to designate the City’s WUI fire hazard. These maps are now linked to the State Fire Marshal’s work to classify fire hazards. In addition to the fire hazard map of State lands, shown in Map 9, the State Fire Marshal is also mandated to recommend maps of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas, i ncluding the City of Berkeley.

Following receipt of the State recommendation of very high fire hazard severity zones, the City of Berkeley further interprets the hazard and has divided the city into Fire Zones 1, 2, and 3, designated in order of ascending fire risk. These zone boundaries are adopted by the City Council, along with the Fire Code. These zones are shown in Map 10.

Map 10 shows Fire Zone 3, the Panoramic Hill area , colored in dark red. Fire Zone 2, colored in bright red, covers the remainder of the city’s eastern hills up to the northern border. Fire Zone 1, with yellow coloring, covers the rest of Berkeley west of the hills.

Fire Zones 2 and 3 currently include 8, 603 parcels with 32,109 residents . These zones have the strictest fire prevention standards in the City for issues such as building materials for new structures. The City also enforces vegetation management measures in these areas to create defensible space around homes.

Page 81 of 422 ends

Page 153 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-62

Fire Zone 3, known as Panoramic Hill, has the greatest WUI fire vulnerability. Panoramic Hill includes areas in both Berkeley and Oakland. In the Berkeley part, t here are about 277 parcels, with 989 units in 261 buildings and 2,591 residents. The Hill’s minimal access and egress routes, and its exposure to fault rupture further exacerbate the area’s WUI fire risk above that of Fire Zone 2.

While much of the concern for fire is placed on the Berkeley hills (Fire Zone 2 and 3), Berkeley’s flatlands (Fire Zone 1) are at risk as well. The flatlands are densely covered with old wooden buildings, most not built to modern fire-resistant code. They also have a high risk of damage in an earthquake, which could spark multiple fire ignitions, for example, by damaging gas or electric lines.

Page 82 of 422 ends

Page 154 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-63

Page 83 of 422 ends

Page 155 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-64

Wildfire Hazard Ratings
New data and modeling from Tukman Geospatial prepared for East Bay Regional Parks have characterized the relative wildfire hazard for Alameda and Contra Costa counties,29 considering estimates from 2017- 2022 for conditions including extreme fire weather potential, ember load, suppression difficulty, vegetation (or lack thereof), past fire ignitions, and proximity to human development and power lines.

Map 11 shows this data for Berkeley: the highest relative wildfire hazard (classes 4, 5, and 6) is in the eastern part of the city in yellow, orange, and red. Lower relative wildfire hazard is show in light and darker greens (classes 1, 2, and 3) in the flatlands and along the Bay.

Although the Berkeley flatlands are presented as having the lowest wildfire hazard, researchers were careful to classify this hazard levels as “relative.” An area with lower relative wildfire hazard does not have no risk, it simply means that it has less risk than other areas. Researchers also noted that this data does not account for home- to-home ignitions common in dense urban areas. This means the analysis likely underrepresents the wildfire hazard in Berkeley.

Page 84 of 422 ends

Page 156 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-65

Page 85 of 422 ends

Page 157 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-66

Structure Density
Increased structure density exacerbates wildland- urban interface fire risk. The rate of structure-to-structure ignitions increases when there are more structures per acre.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) characterizes high structural density of wildland urban interface areas as more than 2 structures per acre. 30 Map 12 shows that most areas of the Berkeley hills have at least 2 structures per acre, considered high density and shown in dark orange. Further, areas in red, concentrated in the north Berkeley hills and a bit around Panoramic Hill, are the highest housing density in Berkeley with more than four structures per acre. Areas in orange have high housing density in the Berkeley hills with greater than two structures per acre. Areas in light orange have medium housing density with one or fewer structures per acre.

Map 12 demonstrates that the density of Berkeley’s hills areas will be a critical factor in fire spread.

Page 86 of 422 ends

Page 158 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-67

Page 87 of 422 ends

Page 159 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-68

Structure Separation
Another critical element that helps characterize wildland- urban interface fire risk in Berkeley is the minimal s eparation between structures. Structures that are less than 25 feet apart are at extreme risk of directly spreading fire to one another, in a process called “structure-to-structure ignition.” Fires in denser areas will have high rates of structure-to- structure ignition and high risk of losses.

Map 13 shows the distances between structures in Fire Zones 2 and 3. Structures with a separation distance of less than 25 feet are in red. Structures with a separation distance of 25 to 50 feet are in orange. Structures with a separation distance of greater than 50 feet are in yellow. In Berkeley many structures are less than 25 feet apart, which places the community in the highest risk category.
31 Map 13 demonstrates this risk with the
predominantly red coloring in Fire Zones 2 and 3. There are some orange and yellow structures sprinkled throughout Fire Zones 2 and 3, most often on the edges of the boundaries. The greatest patch of yellow structures is near the Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve on the Clark Kerr Campus of the University of California – Berkeley.

Page 88 of 422 ends

Page 160 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-69

Page 89 of 422 ends

Page 161 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-70

Hazardous Vegetation
Certain plant species, including native and non- native species, have characteristics that make them ignite readily and burn intensely contributing to wildfire risk. Characteristics may include being biologically prone to burn due to chemical composition, being difficult to maintain in a fire-resistant state, presenting challenges to routine maintenance, having high surface area to volume ratio, or being prone to rapid changes in moisture content in response to environmental conditions. While these characteristics make some plants more fire-hazardous, all plants can burn if they are dead, poorly maintained, or drought stressed.
32 Historically, the East Bay Hills ecosystem burned regularly. Researchers have proposed that under indigenous land management, fires due to both natural and anthropogenic ignitions occurred every 5- 15 years.
33 Fire is this ecosystem’s natural way of clearing
dead vegetation and maintaining forest health. Many California native plant species present in the East Bay Hills also need fire in order to reproduce.

Living in a fire-prone area means taking steps to mitigate risks while also recognizing that it’s infeasible to remove all of our vegetation. The mere presence of a certain fire hazardous species does not always mean it must be removed. Other factors, such as maintenance and placement, are more important than the plant itself. For property owners thinking about their own landscaping, it’s great to focus on California native or other pollinator friendly plants that require little water and are easy to maintain. However, “There are no published fire- wise or fir e-resistant plant lists that are science based or peer reviewed. Design and maintenance are more important than plant selection.” 34

Page 90 of 422 ends

Page 162 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-71

To protect life and property, the Berkeley Fire Department inspects all properties in the Very High Fire Danger Severity Zone for Defensible Space, which is the buffer created between a structure on your property and the grass, trees, shrubs, or other vegetation that surrounds it. This may include the removal of certain vegetation within 100 feet from any structure. These mitigation measures, along with home hardening, are the scientifically validated actions that have the most impact on reducing the ignition potential of homes. Failure to comply with recommendations results in citations and fines.

The City, often in collaboration with regional partners, works to remove and or clean up the understory of hazardous trees that are likely to burn and potentially impact people and infrastructure. For more information on these programs, review Element C: Mitigation Strategy.

Berkeley Overnight Camps
Since the 1920s, the City of Berkeley has operated three resident camps outside of the city limits: Echo Lake Camp, Berkeley Tuolumne Camp, and Cazadero Camp. The City owns the property at Cazadero and holds 30- year lease agreements with the United States Forest Service at Echo Lake Camp and Berkeley Tuolumne Camp. All three camps face significant wildfire risk because of their locations, topography, and dense fuel loads.

Two of the three camps have experienced federally -declared fires in the last 12 years.

See the section “Fires at Berkeley’s offsite overnight camps” for details.

Echo Lake Camp
The City of Berkeley has operated Echo Lake Camp since 1923. It is located on a ridge

Page 91 of 422 ends

Page 163 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-72

in the El Dorado National Forest a 15- minute walk from Echo Lake. The Camp provides a comfortable experience for family and youth campers boasting a view of Lake Tahoe, a swimming pool, delicious meals, archery, arts and crafts and easy access to miles of hiking trails.

Berkeley Tuolumne Camp
Berkeley Tuolumne Camp, located in Tuolumne County just outside of Yosemite National Park, has been operated by the City of Berkeley since 1922. Primarily operated as a family camp, it has also offered programs for teen leadership, special needs populations, seniors and private group rental opportunities.

Page 92 of 422 ends

Page 164 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-73

Cazadero Camp
The City of Berkeley has owned Cazadero Camp in Sonoma County since 1927. The 33- acre Cazadero Camp has been operated as a music camp for the past 60 years. In 2021, the City extended the Cazadero Performing Arts Camp’s lease for another 25 years. The Camp provides a dynamic music education program for young musicians ages 10- 18 including both summer camp music programs and JumpStart in Music, a low -cost weekend camp for school music programs.

B.3.c
Extent of Wildland Urban Interface Fire and Anticipated Intensities The extent and intensity of a WUI fire is closely tied to weather conditions and fuel moisture. Fires that ignite under periodic conditions of “Red Flag Warning” or “Extreme Fire Weather” may result in uncontrollable firestorms.

Red Flag Warning
The National Weather Service declares a “Red Flag Warning” when low humidity and high winds combine to elevate fire risk. In Berkeley, “Red Flag” weather generally presents as strong, hot, dry offshore winds (technically called “foehn” winds). These winds are known locally as “Diablo Winds” since they come from the north or northeast in the direction of Mount Diablo. “Diablo Winds” carry extremely dry air at high velocity, so they can quickly desiccate vegetation and other flammable materials and can push a fire down or up a slope with impressive speed.

Extreme Fire Weather

The Berkeley Fire Department has introduced the “Extreme Fire Weather” designation for

Page 93 of 422 ends

Page 165 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-74

extremely windy and dry conditions, under which many catastrophic California wildfires have occurred. Under Extreme Fire Weather, fires spread at extraordinary speeds and ember storms can ignite spot fires far ahead of the main flame front. These ember storms are also the primary cause of home ignitions.

Extreme Fire Weather forecasts are far more rare than Red Flag Warnings. Berkeley’s last forecasted Extreme Fire Weather was for two days in 2020 . In the same year , Berkeley was forecast to have 25 days under Red Flag Warning.

Although Extreme Fire Weather is still relatively rare, these weather conditions are associated with catastrophic fires. Exhibit 1 shows Red Flag conditions and Extreme Fire Weather conditions. Relative humidity is on the Y axis. Sustained winds are on the X axis.

As wind speeds increase and humidity decreases, conditions change first to Red Flag Weather and next to Extreme Fire Weather. The chart identifies five catastrophic fires that ignited under extreme fire weather conditions (all with very low relative humidity and most with sustained winds of 30+ mph). These fires are: the 2017 Atlas Peak Fire, the 2018 Camp (Paradise) Fire, the 2017 Thomas Fire, the 2017 Tubbs Fire, and the 1991 Tunnel Fire, which impacted Oakland and Berkeley. Based on reported conditions it is likely that the 2023 Maui Wildfire also started under Extreme Fire Weather conditions.

Page 94 of 422 ends

Page 166 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-75

Exhibit 10. Graphic X: Red Flag Weather, Extreme Fire Weather, and Catastrophic Fires

Fires that ignite during Red Flag Weather or Extreme Fire Weather can be difficult to contain. A WUI fire can move with devastating speed. In the 2018 North Bay Fires, the fire burned the equivalent of a football field every second. 35 During Extreme Fire Weather, when a fire builds to this magnitude and travels with such extreme speed and force, firefighters’ primary focus often shifts from firefighting to supporting evacuations. This is because during this type of weather, some normally - available firefighting tools can be ineffective or even unusable – like planes and helicopters, which need to be grounded during high winds.

The Berkeley Hills have narrow, windy roads that make evacuation difficult, which is why the Berkeley Fire Department recommends that people leave the hills during Extreme Fire Weather.

Page 95 of 422 ends

Page 167 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-76

While the ignition risk is highest in the Berkeley Hills, a wind- driven fire under Extreme Fire Weather can blow through the Berkeley flats, all the way to the Bay.

B.3.d Previous Wildland Urban Interface Fire Events
Catastrophic fires have occurred in the greater Bay Area in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022. Berkeley itself has significant WUI fire history, including the 2017 Grizzly Fire, the 1991 Tunnel Fire, and the 1923 Berkeley Fire. However, there have been no federally- declared wildfire disasters in Berkeley since the last update. 2017 Grizzly Fire
On August 5, 2017 a fire burned approximately 20 acres in the Berkeley and Oakland hills along Grizzly Peak Boulevard just north of South Park Drive. Nine agencies responded to the fire, with 150- 200 firefighters working many hours to extinguish it. The suspected cause of this fire was arson.
36 1991 Tunnel Fire
This fire in the Oakland/Berkeley hills started the day before as a vegetation fire in the drought-dried hills east of Oakland. It reignited and was whipped into firestorm proportions by 20- 30 mph winds, gusting to 60 mph. In minutes, the fire s pread to residential structures. While the fire burned a greater area in Oakland, it raged across city boundaries between Oakland and Berkeley, destroying entire neighborhoods in both cities and remaining out of control for more than 48 hours. 25 people died in this fire, most of them while trying to evacuate. This fire received a federal Major Disaster Declaration on October 22, 1991.

Page 96 of 422 ends

Page 168 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-77

1923 Berkeley Fire
The Berkeley Fire of 1923 began in the open lands of Wildcat Canyon to the northeast and, swept by hot September Diablo winds, penetrated residential north Berkeley. The fire burned downhill all the way to Shattuck Avenue in central Berkeley. A total of 130 built-up acres were burned, and about 4,000 people were made homeless. After this devastating fire, officials stated that the only reason that the fire stopped spreading was because the northeast wind stopped and the damp western wind took over. Fire officials at the time were certain that if the northeast wind had not stopped, the buildings would have burned all the way to the bay in Berkeley, and the fire would have devastated Emeryville and moved south and west into Oakland.
37 The fire destroyed 584 structures, including homes, apartments, fraternities and sororities, a church, a fire station and a libr ary. Wood shake roofs are cited as a large contributing factor in the spread of this fire.

Map 14 depicts in red the area burned by the 1923 fire, which stretches from East Bay Regional Parks to Shattuck Avenue. It also overlays the Diablo wind pattern indicated by black arrows to demonstrate how the fire could have spread into the Berkeley flatlands even more, if the wind direction had not changed. According to San Francisco Fire Department records, San Francisco sent engine companies to respond, reporting that one of the San Francisco engine companies “helped control a fire at the municipal dumps at the foot of Cedar Street.”
38 This indicates that there was a fire on the western edge of the City, where Cedar meets the waterfront (shown with a dot on Map 14) . It is possible that this dump fire was a concurrent but entirely unrelated event. However, there is a considerable likelihood that the fire at the Berkeley dump was ignited by embercast

Page 97 of 422 ends

Page 169 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-78

traveling from the main fire front, which was approximately 2 miles away. This phenomenon has precedent in more recent fires, such as the 2017 Tubbs Fire, during which embers traveled over a mile from the main front. Although wildfire is generally thought of as a problem limited to the Berkeley hills, this historical anecdote, alongside these more recent experiences, indicate the wildfire vulnerability of Berkeley’s flats.

Page 98 of 422 ends

Page 170 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-79

Page 99 of 422 ends

Page 171 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-80

Fires at Berkeley’s offsite overnight camps
• Berkeley Tuolumne Camp, located in Tuolumne County just outside of Yosemite National Park, was destroyed by the Rim Fire in August 2013. Since that time, the City has reconstructed the Camp. The Berkeley Fire Department WUI Division visited the Camp in 2023, mapping the area in order to plan future mitigation projects. Efforts like this will help to make the Camp more protected and defensible in the event of another wildfire.
• The Caldor Fire in August 2021 started 32 miles away from Echo Lake Camp, in El Dorado County in the El Dorado National Forest. On August 30, the front lines of the Caldor Fire reached Camp. The Berkeley Fire Department deployed its firefighters to defend the camp. For several days they engaged in active firefighting, at one point being forced to retreat from Camp due to the intensity of the fire approaching the property. Thankfully, firefighters were able to return to defend Camp and continued to engage in active firefighting until the threat had passed. While no Camp structures were significantly damaged, several neighboring private cabins less than 100 yards away were destroyed, and areas of the surrounding forest were burned. The fire burned on all sides of Camp, up to within feet of the Ridge Cabins, Recreation Lodge, and Camp Office, but when standing in the center of Camp, one might not know that a fire had threatened the property. Since the fire, City staff have assessed the status of trees and structures on the 15-acre property.

B.3.e
Probability of Future Events
Fire is a natural part of the California and East Bay wildland ecosystem, and they will continue to occur in the future. Calculating the probability of a future needs to consider both the likelihood of ignition and the likelihood of spread.

Likelihood of ignition
Historically and more recently, most fire ignitions have been due to human activity and electrical equipment. According to Cal Fire, of the top 20 most destructive California wildfires, three had “human related” causes, five were caused by powerlines, and three had electrical causes.
39

Page 100 of 422 ends

Page 172 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-81

Likelihood of spread
A significant WUI fire is one that will spread out of control. The likelihood of fire spread primarily relates to three factors: weather, fuel moisture, and the built environment.

Weather
A significant WUI fire is most likely to occur in Berkeley under Extreme Fire Weather conditions. In 2020, Berkeley was forecast to have 25 days under Red Flag Warning, with the Berkeley Fire Department declaring two of those forecasted days to qualify as Extreme Fire Weather. 2021, 2022, and 2023 were uncharacteristically mild, with one or zero Red Flag Warning days. Despite these mild years, we know that Berkeley will experience more fire weather in the years to come.

Climate change also creates more volatile weather patterns, extending fire season and wit
h it the number of days Berkeley is in Red Flag Warning or Extreme Fire Weather status.

Vegetative Fuel Moisture
The moisture content of live and dead vegetation is not in itself a weather element. It is a product, however, of the cumulative effects of past and present weather events and must be considered in evaluating the effects of current or future weather on fire potential. Fuel moisture content limits fire propagation. When moisture content is high, fires are difficult to ignite, and burn poorly if at all. With little moisture in the fuel, fires start easily, and wind and other driving forces may cause rapid and intense fire spread.

Climate change, which is ongoing, increases drought, reducing the moisture of vegetation and incr
easing its flammability.

Page 101 of 422 ends

Page 173 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-82

Built Environment
Fire spreads through manmade structures as well as vegetation. According to NIST, “structures represent a significant density of fuels that impact fire spread and, in many cases, directly contribute to the ignition of additional structures, propagating fire throughout the community.” The two primary fuel loads in the Berkeley hills are vegetation and the homes themselves. The “Locations of Wildland Urban Interface Fire” section above outlines how the density and close proximity of structures in the WUI area increase the likelihood of fire spread.

Most Berkeley homes were c
onstructed prior to modern home hardening (fire resistive) codes were put in place, leaving homes in this area vulnerable to ignition from embers, direct flame impingement, or radiant or convective heat. Additionally, the structures’ density and minimal separation distance, and proximity to dense vegetation and wooden fences will increase the rate of fire spread through the area. See “Location of Wildland Urban Interface Fire” for details.

B.3.f
Vulnerabilities
The entire City is vulnerable to WUI fires, as described in the historical outline of the 1923 fire. This section focuses on Berkeley’s areas of highest fire risk: Fire Zones 2 and 3, the hills areas.

People
32,109 number of people live in Berkeley Fire Zones 2 and 3. Wind driven, fast-moving fires are particularly dangerous for people, resulting in injuries and deaths from burns and smoke inhalation.

Page 102 of 422 ends

Page 174 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-83

Fires also contribute to poor air quality, which can impact people locally and far away, especially sensitive groups, including infants, young children, people with respiratory illnesses, and people who live or work outside.

Evacuation
All of the Berkeley Hills are marked by windy, narrow roads, which makes evacuation difficult. History demonstrates that residents in the path of a major fire will attempt to leave the area via private vehicles crammed with personal belongings. When there is a catastrophic fire or earthquake, emergency access and egress on overwhelmed residential roadways will be highly constrained. People trying to leave a dangerous condition will hinder emergency personnel trying to address it or trying to reach others who need help to leave.

Because of these challenges, the Berkeley Fire Department recommends that people leave t
he hills ahead of Extreme Fire Weather. Evacuation is particularly challenging for people with disabilities, people with access and functional needs, and seniors.

Of particular concern is Panoramic Hill. Panoramic Way is the only paved road into and out of this neighborhood. It forms a single loop, 12- 18’ w ide, that begins and ends just
south of Memorial Stadium. The street’s narrow width and hairpin turns make it barely accessible to fire apparatus, which are required to perform three- point-turns to ascend the Hill. Panoramic Way’s narrow width also means that at many points the road is not wide enough to allow vehicles to pass one another. Under normal conditions, vehicles responding to medical emergencies have been impeded by commercial vehicles, trash collection trucks, and illegally-parked personal vehicles. Further, an earthquake-induced

Page 103 of 422 ends

Page 175 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-84

landslide impacting Panoramic Way could also block any vehicles from entering or leaving the area. Panoramic Way could also block any vehicles from entering or leaving the area.

Structures
There are 8,603 parcels in Berkeley Fire Zones 2 and 3. A wildfire will quickly threaten homes and burn infrastructure. The intense heat associated with a firestorm can also deteriorate concrete and asphalt pavement, curbs, sidewalks, and drainage structures.

The “Locations of Wildland Urban Interface Fire” section above outlines how the density and close proximity of structures in the WUI area increase the vulnerability of structures in the area.

Map 15 presents the wildfire risk to structures in the Berkeley hills. It divides the area into 10-acre hexagon shapes, and ranks the risk to structures for each shape. Areas with high housing density and high wildfire hazard have the highest hazard rating. Map 5 shows that these areas are located on the Eastern border of the city, with most of them bordering Tilden Park. The very high hazard and high hazard hexagons are located in the Claremont Neighborhood, Southside, La Loma Park, and Berkeley Hills. The moderate hazard areas are in the same neighborhoods, and also approach Central Berkeley. 40

Page 104 of 422 ends

Page 176 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-85

Page 105 of 422 ends

Page 177 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-86

Systems
Many of the systems that Berkeley residents, visitors, businesses, institutions, and other partners rely on for day-to-day life are vulnerable to fire. The heat associated with fire can destroy or damage infrastructure that our utility, transportation, and communication systems rely on to operate. This includes aboveground wiring for electricity, telephone and cable lines that allow for communications, and poles for lights and street signals.

Fire can also damage and contaminate water systems, threatening public health and drinking water supplies.

Natural, historical, and culture assets
The City of Berkeley has a variety of natural, historical, and cultural assets spread throughout all Fire Zones. Fire Zone 1 has restaurants, arts and culture and organizations, community organizations, and other businesses that serve the Berkeley community. Fire Zone 3, the Panoramic Hill area, includes one of Berkeley’s most architecturally - significant residential districts, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places because of its association with the Arts and Crafts movement.

Fire Zone 3 includes a number of City parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities. The East Bay Regional Parks immediately to Berkeley’s east provide a variety of recreational activities for residents and visitors to enjoy.

Situated outside the City of Berkeley boundaries, the City’s overnight camps also provide the Berkeley community with a wide breadth of outdoor opportunities in some of California’s most beautiful natural settings.

Page 106 of 422 ends

Page 178 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-87

B.3.g Potential Impacts and Losses
Climate change is expected to increase the potential impacts and losses associated with wildland-urban interface fire. Expected changes in population patterns potentially increase impacts and losses associated with wildland- urban interface fire. As the population steadily increases, more people are exposed to the wildfire risk and the demands on the evacuation infrastructure. Changes in land use and development may potentially increase impacts and losses. New state laws are mandating increased density throughout the city, including in the eastern hills, which are more exposed to wildland- urban interface fire.

Previous wildfires in Berkeley provide some lessons on what the potential impacts and losses might be from a future event.

Impacts to human life
Twenty-five people died in the 1991 Tunnel Fire. Fortunately, there were no deaths in the 1923 Fire, Grizzly Fire, or at the Berkeley overnight camps during the Caldor Fire and Rim Fire. However, a catastrophic WUI fire occurring in Berkeley in the present day, considering Berkeley’s density of structures and considerable evacuation challenges, is more likely to see death tolls comparable to catastrophic fires like the 2018 Camp Fire, with 85 civilian deaths, and the 2023 Maui Fire, during which 101 people died.

Fires also have other devastating human impacts. For example, the 1923 Berkeley Fire made over 4,000 people homeless. Berkeley’s population has more than doubled since 1923, and the Bay Area is now in a housing crisis. This means that a repeat of the 1923 fire in the present day would destroy the homes of many more people, and also leave

Page 107 of 422 ends

Page 179 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-88

them without alternate local housing options.

Impacts to infrastructure
The 1923 fire was the most extensive WUI fire to impact Berkeley in recent history. This plan calculates losses that would occur if that fire were to recur today. A repeat of this fire would cause significantly more damage in Berkeley than the 1991 Tunnel fire.

The 1923 Berkeley Fire started in Wildcat Canyon to the northeast of the city and burned south and west down to Shattuck Avenue, stopping at the edge of UC Berkeley. Map 15 shows the area burned by this fire. The California Railroad Commission documented the burned area in 1923, three months after the fire. By superimposing this historical map onto the current day building data in Berkeley using the City’s Geographic Information System, we find that, today, there are 1,858 buildings located in the footprint of the 1923 fire. These structures include single-family homes, multi-family residences (many of which house UC Berkeley students), stores, restaurants, and offices central to downtown Berkeley.

If a fire occurred today that burned the same area, the loss to structures would be in the billions of dollars.
41 Efforts to stabilize hillsides after the fire to prevent massive landslides would also add costs.

While the financial losses from this scenario are staggering, the social impacts of such a fire would be devastating as well. Thousands of families would be homeless following such an event, losing all of their possessions. Many more would need short -term shelter while the fire was burning, and in the immediate aftermath. Residents and firefighters

Page 108 of 422 ends

Page 180 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-89

could be killed, especially in difficult -to-access areas. Local, independent businesses might disappear forever. A large portion of the city would need to be ent irely rebuilt. In short, the entire face of Berkeley would be completely changed.

B.3.h GFOA Analysis
According to the First Street Foundation, “there are 15,085 properties in Berkeley that have some risk of being affected by wildfire over the next 30 years. This represents 57% of all properties in Berkeley.” Exhibit 5 shows a wildfire risk map from First Street.

Exhibit 11. Wildfire Risk in Berkeley (according to the First Street Foundation)

Though the First Street data does help illuminate the potential of actual fires in the City of Berkeley, it does not address consequences of nearby fires, like smoke heavy enough severely impede daily life in Berkeley. Therefore, regional losses might be a more accurate indicator of the consequences of fires.

Even aside from smoke, fire risk in Berkeley is a function of more than fires the happen inside city boundaries. Fires in the region could still be relevant. Therefore, GFOA used data from Aon which provided the annual chance of a fire along with the size of a fire in both Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. This provides total economic loss potential in

Page 109 of 422 ends

Page 181 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-90

the region. Examining the two- county region provides a broader sense of total wildfire exposure. Having access to this “big picture” could be useful because, for example, the economic losses from smoke would impact Berkeley, even if the fire is not in or immediately adjacent to Berkeley. Unfortunately, wildfire loss data is not detailed enough, as of this writing, to accurately apportion economic losses to Berkeley versus other locales in the two-county area.

Exhibit 12. Loss exceedance curve for total economic losses in the two-county region, for both a 1 year and 10-year time horizon.

Chance Losses
will Exceed
Dollar Amount
on Horizontal
Axis

Time Horizon 5% 10% 50% 90%
1-Year $22M $6.5M NA* NA*
10-Year $462M $211M $18M NA*
*Not Applicable (NA) means that the loss exceedance curve intersects zero before this point. See the graph to see where the curve meets the vertical axis for the chance of

Page 110 of 422 ends

Page 182 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-91

losses exceeding zero.

This data does not factor in the impact of climate change, so the 10- year losses may be understated. Finally, the 1- year curve is far less visible then in some of the other loss exceedance curves for other risks. This is not because the 1- year risk is low; rather it is because the further we look out in the future, the better chance we have of experiencing the most extreme outcomes – outcomes that can be quite different from what is experienced in a single year.

B.4 Extreme Heat
B.4.a Description of Extreme Heat and Connection to Other Hazards According to Cal- Adapt, California’s database of climate information, multiple factors contribute to the extreme heat hazard:

Extreme heat days: An ex treme heat day is when temperatures reach the 98th percentile of historic maximum temperature. In Berkeley, an extreme heat day is a day above 88.3 degrees Fahrenheit (F).

Warm nights: A war m night in Berkeley is considered to be one that does not cool below

61.7 degrees F. Warm nights can increase health risks significantly, as people do not have the ability to cool down and recover.

Heat wave: When there are five or more days of extreme heat.

Duration of heat wave: Longer heat waves have proportionally more negative impacts

Page 111 of 422 ends

Page 183 ends

Final Draft 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan B-92

than shorter heat waves.

Extreme heat during unexpected times of year: When extreme heat occurs outside of historically hotter months.

Urban heat island effect
Extreme heat events can be further exacerbated by the urban heat island (UHI) effect , through which densely -built cities like Berkeley experience higher temperatures in comparison to surrounding more rural areas.

Factors contributing to the UHI effect include:
• A relative lack of vegetation;
• Reduced air flow;
• An abundance of hard, dark surfaces —such as buildings, streets, cars and sidewalks— which absorb heat rather than reflect it. These surfaces also slowly release that absorbed heat throughout the night, contributing to warmer nighttime temperatures.

The UHI effect can also worsen air quality (particularly ground- level ozone) in urban environments.42 The UHI effect increases heat-related illnesses and fatalities, particularly after two to three days of extreme heat.43
Vegetation helps mitigate the UHI effect through evaporative cooling. This makes urban tree cover, parks, and green roofs essential tools to combatting the UHI effect. Green roofs, cool roofs, and cool pavements (lig ht-colored materials that reflect , rather than absorb, solar energy) reduce the UHI effect, and can also lower cooling loads in buildings.

Urban vegetation and increased urban tree cover reduce temperatures and provide

Page 112 of 422 ends

Berkeley City CouncilMarch 18, 2025

Berkeley City Council
March 18, 2025