Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 1
AGENDA
BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, April 15, 2025
6:00 PM
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702
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/1617330038. 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: 161 733 0038 . 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 Rul es 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 meeti ng 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 legis lative 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 proceed ing.
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.
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 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 t he 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 f ewer unions wish to speak and up to three minutes per union if representatives of four or more unions wish to speak.
Tuesday, April 15, 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.
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. Proposed Amendments to the Building Emissions Saving Ordinance (BESO); Amending Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 19.81
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a second reading of Ordinance No. 7,953-N.S. amending the Building Emissions Saving Ordinance (BESO), Chapter 19.81 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, to establish a flexible resilience standard for small residential buildings containing up to four units.
First Reading Vote: All Ayes.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 4
2. Establishment of M-RD Zoning District, Associated General Plan and West Berkeley Plan Amendments, and Environmental Impact Report From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a second reading of Ordinance No. 7,957–N.S. amending Title 23 of the Berkeley Municipal Code and the Zoning Map to establish the Manufacturing, Research & Development (M-RD) zoning district to encourage redevelopment of the former Pacific Steel Casting (PSC) site.
First Reading Vote: All Ayes.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400
3. Police Accountability Board – Appointment of New Member From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution appointing a new member to the Police Accountability Board nominated by Vice-Mayor Bartlett.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900
4. Contract: University of California, San Francisco for Encampment Resolution Funding Research Evaluation
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract and any necessary amendments with The Regents of the University of California, on behalf of its San Francisco campus, to evaluate the success of its Encampment Resolution Funding Round 3 (ERF-3), for a term of two years (January 1, 2025 – December 31, 2026) and in an amount not to exceed $200,000.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Peter Radu, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000
5. Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on April 15, 2025
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Approve the request for proposals or invitation for bids (attached to staff report) that will be, or are planned to be, issued upon final approval by the requesting department or division. All contracts over the City Manager’s threshold will be returned to Council for final approval.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 5
6. Contract No. 32200086 Amendment: Crisis Services of Alameda County for Mental Health Crisis Line
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32200086 with Crisis Services of Alameda County for Mental Health Crisis Line services for a total contract not to exceed amount of $100,000 through June 30, 2028. This amendment will add $50,001, as well as extend the contract term three years.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400
7. Contract No. 32200191 Amendment: Options Recovery for Substance Use Disorder Services Co-Location
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32200191 with Options Recovery for Substance Use Disorder services for a total contract not to exceed amount of $1,000,000 through June 30, 2027. This amendment will add $500,000 and two years to the contract term.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400
8. Contract No. 32000177 Amendment NextRequest PRA Software From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000177 with NextRequest for software hosting, implementation, maintenance and related services for a Public Records Act Respons Software System, for an addtional amount not to exceed $61,098, for a total not to exceed value of $194,475, for the period commencong on July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2027.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Kevin Fong, Information Technology, (510) 981-6500
9. Purchase Order with Multiquip Inc. for a Portable Emergency Power Generator for Berkeley Tuolumne Family Camp
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution allowing the City to participate in Sourcewell contract bid procedures and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase order for one Multiquip Portable Generator and associated options with Multiquip Inc. in an amount not to exceed $116,766.
Financial Implications: General Fund - $116,766
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 6
10. Proclamation of the City of Berkeley Designating April 17 as Police Accountability Day
From: Police Accountability Board
Recommendation: Adopt a proclamation declaring April 17 as Police Accountability Day to honor the establishment of civilian oversight of law enforcement in the City of Berkeley through the founding of the Police Review Commission and to reaffirm the City’s commitment to police accountability and transparency. The proclamation encourages the Police Accountability Board and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability to collaborate with community organizations, educational institutions, and local leaders to organize events, initiatives, and activities that raise public awareness and promote engagement in police accountability. Additionally, the proclamation will reaffirm the City of Berkeley’s dedication to being a national leader in police accountability, advancing policies and practices rooted in justice, equity, and community trust.
Financial Implications: None
Contact: Hansel Aguilar, Police Accountability Board, (510) 981-4950
11a. Berkeley Police Department Texting Offences: An Independent Investigation by the Police Accountability Board (Reviewed by the Public Safety Policy Committee) (Item contains supplemental material)
From: Police Accountability Board
Recommendation: The Police Accountability Board formally recommends to the City Council that it:
1. Pass an ordinance or otherwise affirm the Police Accountability Board’s ability to access documents and records in furtherance of its central accountability function, consistent with Charter Amendment Section 125.
2. Adopt a robust resolution ensuring full and meaningful accountability for sworn officers—whether on-duty or off-duty—who engage in misconduct of any kind, but especially actions or expressions of racial or other types of bias.
3. Direct the City Manager to work with the Berkeley Police Department, Police Accountability Board, and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability to create a public repository to fulfill the vision of California Penal Code Section 832.7(b)(1), allowing for transparency in cases of sustained allegations of officer racism or other discriminatory conduct or expression.
4. Call on California state legislators to extend the prohibition on arrest quotas, which are currently limited to the California Vehicle Code (Section 41600 – 41603).
Policy Committee Recommendation: To send item to City Council with a negative recommendation.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Hansel Aguilar, Police Accountability Board, (510) 981-4950
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 7
11b. Resolution: Affirming Support for Berkeley Police Department, Police Accountability Board, and Office of the Director of Police Accountability in Response to Downtown Task Force Texting Offenses Investigation From: Councilmember Blackaby (Author)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution affirming our community’s support for the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) and acknowledging the work of the Police Accountability Board (PAB) & the Office of the Director of Police Accountability (ODPA) in investigating BPD’s Downtown Task Force texting offenses, ultimately making recommendations to increase trust, transparency, and accountability.
Additionally, the Resolution condemns any and all racism and misconduct, affirms the City Council’s opposition to arrest quotas, and asks the California Legislature to extend the prohibition on arrest quotas, which are currently limited to the California Vehicle Code.
Financial Implications: None
Contact: Brent Blackaby, Councilmember, District 6, (510) 981-7160
Council Consent Items
12. Referral to City Attorney for Sanctuary City Ordinance From: Mayor Ishii (Author), Councilmember Blackaby (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Taplin (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Referral to the City Attorney to return to City Council in June with an analysis and recommendation regarding the codification of Berkeley’s Sanctuary policies and protections through a city ordinance.
Financial Implications: None
Contact: Adena Ishii, Mayor, (510) 981-7100
13. Budget Referral: Ohlone Greenway Safety Improvements Project Unfunded Balance
From: Councilmember Kesarwani (Author)
Recommendation: Refer to the fiscal year 2025-26 budget process $150,000 to fund the outstanding balance for consultant costs to finalize the design concepts to complete the Ohlone Greenway Safety Improvements Project, which has already been awarded $5.3 million in construction funds to complete the project.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Rashi Kesarwani, Councilmember, District 1, (510) 981-7110
Council Consent Items
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 8
14. Establish Rules and Limits When Community-Based Organizations Receive City Funding Without Procurement to Promote Transparency, Fairness, and Stewardship of Public Funds (Reviewed by the Budget and Finance Policy Committee)
From: Councilmember Kesarwani (Author), Mayor Ishii (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Approve the Resolution and refer to the City Manager to establish an open and transparent process for community-based organizations seeking a grant of emergency funds outside of the City’s existing request for proposal (RFP) or other procurement processes. The process to be established should include the following components:
- Annual Funding Limit. Establish a maximum amount of $25,000 annually to be granted to a Berkeley-based non-profit or public organization, and a grand total of $225,000 annually to up to nine community-based organizations operating in Berkeley.
- “Declaration of Need” Form Available on a City Webpage. A Declaration of Need application form should be made available on a dedicated City webpage to ensure all community-based organizations have an equal opportunity to learn about the availability of funds, including the deadline for submitting the completed form. - Declaration of Need Form Should Require Documentation of Financial Need and Non-Profit Status (When Appropriate). The Declaration of Need form should be short to reduce the burden on community-based organizations but should include at a minimum a request to explain the purpose/need for the funds and document the organization’s financial need. In addition, the City should verify that the organization is a registered non-profit organization (if applicable). -Selection Process. The City Manager shall establish a process for selecting qualifying community-based organizations, including establishing a scoring criteria and submitting recommendations to Council as part of the annual budget development process. Pursuant to Budget and Finance Policy Committee discussion, to the extent practicable, consider awarding funds on a rolling basis to better support agencies who may be facing a fiscal emergency. -Financial Reporting Requirement for Selected Community-Based Organizations. For organizations selected to receive emergency funding of up to $25,000, the City shall enter into a contract that requests documentation at six months and 12 months to ensure that funds were used for the purpose for which they were requested. This financial reporting requirement should apply as soon as practicable to FY2024-25 budget allocations, and continue for future budget years.
Policy Committee Recommendation: To send the item to Council with a positive recommendation.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Rashi Kesarwani, Councilmember, District 1, (510) 981-7110
Council Consent Items
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 9
15. Celebración Cultural Sylvia Mendez (Spring Cultural Celebration) by the Sylvia Mendez School PTA: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds
From: Councilmember Bartlett (Author)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of funds, including $1,500 from the discretionary council office budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett, to the Sylvia Mendez Elementary School PTA to host a Spring Cultural Celebration event on April 27, 2025, on campus. The funds will be relinquished to the City’s General Fund from the discretionary council office budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett and the discretionary council office budgets of any other City Councilmembers who would like to contribute.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Ben Bartlett, Councilmember, District 3, (510) 981-7130
16. Resolution Commemorating April 24, 2025, as Berkeley Holocaust Remembrance Day
From: Councilmember Tregub (Author), Councilmember O'Keefe (Author), Councilmember Humbert (Author), Mayor Ishii (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution proclaiming April 24, 2025, as Holocaust Remembrance Day in the City of Berkeley, in memory of those who were murdered and in honor of the survivors as well as the rescuers and liberators; and committing to never forgetting the events of the Holocaust, actively working to combat antisemitism, racism, bigotry, and hatred in all forms, and promote human rights and dignity for all.
Financial Implications: None
Contact: Igor Tregub, Councilmember, District 4
17. Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds from General Funds and Grant of Such Funds to 2025 Virtual Holocaust Remembrance Day Program From: Councilmember Tregub (Co-Author), Councilmember O'Keefe (Co- Author), Councilmember Humbert (Co-Author), Mayor Ishii (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember from the D13 Discretionary Accounts of members of the Berkeley City Council, including $500 from Councilmember O’Keefe, $500 from Councilmember Tregub, $500 from Councilmember Humbert, and $500 from Mayor Ishii to support the City’s Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day program with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund.
The relinquishment of funds from Councilmembers O’Keefe, Tregub, Humbert and Mayor Ishii’s respective discretionary Council Office Budgets as well as any other members of the Berkeley City Council who would like to contribute, allows the City of Berkeley to invite the community to its 22nd Annual Holocaust Remembrance Day virtual program, created by the community with City Council support.
This year’s program will be held virtually on April 24, 2025.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Igor Tregub, Councilmember, District 4, (510) 981-7140
Council Consent Items
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 10
18. Resolution in Support of California Senate Bill 42 (Umberg, Allen) California Fair Elections Act of 2026 to Amend Sections 85300 and 85320 of the Government Code, relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974.
From: Councilmember Tregub (Author), Councilmember Blackaby (Co- Sponsor), Councilmember Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Taplin (Co-Sponsor)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution in support of California State Senate Bill 42 (Umberg, Allen) California Fair Elections Act of 2026 to Amend Sections 85300 and 85320 of the Government Code, relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974, which is moving through the legislature to appear on the California general election ballot on November 3rd, 2026; and distribute copies to the California Governor Gavin Newsom, Senator Jesse Arreguín, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, California Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire, and California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas to advocate for its passage.
Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Igor Tregub, Councilmember, District 4, (510) 981-7140
19. Budget Referral for Thousand Oaks Park Playground Update From: Councilmember O'Keefe (Author), Councilmember Humbert (Co- Sponsor)
Recommendation: Refer $80,000 to the June budget process (FY26 Mid-Biennial Update) for the completion of a new airplane themed play structure at Thousand Oaks Park, located at 1700-1780 Tacoma Avenue.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Shoshana O'Keefe, Councilmember, District 5, (510) 981-7150
20. Study: Sabbatical Leave for City of Berkeley Employees From: Councilmember Hahn (Author) (Reviewed by the Budget & Finance Policy Committee)
Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager study of a potential Sabbatical Leave policy for all City of Berkeley employees, modeled after the City’s existing agreements with several bargaining units.
Consult with labor partners and City employees to explore a variety of terms and options, and the costs/benefits of unpaid, partially paid, and paid Sabbatical Leaves.
Report findings to Council, outlining possible options and their financial impacts as well as potential benefits to recruitment, morale, longevity of tenure, and wellbeing.
Policy Committee Recommendation: Forward item to Council with a negative recommendation.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Sophie Hahn, Councilmember, District 5, (510) 981-7150
Council Consent Items
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 11
21. Music in the Elmwood Festival: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds
From: Councilmember Humbert (Author)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $1,000 per Councilmember including $1,000 from Councilmember Humbert to the Elmwood Business Association for the Music in the Elmwood Festival on Sunday, May 4, 2025 with funds relinquished to the City’s General Fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Councilmember Humbert and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Mark Humbert, Councilmember, District 8, (510) 981-7180
Information Reports
22. Age-Friendly Berkeley Update
From: City Manager
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400
23. Climate Action Plan and Resilience Update
From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400
24. Notice of Decision: 21 Mosswood Road/#LMIN2024-0007 From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400
25. Notice of Decision: 2138 Cedar Street/#LMSAP2024-0008 From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400
26. Notice of Decision: 2231 McKinley Avenue/#LMIN2024-0005 From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400
27. Notice of Decision: 2425 Durant Avenue/#LMIN2024-0008 From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400
28. Environment and Climate Commission 2025 Work Plan
From: Environment and Climate Commission
Contact: Sarah Moore, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-7400
29. Police Accountability Board Recommendation: Former Board Member Recognition
From: Police Accountability Board
Contact: Hansel Aguilar, Police Accountability Board, (510) 981-4950
Information Reports
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 12
30. City Auditor’s Office 2024 Peer Review Results
From: Auditor
Contact: Jenny Wong, Auditor, (510) 981-6750
Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda
Adjournment
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the act ion 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.
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 13
Attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various scents, whether natural or manufactured, in products and materials. Please help the City respect these needs.
Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B -TV, and on the Internet. In addition, assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available from the City 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 April 3, 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.
Item #13: Budget Referral: Ohlone Greenway Safety Improvements Project Unfunded Balance
1. Wahid Amiri
2. Clifford Fred
3. Carole Bennett-Simmons, Dave Drummond, and Mike Nettles on behalf of CHIA
Alternative Housing
4. Eric Taylor
5. Claire Heinzelman
6. David Freeling
7. George Torgun
8. Leigh Stewart, Iris Juan and Baby Theo from West Berkeley
9. Cameron Woo
10. Allan Abshez
11. Heather Clague
12. Vincent Casalaina
13. Russ Greene
14. Mallorie Baron
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 14
15. Claudia Kawczynska
16. Kristine Dixon
17. Alexander Stec
18. Stephen Born
19. Jane Franch
20. Monika Mann
21. Tom Stifler
22. Jan Ruchlis
23. Linda Zagula
24. Camille Antinori
25. Frako Loden
26. Erik Schmitt
27. Stephen Most
28. Catherine Born
29. Rebecca Herman
30. Diana Bohn
31. Julie Feldman
32. Jim Rosenau
33. David Levinson
34. Orion Fulton
35. Amy Hill
36. Charlene Washington
Encampments
37. Lj Cranmer
38. John Craner
39. Daniel Korson
40. Noami Friedman
Fire Concerns
41. Dr. Richard A. Laden
42. Marek z Jeziorek
43. Janet Stromberg
EMBER
44. Maureen Burke
45. Ruth Ehrenkrantz
46. Gary Croner
47. Scott Sacherer
48. Bruce Brody
49. Michael Downs
Resolution for Mahmoud Khalil
50. Emily Katz
51. Allen Barth
52. Jean Tepperman
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 15
53. Leah
54. Florence Viray
55. Ann-Marie Hogan
56. Summer Brenner
57. Gael Alcock
58. Juli Dickey
59. Linda Worthman
60. Lori Berlin
61. Paula Aiello
62. Lexine Alpert
63. Annie Alcott
64. Sasha Stahl
65. Farida Ibegazen
66. Janice Schroeder (2)
67. Rafael Jesus Gonzalez
68. Libby Sayre
69. Haiganoush Preisler
70. David Bacon
71. Michael Lonergan
72. Anita Medal
73. Kathleen Weaver
74. Wade Skeels
75. Hali Hammer
76. Jonah Gottlieb
77. Jaleh Niazi
78. Esfandiar Imani
79. Christopher Kroll
80. Phoebe Thomas Sorgen
81. Elana Auerbach
Proclamation to Honor
82. Jen Gall
SeeClickFix
83. Stefan Lasiewski
Oxford Elementary
84. Aimee Baldwin (4)
Proclamation Request
85. Lindsay Reynolds
The Tiger Trials
86. Myles Nye
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 16
Social Justice
87. Phoebe Thomas Sorgen
Work Concerns
88. Pgcountymd63 (2)
89. Paul Buddenhagen
Paratransit Concerns
90. Daveed Mandell (13)
Commercial Warehouse Space
91. David Lerman
Animal Control Officer Concern
92. Erika Jordan
Health Department
93. David Lerman
Shelter Concerns
94. Nikki Brown
Thank You
95. Kat Schaaf
Invitation
96. Martha Larsen
Household Hazardous Waste Disposal
97. David Lerman
98. Elana Auerbach
Berkeley Ferry Plan
99. Katherine Calvert
100. Maxwell Davis on behalf of the Sierra Club
Graffiti Concerns
101. Dahlia Frydman
Restaurant Week
102. Jeffrey Church on behalf of Visit Berkeley
Red Cross
103. Tim O’Brien (2)
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 17
San Francisco Bay Ecosystem
104. Charlene M. Woodcock
Legal Concern
105. Chris Bogado (2)
Peace and Justice Commission
106. Tom Luce
Berkeley Marina
107. Bill
108. Jim McGrath
109. Domond Lee
110. Gordon Stout (4)
111. Alean Daniel
112. Jack Morel
113. Ken Poulton
114. Andrew Sullivan
115. Kris Urban
116. Eugenia McCauley
117. Dave Spragg
118. Darren Bass
119. David Breaux
120. Dave Bloch
121. Marilee Allan
122. Mike Geranio
123. Margo Rey
124. Jeffrey Finn
125. John Hadley
126. Brice Chung
127. Kevin Graehl
128. Dave Gertler
129. Beatriz Quinones
130. Cheong-Tseng Eng
Willard Park
131. Mandie Caroll
132. Robert Abiad
133. Austin Abrams
134. Ellen Borjesson
135. Elizabeth Greene
136. Elizabeth Morris
137. Ashley Kayler
Infestation Concern
138. Andrew Graham
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 18
Traffic Concern
139. Wahid Amiri
140. Erin Burfield
141. Barbara Gilbert
Bike Plan
142. Michael Frantz
143. Christopher Hamilton (2)
Adeline Landscape Improvement
144. Markus Feyh
Government Concerns
145. Kellie Stoddart (2)
Paw Fund
146. Paw Fund
E-Scooter
147. Robert Byler (3)
148. Videth Ok (2)
149. Robert Borghese (4)
150. Lucas Miller
Daylighting Laws
151. Sandra Sanchez (2)
152. Kait Kolacy
153. Shirley Kirsten (2)
Public Restroom
154. Hannah Karpilow
155. Alex S. Merenkov
156. Aimee Baldwin (2)
Middle Housing
157. John Minot-Schwartz on behalf of East Bay for Everyone and East Bay YIMBY 158. Maxwell Davis on behalf of the Sierra Club
Police Action
159. Inetjalopy (4)
Surveillance System at CVS
160. Curtis Walters
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 19
DBA Annual Meeting
161. John Craner (2)
Ashby BART
162. Friends of Adeline
Dark Sky and Pollinators/Habitat
163. Carol Hirth
Hybrid Shelter
164. Claudia Kawczynska
Bicycle Count
165. Kelly Hammargren
Richmond Bridge
166. Lucas Miller (2)
Housing Concern
167. Bingo Fantasy Football
168. Eid
ICE Concerns
169. Russbumper
Middle East Conflict
170. Miya Frick
171. Ibegazen Farida
172. Dorothea Dorenz (2)
173. Martha Staskawicz
174. Kyla Danysh
175. Barbara Erickson (2)
176. Russbumper
Forwards
177. Josh Atwood
178. Eid (2)
179. Margot Smith
Screenshots
180. Josh Atwood (5)
URL’s
181. Russbumper (25)
182. Josh Atwood (2)
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 AGENDA Page 20
Supplemental Communications and Reports
Items received by the deadlines for submission will be compiled and distributed as follows. If no items are received by the deadline, no supplemental packet will be compiled for said deadline.
• Supplemental Communications and Reports 1
Available by 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the meeting.
• Supplemental Communications and Reports 2
Available by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting.
• Supplemental Communications and Reports 3
Available by 5:00 p.m. two days following the meeting.
Ordinance No. 7,953-N.S. Page 1 of 10
ORDINANCE NO. 7,953-N.S.
AMENDMENTS TO THE BUILDING EMISSIONS SAVING ORDINANCE; AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 19.81
CHAPTER 19.81
BUILDING EMISSIONS SAVING
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code 19.81.010 is amended to read as follows:
19.81.010 - Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to reduce energy use, water consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions in existing buildings, to increase the resilience of these buildings, and to promote public health. These improvements will increase comfort, safety and health for building occupants, transition buildings away from the use of fossil fuels, and may lower energy and water costs. The provisions of the ordinance will inform decision makers about energy, emissions, and resilience performance and improvement opportunities.
Section 2. That Berkeley Municipal Code 19.81.030 is amended to read as follows:
19.81.030 - Definitions.
A. "Administrator" means the Director of Planning and Development or their designee.
B. "Building Owner" means the owner of record of a building. In the case of a building held in cooperative or condominium form of ownership, the term "Building Owner" shall also refer to the board of managers, board of directors, homeowners association, or other representative body of the jointly-owned building with authority to make decisions about building assessments and alterations.
C. "Building Energy Score" means a measurement of how efficiently a building uses energy and/or water based on modeled simulations or actual energy use of the building over time compared to similar buildings, which can be in the form of a performance score, asset score or other comparable metric that meets standards and formats established by the Administrator.
D. “Credits” means a numerical value based on the improved resilience, emissions savings, cost, or other measured benefit associated with a Resilience Upgrade.
E. “Dwelling Unit” means a single unit providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.
01
Ordinance No. 7,953-N.S. Page 2 of 10
F. "Electrification" means the transition of building systems and appliances away from natural gas to electricity as the source of energy.
G. "Energy Report" means a report submitted by a Registered Service Provider that identifies existing conditions, opportunities for water and energy efficiency in a building, opportunities to transition off fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and available incentives and financing, as well as any applicable Building Energy Score, in accordance with the standards and formats established by the Administrator.
H. "ENERGY STAR Performance Report" means an ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager Benchmark report generated by the online tool developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that determines energy use intensity and an Energy Star Performance Score for a building based on utility usage data.
I. "Resilience Upgrade" means the installation or completion of recommended measure(s) that improve the building’s energy efficiency, increases the building’s resilience, supports the transition off fossil fuels, and/or decreases the building’s greenhouse gas emissions.
J. "Extensive Renovation" means any project that replaces all building space heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment and replaces at least half of the building envelope, in accordance to standards established by the Administrator.
K. "Green Building Rating" means an approved rating by a green building verification system consistent with standards identified by the Energy Efficiency Standardization Coordination Collaborative (EESCC) of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), including, but not limited to the following: Build It Green (BIG) GreenPoint Rated Existing Building; US Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Existing Building Operation and Maintenance (USGBC LEED-EBOM); Passive House Institute (PHI) Certified Passive House and EnerPHit; Passive House Institute US (PHIUS) PHIUS+ Certified Project; and the International Living Future Institute Zero Net Energy Building and Living Building Challenge Certification; or any other rating demonstrating approved levels of energy efficiency, as determined by the Administrator.
L. "Gross Floor Area" means the total size, as measured between the principal exterior surfaces of the enclosed fixed walls of the building(s). This includes all areas inside the building(s) such as: occupied tenant areas, common areas, meeting areas, break rooms, restrooms, elevator shafts, mechanical equipment areas, and storage rooms. Gross Floor Area should not include interstitial plenum space between floors, which may house pipes and ventilation.
M. "Large Building" means any building with 25,000 square feet or more of Gross Floor Area.
N. "Medium Building" means any building with between 15,000 and 24,999 square feet of Gross Floor Area, excluding 1 to 4 Unit Residential Buildings.
O. "Real Estate Listing" means any listing of a building for sale in the City of Berkeley. "Real Estate Listings" include listing a building for sale by a property owner or by a
Ordinance No. 7,953-N.S. Page 3 of 10
licensed agent. "Real Estate Listings" include any printed advertisement, internet posting, or publicly displayed sign, including but not limited to Regional Multiple Listing Service, Redfin, Zillow, Trulia and other third party listing services.
P. "Registered Service Provider" means an entity that has been registered by the Administrator to provide an Energy Report and/or Building Energy Score as required by this ordinance.
Q. “Resilience Upgrade Payment” means a monetary charge, as defined in Article XIII C, section 1(e)(5) of the California Constitution, that is imposed by the City on the seller as a result of the seller not complying with the seller’s legal obligation to obtain a BESO Certificate of Compliance prior to transfer of title.
R. "1 to 4 Unit Residential Building" means any building comprised of solely 1 to 4 Dwelling Units, regardless of size. For the purpose of determining which buildings constitute a 1 to 4 Unit Residential Building subject to this Chapter, an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as defined in Chapter 23.502 of this Code is not a Dwelling Unit.
S. "Small Building" means any building with less than 15,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area, excluding 1 to 4 Unit Residential Buildings.
T. "Transfer" means the conveyance of title to real property, excluding condominiums as defined in California Civil Code Section
1351(f), as a result of the execution of a real
property sales contract as defined in Section 2985 of the California Civil Code as well as any change of ownership described in subdivision (c) of Section 61 and subdivision (c) of Section 64 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. "Transfer" does not include transfer of title pursuant to inheritance, involuntary transfer of title resulting from default on an obligation secured by real property, change of title pursuant to marriage or divorce, condemnation, or any other involuntary change of title affected by operation of law.
Section 3. That Berkeley Municipal Code 19.81.040 is amended to read as follows:
19.81.040 – Large Buildings.
A. Annual ENERGY STAR Performance Report. Owners of Large Buildings shall submit to the Administrator an ENERGY STAR Performance Report on an annual basis in accordance with the phase-in schedule below and no later than July 1 each year thereafter.
B. Energy Report. Owners of Large Buildings shall have a Registered Service Provider prepare and submit to the Administrator an Energy Report as specified in the phase-in schedule below and by July 1 every five years thereafter.
C. Disclosure. The most recent ENERGY STAR Performance Report and a summary version of the most recent Energy Report including a Building Energy Score, when available, shall be made publicly available by the Administrator and shall be provided by the Building Owner to existing lessees and to prospective lessees and buyers prior to execution of a lease or contract for sale.
Ordinance No. 7,953-N.S. Page 4 of 10
D. Phase-in and Reporting Cycle Schedule. Owners of Large Buildings shall be in compliance with the requirements of this section by the dates specified below.
1. July 1, 2018 for buildings with 50,000 or more square feet of Gross Floor Area, with an annual ENERGY STAR Performance Reporting cycle and a 5 year Energy Report reporting cycle thereafter.
2. July 1, 2019 for buildings with 25,000 or more square feet of Gross Floor Area with an annual ENERGY STAR Performance Reporting cycle and a 5 year Energy Report reporting cycle thereafter.
E. Evaluate and Recommend Resilience Upgrades Requirements. The Administrator of this Chapter shall develop recommendations for Resilience Upgrade requirements for Large Buildings based on building performance that are consistent with requirements of State and Federal law. The Administrator shall identify incentives, rebates or other compliance resources to off-set the costs of the Resilience Upgrade requirements. The Administrator shall then report the proposed Resilience Upgrade requirements for Large Buildings to the City Council for consideration.
Section 4. That Berkeley Municipal Code 19.81.050 is amended to read as follows:
19.81.050 – Medium and Small Buildings.
A. Annual ENERGY STAR Performance Report. Owners of Medium Buildings shall submit to the Administrator an ENERGY STAR Performance Report on an annual basis as of July 1, 2021, and no later than July 1 each year thereafter.
B. Energy Report. Owners of Medium and Small Buildings shall have a Registered Service Provider prepare and submit to the Administrator an Energy Report:
1. Prior to the Real Estate Listing of the building for sale; or
2. Within 6 months of a lender having acquired title due to foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure.
The requirement at time of Real Estate Listing may be transferred to the buyer and deferred for 6 months under the provisions of Section 19.81.090.B of this Chapter.
C. Disclosure. All compliance documentation, including the most recent ENERGY STAR Performance Report, if applicable, a deferral or a summary version of the most recent Energy Report including a Building Energy Score, when available, shall be made publicly available by the Administrator and shall be provided by the Building Owner to existing lessees and prospective lessees, to all licensed real estate agents working on the seller’s behalf, and to prospective buyers who visit the building while it is listed publicly for sale.
D. Evaluate and Recommend Resilience Upgrades Requirements. The Administrator of this Chapter shall develop recommendations for Resilience Upgrade requirements for
Ordinance No. 7,953-N.S. Page 5 of 10
Small and Medium Buildings based on building performance that are consistent with State and Federal law. The Administrator shall identify incentives, rebates or other compliance resources to off-set the costs of the Resilience Upgrade requirements. The Administrator shall then report the proposed Resilience Upgrade requirements for Small and Medium Buildings to the City Council for consideration. Section 5. That Berkeley Municipal Code
19.81.060 is amended to read as follows:
19.81.060 – 1 to 4 Unit Residential Buildings.
A. Resilience Standard. When a 1 to 4 Unit Residential Building is Transferred, the property being Transferred shall achieve a required number of Credits, as determined by the Administrator, by undergoing Resilience Upgrades.
B. Energy Report. Owners of 1 to 4 Unit Residential Buildings shall have a Registered Service Provider prepare and submit to the Administrator an Energy Report:
1. Prior to the Real Estate Listing of the building for sale; or
2. Within 6 months of a lender having acquired title due to foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure.
In the event the Building Owner fails to complete the Energy Report, an administrative fee, which is set forth in Section 19.81.120 of this code, shall be charged to cover staff time required to assist the buyer with compliance in the absence of the Energy Report.
C. BESO Certificate of Compliance. Upon submittal of documentation verifying that a Building Owner has achieved the required number of Resilience Upgrade credits, as determined by the Administrator, the Administrator shall issue a BESO Certificate of Compliance. A BESO Certificate of Compliance shall expire 5 years after issuance.
D. Seller Obligation at Time of Transfer. Prior to Transfer, seller shall obtain a BESO Certificate of Compliance for the subject property. If the seller fails to obtain a BESO Certificate of Compliance before Transfer, the seller must make a Resilience Upgrade Payment to the City of $2,500.
E. Buyer Obligation at Time of Transfer. A buyer who purchases a property that has not obtained a BESO Certificate of Compliance by the date of Transfer shall obtain a BESO Certificate of Compliance within two years of Transfer (“Buyer Compliance Period”), which may be extended up to one year at the discretion of the Administrator. Buyer shall, within ten days of Transfer, deposit funds with the City in an amount of $2,500 (“Buyer’s Deposit”) and must execute and deliver to the Administrator or their designee a binding agreement in a form acceptable to the City providing that any funds deposited with the City shall be forfeited and transferred to the City if a BESO Certificate of Compliance for the subject property has not been obtained upon the expiration of the Buyer Compliance Period.
1. If a BESO Certificate of Compliance for the subject property is obtained prior to the expiration of the Buyer Compliance Period, then the buyer shall recoup the
Ordinance No. 7,953-N.S. Page 6 of 10
Buyer’s Deposit in full, as well as the Resilience Upgrade Payment made by the seller.
2. If a BESO Certificate of Compliance for the subject property was not obtained prior to the expiration of the Buyer Compliance Period, then the Buyer’s Deposit will be forfeited to the City unless the buyer (i) can show that one or more of the conditions in Section 19.81.090 has been met, or (ii) petitions for an additional extension of the Buyer Compliance Period pursuant to subparagraph 3.
3. The buyer may be granted an additional extension of the Buyer Compliance Period if they can show that special circumstances, such as delays due to utility capacity or equipment supply chains or delays required to minimize disruptions to tenants, warrant an additional extension of a reasonable amount of time.
4. If the BESO Certificate of Compliance was not obtained after the expiration of the Buyer’s Compliance Period and any extensions, then the forfeited Buyer’s Deposit and Resilience Upgrade Payment funds shall be used by the City for local low-income building upgrade programs, such as the Climate Equity Fund or Just Transition Residential Electrification Programs.
F. Appeals.
1. After the expiration of the Buyer Compliance Period, notice shall be mailed to the buyer of (i) the expiration of the Buyer Compliance Period and the forfeiture of the Buyer’s Deposit under BMC 19.81.060(E)(2) and (ii) the opportunity to appeal.
The cost of notice shall be deducted from the deposit made pursuant to BMC
19.81.060(E).
2. Within 14 calendar days of mailing of forfeiture notice, the buyer may appeal the forfeiture.
a. An appeal shall be submitted to the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee in writing and must state all of the reasons for the appeal. b. Appeal fees shall be paid by the person filing the appeal (the appellant).
3. Where a timely appeal has been filed, the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee shall, within 14 calendar days, set the appeal for a hearing before a Hearing Officer to be designated by the City Manager.
4. At the appeal hearing, the Hearing Officer may: (i) continue the public hearing; or (ii) reverse, affirm, or modify the decision of the prior review authority.
5. The Hearing Officer shall serve a written decision upon the appellant within 14 calendar days of the hearing, and shall send a copy to the Administrator and the City Manager. The Hearing Officer’s decision shall be final when mailed.
G. Disclosure. All compliance documentation, including a summary version of the most recent Energy Report including a Building Energy Score and the Resilience Standard
Ordinance No. 7,953-N.S. Page 7 of 10
compliance status shall be made publicly available by the Administrator and shall be provided by the Building Owner to existing lessees and prospective lessees, to all licensed real estate agents working on the seller’s behalf, and to prospective buyers who visit the building while it is listed for sale. The Building Energy Score shall be included in all Real Estate Listings and a URL link to the Energy Report included if links are supported by the listing service.
H. Phase-in. Owners of 1 to 4 Unit Residential Buildings shall comply with the requirements of this section starting on the dates specified below. These buildings shall be treated as Small Buildings until their phase-in date.
1. January 1, 2026 for 1 to 4 Unit Residential Buildings containing one or two residential units.
2. January 1, 2028 for 1 to 4 Unit Buildings containing three or four residential units.
I. Responsibilities. Except as otherwise provided or as allowed by the Administrator, the Building Owner is responsible for compliance with this Section. The seller of any real property shall be responsible for disclosing to prospective buyers the requirements of this Section and the compliance status of the real property in question. Upon transfer of ownership, the buyer will be responsible for the compliance with this Section, regardless of any disclosure or failure to disclose.
Section 6. That Berkeley Municipal Code 19.81.090 is amended to read as follows:
19.81.090 – Exceptions, Deferrals and Extensions.
A. High Performance Exemption. Exemptions from the Energy Report requirements for current reporting periods may be granted to buildings that demonstrate effective and reasonably achievable level of efficiency, electrification of building systems and appliances, and/or emissions reduction that support Berkeley’s commitment to become a Fossil Fuel Free City and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. Qualified exemptions shall include, but are not limited to:
1. Any Large Building that receives a Building Energy Score or Green Building Rating that demonstrates an effective and reasonable level of efficiency, as determined by the Administrator.
2. Any building, except for 1 to 4 Unit Residential Buildings, that completes a multi- measure energy improvement project with a verified minimum improvement, as determined by Administrator.
3. Any whole building that has been served by an income-qualified Weatherization Assistance program for low-income households.
4. Any new building or Extensive Renovation, except for 1 to 4 Unit Residential Buildings, with a construction completion date within ten years of the reporting deadline.
Ordinance No. 7,953-N.S. Page 8 of 10
5. Any building that has electrified all building systems and appliances and capped all gas lines to the building.
B. Deferral at Time of Real Estate Listing. The requirements for compliance with the Energy Report requirement prior to the Real Estate Listing of a Small or Medium Building may be deferred from the seller to the buyer, and any subsequent buyers, for a period of 6 months after the original sale date. A request to defer responsibility to the buyer must be submitted to the administrator prior to the listing of the building. The deferral shall include information on the fuel source for each end use in the building and any current or future electrification requirements and incentives.
C. Distressed Sale Extension. A 6-month extension may be granted to a buyer of a building purchased from a lender following default or transfer by deed in lieu of foreclosure.
D. Hardship Deferral. The requirement for an ENERGY STAR Performance Report, an Energy Report, or the Resilience Standard may be deferred in cases of financial hardship where one of the following is provided by the Building Owner and approved by the Administrator:
1. Proof of participation in an income qualified energy assistance program, administered through the State of California or the local energy utility.
2. Proof of approved participation in Property Tax Postponement or Property Tax Assistance for Senior Citizens, Blind or Disabled, or equivalent program as determined by Administrator.
3. Proof that the property qualifies for sale at public auction or acquisition by a public agency due to arrears for property taxes, within two years prior to the due date of the Energy Report.
4. Proof that a court appointed receiver is in control of the asset due to financial distress.
5. Proof that the senior mortgage is subject to a notice of default.
6. Proof that the responsible party is otherwise not able to meet the obligations of this Chapter.
Deferrals under this Section are granted to the Building Owner and are not transferable with a building sale, at which time compliance with this Chapter shall be required.
E. Data Unavailable. An exemption from ENERGY STAR Performance Report requirement for any current reporting period may be granted if:
1. The Building Owner demonstrates to the Administrator that they have been unable to obtain tenant authorization to obtain tenant utility data, despite a good faith effort to obtain such consent, or
Ordinance No. 7,953-N.S. Page 9 of 10
2. The building occupant demonstrates to the Administrator that such disclosure may result in the release of proprietary information which can be characterized as a trade secret, or
3. Any person subject to the requirements of this Chapter demonstrates to the Administrator that submission of an ENERGY STAR Performance Report would conflict with the requirements of State or Federal law.
F. Deferral for Planned Demolition or Extensive Renovation. The requirements of this Chapter may be deferred for 24 months if the owner or buyer has obtained a Building Permit, Demolition Permit, or Permit under the Zoning Ordinance that includes demolition or Extensive Renovation of the subject building.
Deferrals under this Section are granted to the Building Owner and are not transferable with a building sale, at which time compliance with this Chapter shall be required.
G. Exemption for Sale of a Condominium. The requirements to submit an Energy Report with an Energy Benchmark to the Administrator shall not apply to any sale of a residential or commercial condominium that is a unit within a building and not a detached structure.
H. Low Energy Use Deferral. Buildings with low energy use based on energy billing data comparing a building to similar efficient buildings or because of operations specific to their building use, such as institutions that operate less than three days a week, may be granted a Low Energy Use deferral for the current compliance cycle.
Deferrals under this Section are granted to the Building Owner and are not transferable with a building sale, at which time compliance with this Chapter shall be required.
I. Exemption for Long-Term Tenancy under Rent Control. The requirements of this Chapter for any building which is subject to rent control in which all of the units, excluding any owner-occupied units, have leases that date prior to January 1, 1999 may be deferred until the next reporting period.
J. Unconditioned Floor Area Reclassification. The size classification of a building may be reduced by the Administrator to exclude physically separated floor area that is not served by heating, ventilation or cooling equipment.
K. Recent Resilience Upgrades. Buildings that completed the requisite number of Resilience Upgrades, as determined by the Administrator, within the last 5 years may obtain a BESO Certificate of Compliance if the Building Owner submits sufficient proof to the Administrator.
L. Heat Pump System Exemption. 1 to 4 Unit Residential Buildings in which all units being transferred are completely served by at least one electric heat pump system or electric equivalent, as determined by the administrator, may obtain a BESO Certificate of Compliance. The Energy Report shall provide confirmation for this exemption.
M. Early Refund Exception . Owners of 1 to 4 Unit Residential Buildings may apply for early remittance of the Buyer’s Deposit and Resilience Upgrade Payment prior to
Ordinance No. 7,953-N.S. Page 10 of 10
completion of the Resilience Upgrades upon demonstration that the owner has obtained building permits for the requisite Resilience Upgrades and supplied sufficient evidence that the Resilience Upgrades will be completed, as determined by the Administrator. If the application for an early refund is approved, the City will refund the funds deposited pursuant to BMC 19.81.060(E) to the owner so that the owner may complete the Resilience Upgrades. Once the requisite Resilience Upgrades are complete, the Owner must obtain a BESO Certificate of Compliance. In the event the property owner fails to complete the requisite Resilience Upgrades within the Buyer Compliance period, an administrative citation shall be charged, which fee is set forth in Section 19.81.140 of this code.
N. First-Time Homebuyer Exemption. Buyers of 1 to 4 Unit Residential Buildings participating in an approved local, State, or Federal income-qualified first-time home buyer program or down payment assistance program are exempt from the Resilience Standard requirements of this chapter.
Section 7. These amendments to Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 19.81 shall become effective on January 1, 2026.
Section 8.
Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on March 25, 2025, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:
Ayes: Bartlett, Blackaby, Humbert, Kesarwani, Lunaparra, O’Keefe, Taplin, Tregub, and Ishii.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 1 of 26
ORDINANCE NO. 7,957-N.S.
AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAP CHAPTER (BMC 23.108), MANUFACTURING DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC 23.206), SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS (BMC 23.302), PARKING AND LOADING (BMC
23.322) AND ADDITION TO THE MANUFACTURING DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC.23.206) TO ESTABLISH THE M-RD
MANUFACTURING, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Section 1. That Table 23.108-1 Zoning Districts within BMC Chapter 23.108.020 is amended to read as follows:
Table 23.108-1: Zoning Districts
DISTRICT
SYMBOL NAME OF DISTRICT
Residential Districts
R-1 Single-Family Residential
R-1A Limited Two-family Residential
ES-R Environmental Safety Residential
R-2 Restricted Two-family Residential
R-2A Restricted Multiple-family Residential
R-3 Multiple-family Residential
R-4 Multi-family Residential
R-5 High Density Residential
R-S Residential Southside
R-SMU Residential Southside Mixed Use
R-BMU Residential BART Mixed Use
Commercial Districts
02
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 2 of 26
DISTRICT
SYMBOL NAME OF DISTRICT
C-C Corridor Commercial
C-U University Avenue Commercial
C-N Neighborhood Commercial
C-E Elmwood Commercial
C-NS North Shattuck Commercial
C-SA South Area Commercial
C-T Telegraph Avenue Commercial
C-SO Solano Avenue Commercial
C-DMU Downtown Mixed-Use
C-W West Berkeley Commercial
C-AC Adeline Corridor Commercial
Manufacturing Districts
M Manufacturing
MM Mixed Manufacturing
MU-LI Mixed Use-Light Industrial
MU-R Mixed Use-Residential
M-RD Manufacturing, Research and
Development
Special Districts
S Specific Plan
U Unclassified
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 3 of 26
Section 2. That Table 23.206-1 within BMC Section 23.206.020(A) be amended to read:
TABLE 23.206 1: ALLOWED LAND USES IN MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS Manufacturing Districts
ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
-- = Permitted with an AUP, see
23.206.020(B)
NP = Not Permitted
[#] = Floor Area Permit Requirement
* Use-Specific Standards Apply
M MM MU-LI MU-R M-RD
Use-Specific Standards
Applies to uses with an asterisk following the permit
requirement (e.g., ZC*)
Residential Uses
Accessory Dwelling Unit NP NP NP See
23.306 NP
Dwellings
Single-Family NP NP NP AUP* NP 23.206.090(B)(8)
Multi-Unit Residential NP NP NP ZC* NP 23.206.090(B)(7)&(8) Group Living
Accommodation NP NP NP UP(PH)* NP 23.206.090(B)(8)
Hotel, Residential NP NP NP NP NP
Mixed-Use Residential NP NP NP UP(PH)* NP 23.206.090(B)(8)&(9) Senior Congregate
Housing NP NP NP See 23.310 NP
Public and Quasi-
Public Uses
Child Care Center NP NP AUP* UP(PH)* AUP* 23.206.040(C)&(D) Cemetery/Crematory/Ma
usoleum NP NP NP NP NP
Club/Lodge UP(PH)* UP(PH)* UP(PH)* UP(PH) UP(PH)* 23.206.040(F) Columbaria NP NP NP – NP
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 4 of 26
Manufacturing Districts
ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
-- = Permitted with an AUP, see
23.206.020(B)
NP = Not Permitted
[#] = Floor Area Permit Requirement
* Use-Specific Standards Apply
M MM MU-LI MU-R M-RD
Use-Specific Standards
Applies to uses with an asterisk following the permit
requirement (e.g., ZC*)
Community Care Facility NP NP NP ZC* NP 23.206.090(B)(3) Community Center NP NP NP UP(PH) NP
Emergency Shelter NP NP NP – NP
Hospital NP NP NP NP NP
Library NP NP NP UP(PH) NP
Low Barrier Navigation
Center NP NP NP ZC NP
Mortuaries and
Crematories NP NP NP UP(PH)* NP 23.206.090(B)(6)
Municipal Animal Shelter UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) – UP(PH)
Nursing Home NP NP NP UP(PH) NP
Park/Playground NP NP NP UP(PH)* NP 23.206.040(C)
Public Safety and
Emergency Service UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
Public Utility
Substation/Tank UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
Religious Assembly NP NP NP UP(PH) NP
School NP NP NP UP(PH)* NP 23.206.040(C)
School, Vocational NP NP ZC* [1] UP(PH) ZC* [1] 23.206.040(Q) Supportive Housing NP NP NP ZC* NP 23.302.070(I)- Supportive Housing Retail Uses
Alcoholic Beverage
Retail Sale NP NP UP(PH)*
[2] NP * NP 23.206.080(B)(3); 23.206.090(B)(2);
23.310
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 5 of 26
Manufacturing Districts
ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
-- = Permitted with an AUP, see
23.206.020(B)
NP = Not Permitted
[#] = Floor Area Permit Requirement
* Use-Specific Standards Apply
M MM MU-LI MU-R M-RD
Use-Specific Standards
Applies to uses with an asterisk following the permit
requirement (e.g., ZC*)
Firearm/Munitions
Business NP NP NP NP NP
Industrial and Mining
Products AUP [2] AUP [2] AUP [4] NP NP
Pawn Shop/Auction
House NP NP NP NP NP
Pet Store NP NP – NP NP NP
Retail, General NP NP AUP* AUP* [3] AUP* 23.206.040(G); 23.206.090(B)(4) Smoke Shop NP NP NP NP NP
Personal and
Household Service
Uses
Personal and Household
Services, General NP NP NP AUP NP
Kennels and Pet
Boarding NP NP NP UP(PH) NP
Laundromats and
Cleaners NP NP NP AUP NP
Veterinary Clinic NP NP NP UP(PH) NP
Video Tape/Disk Rental NP NP NP NP NP
Office Uses
Business Support
Services NP NP AUP [6] AUP [3] AUP [6]
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 6 of 26
Manufacturing Districts
ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
-- = Permitted with an AUP, see
23.206.020(B)
NP = Not Permitted
[#] = Floor Area Permit Requirement
* Use-Specific Standards Apply
M MM MU-LI MU-R M-RD
Use-Specific Standards
Applies to uses with an asterisk following the permit
requirement (e.g., ZC*)
Banks and Financial
Services, Retail NP NP – NP NP
Insurance Agents, Title
Companies, Real Estate
Agents, Travel Agents
NP NP – – NP
Medical Practitioners NP NP NP AUP [3] NP
Non-Chartered Financial
Institutions NP NP – – NP
Office, Business and
Professional NP ZC* [4] AUP [4] AUP [3] AUP [4] 23.206.070(B)(2) Food and Alcohol
Service, Lodging,
Entertainment, and
Assembly Uses
Adult-oriented Business - - NP NP NP
Amusement Device
Arcade NP NP ZC ZC NP 23.302.070(B)
Bar/Cocktail
Lounge/Tavern/Tap
Room/Wine Tasting
NP NP NP See
23.306 NP
Commercial Recreation
Center NP NP – NP NP
Entertainment
Establishment NP NP – UP(PH) NP
Food Service
Establishment under -- -- AUP* AUP* AUP* 23.302.070(E)
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 7 of 26
Manufacturing Districts
ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
-- = Permitted with an AUP, see
23.206.020(B)
NP = Not Permitted
[#] = Floor Area Permit Requirement
* Use-Specific Standards Apply
M MM MU-LI MU-R M-RD
Use-Specific Standards
Applies to uses with an asterisk following the permit
requirement (e.g., ZC*)
5,000 sq. ft.
Food Service
Establishment 5,000 sq.
ft. or larger
-- -- UP(PH)* UP(PH)* UP(PH)* 23.302.070(E)
Group Instruction ZC ZC – ZC ZC
Health and Fitness
Facility NP NP – NP NP
Hotel, Tourist NP NP NP NP NP
Motel, Tourist NP NP NP NP NP
Theater NP NP UP(PH)* NP NP 23.206.080(B)(4)
Vehicle Service and
Sale Uses
Alternative Fuel Station AUP [4] AUP [4] AUP [4] AUP AUP [4] Gasoline/Vehicle Fuel
Station NP NP NP NP NP
Large Vehicle Sales and
Rental – NP AUP [4] NP AUP [4]
Small Vehicle Sales and
Rental – NP NP NP NP
Tire Sales and Service – – – NP NP
Vehicle Parts Store NP NP NP UP(PH) NP
Vehicle Repair and
Service UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)
Vehicle Rentals NP – – NP NP
Vehicle Sales, New AUP* [7] NP NP NP NP 23.206.060(B)(3)
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 8 of 26
Manufacturing Districts
ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
-- = Permitted with an AUP, see
23.206.020(B)
NP = Not Permitted
[#] = Floor Area Permit Requirement
* Use-Specific Standards Apply
M MM MU-LI MU-R M-RD
Use-Specific Standards
Applies to uses with an asterisk following the permit
requirement (e.g., ZC*)
Vehicle Sales, Used AUP* [7] NP NP NP NP 23.206.060(B)(3) Vehicle Wash NP NP NP NP NP
Vehicle Wrecking AUP [7] AUP [4] AUP* [4] NP NP 23.206.080(B)(5) Industrial and Heavy
Commercial Uses
Bus/Cab/Truck/Public
Utility Depot AUP [8] AUP [8] AUP* [4] UP(PH) AUP* [4] 23.206.040(B) Commercial Excavation UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) NP NP
Contractors Yard AUP [7] AUP [7] AUP [4] UP(PH) AUP [4] Dry Cleaning and
Laundry Plant ZC* [9] ZC [9] ZC [1] UP(PH) NP 23.206.060(B)(2) Laboratory
Commercial Physical
or Biological NP AUP [4] UP(PH)* NP AUP [4] 23.206.040(S) Cannabis Testing NP AUP [4] UP(PH) NP AUP [4]
Manufacturing
Construction Products ZC [9] ZC [9] UP(PH)* NP UP(PH)
Light Manufacturing ZC [7] ZC [7] ZC [1] AUP* [3] ZC [1] 23,206.040(H); 23.206.090(B)(5) Pesticides/Herbicides/
Fertilizers NP NP NP – NP
Petroleum Refining
and Products NP NP NP – NP
Pharmaceuticals AUP [4] AUP [4] AUP* [4] – AUP* [4] 23.206.040(J) Primary Production
Manufacturing AUP [4] AUP [4] NP NP NP
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 9 of 26
Manufacturing Districts
ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
-- = Permitted with an AUP, see
23.206.020(B)
NP = Not Permitted
[#] = Floor Area Permit Requirement
* Use-Specific Standards Apply
M MM MU-LI MU-R M-RD
Use-Specific Standards
Applies to uses with an asterisk following the permit
requirement (e.g., ZC*)
Semiconductors UP(PH) UP(PH) NP – UP(PH)
Material Recovery
Enterprise - - UP(PH) - UP(PH)
Media Production ZC [10] ZC [10] ZC [10] AUP [11] ZC [10] Mini-storage NP NP NP NP NP
Recycled Materials
Processing ZC* [9] ZC* [9] UP(PH)* – UP(PH)* 23.206.040(L); 23.206.040(M) Recycling Redemption
Center AUP [7] ZC [9] UP(PH)* AUP UP(PH)* 23.206.040(M) Repair Service, Non-
Vehicle ZC* [9] ZC* [9] ZC* [1] AUP ZC* [1] 23.206.040(I) Research and
Development - ZC [12] ZC [12] – ZC [13]
Services to Buildings
and Dwellings AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP
Warehouse ZC [9] ZC [9] ZC [1] UP(PH) ZC [1]
Warehouse-Based Non-
Store Retailer ZC [9] ZC [9] ZC [1] – ZC [1]
Wholesale Trade ZC [9] ZC [9] ZC* [1] AUP [3] ZC* [1] 23.206.040(R) Incidental Uses
Amusement Devices NP NP AUP AUP AUP
Alcoholic Beverage
Service See 23.310
Cafeteria, On-Site ZC [2] AUP [2] ZC [2] AUP ZC [2]
Child Care Center NP NP See 23.206.040.B
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 10 of 26
Manufacturing Districts
ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
-- = Permitted with an AUP, see
23.206.020(B)
NP = Not Permitted
[#] = Floor Area Permit Requirement
* Use-Specific Standards Apply
M MM MU-LI MU-R M-RD
Use-Specific Standards
Applies to uses with an asterisk following the permit
requirement (e.g., ZC*)
Columbaria – – – – –
Food Service
Establishment under
20,000 sq. ft.
AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* AUP* 23.302.070(E)
Food Service
Establishment 20,000
sq. ft. or larger
NP AUP* NP AUP* NP 23.302.070(E)
Home Occupations NP NP NP
See
23.206.040
.B
NP
Live Entertainment,
Unamplified NP NP ZC ZC ZC
Live Entertainment,
Amplified NP NP AUP AUP AUP
Retail Sales of Goods
Manufactured On-Site AUP* [14] AUP* [15] AUP* [15] AUP* AUP* [15] 23.206.040(N) Storage of Goods
Manufactured On-Site
(>25% gross floor area)
ZC ZC ZC AUP ZC
Wholesale Activities ZC ZC ZC AUP ZC
Other Miscellaneous
Uses
Art/Craft Studio ZC* [10] ZC [10] ZC* [10] AUP [11] ZC* [10] 23.206.040(A) ATM, Exterior and
Attached to Bank AUP AUP - AUP NP
ATM, Interior or Exterior
and Not With Bank AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 11 of 26
Manufacturing Districts
ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
-- = Permitted with an AUP, see
23.206.020(B)
NP = Not Permitted
[#] = Floor Area Permit Requirement
* Use-Specific Standards Apply
M MM MU-LI MU-R M-RD
Use-Specific Standards
Applies to uses with an asterisk following the permit
requirement (e.g., ZC*)
Circus/Carnival NP NP UP(PH)* UP(PH) UP(PH)* 23.206.040(E) Drive-in Uses NP NP NP NP NP
Live/Work NP NP See 23.312 NP NP
Parking Lot/Structure See 23.302.070.G
Public Market, Open Air – – UP(PH)*
[16] – UP(PH)*
[16] 23.206.040(K)
Public Market, Enclosed – – AUP [5] – AUP [5]
Short-Term Rental - - - ZC* NP 23.314
Urban Agriculture, Low-
Impact ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Urban Agriculture, High-
Impact AUP AUP AUP AUP AUP
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 12 of 26
Manufacturing Districts
ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
-- = Permitted with an AUP, see
23.206.020(B)
NP = Not Permitted
[#] = Floor Area Permit Requirement
* Use-Specific Standards Apply
M MM MU-LI MU-R M-RD
Use-Specific Standards
Applies to uses with an asterisk following the permit
requirement (e.g., ZC*)
Notes:
[1] Requires an AUP for uses 20,000 sq. ft. to 30,000 square feet. Requires a Use Permit for uses more than 30,000 sq. ft.
[2] Not permitted 20,000 sq. ft. or more.
[3] Requires a Use Permit if 5,000 sq. ft. or more
[4] Requires a Use Permit for uses more than 20,000 sq. ft. [5] Requires a Use Permit for more than 5,000 sq. ft. of floor area. [6] Not permitted over 3,000 sq. ft.
[7] Requires a Use Permit for uses more than 40,000 sq. ft. [8] Requires a Use Permit for uses 20,000 sq. ft. to 40,000 sq. ft. [9] Requires an AUP for uses 20,000 sq. ft. to 40,000 square feet. Requires a Use Permit for uses more than 40,000 sq. ft.
[10] Requires an AUP for uses 10,000 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. Requires a Use Permit for uses more than 20,000 sq. ft.
[11] Allowed with Zoning Certificate if under 1,000 sq. ft. Requires Use Permit if over 20,000 sq. ft. [12] Requires an AUP for uses more than 20,000 sq. ft.
[13] Requires an AUP for uses 60,000 sq. ft. to 100,000 sq. ft. Requires a Use Permit for uses 100,000 sq. ft. or more.
[14] Not permitted 1,500 sq. ft. or more.
[15] Requires a Use Permit for sales area 1,501 to 3,000 sq. ft. Not permitted over 3,000 sq. ft. [16] Requires Use Permit for markets over 5,000 sq. ft.
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 13 of 26
Section 3. That Table 23.206-2 within BMC Section 23.206.030 be amended to read:
TABLE 23.206-2. NEW FLOOR AREA PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
DISTRICT/NEW GROSS FLOOR AREA PERMIT REQUIRED FOR NEW
FLOOR AREA
M, MM
Less than 20,00
0 sq. ft. ZC
20,000
to less than 40,000 sq. ft. AUP
40,000
sq. ft. or more UP(PH)
M-RD
Less than 60,00
0 square feet ZC
60,000
to less than 100,000 square
feet AUP
100,00
0 square feet or more UP(PH)
MU-LI
Less than 10,00
0 sq. ft. ZC
10,000
to less than 20,000 sq. ft. AUP
20,000
sq. ft. or more UP(PH)
MU-R
Less than 5,000
sq. ft. ZC
5,000 to less than
10,000 sq. ft. AUP
10,000
sq. ft. or more UP(PH)
Section 4. That BMC Section 23.206.030(B) be amended to read:
B. Tenant Space Reconfiguration.
1. Reconfiguration of tenant space in an existing building in the M, MM, MU-LI, and M-RD districts requires a permit as listed in Table 23.206-3.
2. In the MU-R district, tenant space reconfiguration projects affecting 5,000 square or more require a Use Permit.
3. As used in this section, tenant reconfiguration means any physical change to an existing building’s walls separating leased spaces so as to change:
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 14 of 26
(a) The number of lease spaces for commercial businesses; or (b) The square footage of leasable floor area of an existing commercial lease space.
TABLE 23.206-3: TENANT SPACE RECONFIGURATION REQUIREMENTS IN
THE M, MM, MU-LI, AND M-RD DISTRICTS
TENANT SPACE RECONFIGURATION
PROJECT
PERMIT REQUIRED FOR TENANT
SPACE RECONFIGURATION
PROJECT
Previously separated spaces
combined into a larger space ZC
Creatin
g 2 to 5 separate new tenant
spaces ZC
Creating 6 to 9 separate new tenant
spaces AUP
Creating 10 or more separate new
tenant spaces
UP(PH)
4. MM and M-RD District Findings. To approve an AUP or Use Permit for a tenant reconfiguration project in the MM or M-RD district, the review authority must find that the conversion is necessary to implement the purpose of the district.
5. MU-LI District Findings. To approve a Use Permit for a tenant reconfiguration project in the MU-LI district, the review authority must find that the reconfiguration would not create or contribute to a shortage of industrial spaces in West Berkeley for spaces of the size being converted and either:
(a) The reconfiguration can be reasonably expected to better serve the purposes of the district than leaving the space intact; or
(b) The reconfiguration would create spaces which could cross-subsidize larger industrial spaces.
Section 5. That BMC 23.206.040 be amended to read:
23.206.040 Use-Specific Regulations
A. Art/Craft Studios in the M, MM, and M-RD Districts. Art/craft studios are allowed in the M, MM and M-RD districts only as workspaces. Live/work is not permitted.
B. Bus/Cab/Truck/Public Utility Depot in the MU-LI and M-RD Districts. A Use Permit is required for a bus/cab/truck/public utility depot in the MU-LI or M-RD district if the lot is over 20,000 square feet, regardless of use floor area.
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 15 of 26
C. Child Care Centers in the MU-LI, MU-R, and M-RD Districts. Table 23.206-4 shows permit requirements for child care centers in the MU-LI, MU-R, and M-RD districts.
TABLE 23.206-4: MU-LI, MU-R, AND M-RD CHILD-CARE CENTER
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
USE CHARACTERISTIC PERMIT REQUIRED
Inciden
tal Use
Providi
ng childcare for
emplo
yees only ZC
Providi
ng childcare for non-
emplo
yees AUP
Princip
al Use UP(PH)
D. Child-Serving Uses in the MU-LI, MU-R and M-RD Districts.
1. As used in this section, "child-serving use" means a school, child care center, family day care, or park/recreational facility used by children.
2. Before acting on an application to establish or expand a child-serving use in the MU-LI, MU-R, or M-RD districts, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the City an appropriate risk analysis or risk assessment, as determined by the City, that evaluates the risk to children in the use from other activities near the site.
3. All child-serving uses in the MU-LI, MU-R and M-RD districts must notify in writing, on a form approved by the City, all parents of children in the child-serving use that the use is in the MU-LI, MU-R or M-RD district, light manufacturing is a permitted activity in the district, and that primary production manufacturing or construction products manufacturing may be permitted uses in adjacent districts. The child- serving use must require each parent or guardian to confirm in writing that they have read and understood this information. Written confirmations shall be returned to the child-serving use and maintained at the use for City review.
4. To approve an AUP or Use Permit to establish or expand a child-serving use, the review authority must find that:
(a) The child-serving use is not incompatible with adjacent and nearby uses, including industrial uses;
(b) The risk analysis or risk assessment shows that there is not significant risk to children in the use from other activities near the site; and (c) The applicant has made adequate provisions to comply with the parent/guardian notification requirement in Paragraph (3) above.
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 16 of 26
E. Circuses and Carnival in the MM, MU-LI, and M-RD Districts. Circuses and carnivals are allowed in the MM, MU-LI, and M-RD districts only as a temporary use.
F. Club and Lodges in the M, MM, MU-LI, and M-RD Districts. Clubs and lodges are allowed in the M, MM, MU-LI and M-RD districts only for persons working in the district.
G. General Retail in the MU-LI and M-RD Districts. Allowed general retail uses in the MU-LI and M-RD districts are limited to food product stores and building materials and garden supply stores. Other types of general retail uses are not permitted. Food product stores are not permitted if over 2,000 square feet. Building materials and garden supply stores are permitted with an AUP if under 20,000 square feet and with a Use Permit if 20,000 square feet or more.
H. Manufacturing Uses in the M, MM, MU-LI, and M-RD Districts. For manufacturing uses in the M, MM, MU-LI, and M-RD districts otherwise allowed with a Zoning Certificate, an AUP is required to establish the use within 150 feet of a residential use in a Residential District or in the MU-R district.
I. Non-Vehicle Repair Service in the M, MM, MU-LI, and M-RD Districts. Retail sales associated with a non-vehicle repair service are not permitted in the M, MM, MU-LI, and M-RD districts.
J. Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing in the MU-LI and M-RD Districts.
Pharmaceuticals manufacturing is allowed in the MU-LI or M-RD districts only in locations at least 500 feet from a Residential District or the MU-R district.
K. Public Market, Open Air in the MU-LI and M-RD Districts. Open air markets in the MU-LI or M-RD districts with 5,000 square feet or less of lot area are allowed with an AUP.
L. Recycled Materials Processing in the M and MM Districts. For recycled materials processing facilities under 10,000 square feet in the M and MM districts, an AUP is required if processing occurs outside of a building.
M. Recycling Facilities in the MU-LI and M-RD Districts. Recycled materials processing and recycling redemption centers are allowed in the MU-LI and M-RD districts only on lots greater than 20,000 square feet.
N. Retail Sale of Goods Manufactured On-Site. The following requirements apply to incidental retail sales in all Manufacturing Districts:
1. The size and character of signs for the retail use shall clearly indicate that the retail use is not the primary use of the site.
2. Maximum retail floor area: 10 percent of total gross floor area.
3. Outdoor sales of food service is not permitted.
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 17 of 26
O. Storage, Wholesale, Manufacturing as Incidental Use. If a storage, wholesale, or manufacturing use is allowed in the M, MM, MU-R, or M-RD district with a Zoning Certificate, the use is allowed incidental to another permitted use without the requirement for an AUP or Use Permit.
P. Microbes or biological agents – See Section 23.302.020(E) Q. Noise. For purposes of the Noise Ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter 13.40, the Manufacturing Districts are considered Industry Districts.
R. Vocational Schools in the MU-LI and M-RD Districts. A vocational school in the MU-LI or M-RD district must provide training for occupations and/or industries found in the West Berkeley Plan area.
S. Wholesale Trade in the MU-LI and M-RD Districts. Proximity to Residential Use.
For wholesale trade use in the MU-LI or M-RD districts otherwise allowed with a Zoning Certificate, an AUP is required to establish the use within 150 feet of a residential use in a Residential District or in the MU-R district.
Section 6. That BMC Section 23.206.080(B) be amended to read:
B. Land Use Regulations
1. Allowed Land Uses. See Table 23.206-1: Allowed Land Uses in Manufacturing Districts.
2. Use Permit Not Required. An existing use in the MU-LI district may be modified or intensified without a Use Permit if:
(a) A Use Permit is not required by this chapter; and
(b) The Zoning Officer determines that the modification or intensification of the use can reasonably be expected not to increase any impact regulated under environmental performance standards.
3. Alcoholic Beverage Retail Sales. Alcoholic beverage retail sales are allowed in the MU-LI district only when incidental to food product stores.
4. Theaters. Only live stage performances are allowed in a theater in the MU-LI district. Motion picture theaters are not permitted.
5. Vehicle Wrecking. Permits required for vehicle wrecking the MU-LI district is determined by size of lot, not floor area.
Section 7. That BMC Section 23.206.100 be amended to read:
23.206.100 M-RD Manufacturing, Research and Development District A. District Purpose. The purpose of the Manufacturing, Research and Development (M- RD) district is to:
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 18 of 26
1. Support a mix of industrial and heavy commercial uses, such as light manufacturing and research and development, particularly those which can provide high quality employment at all educational levels and add significantly to the tax base;
2. Allow office and laboratory uses that support light industrial and research and development uses;
3. Provide flexibility to facilitate the development and reuse of large sites with an urban campus-like environment, demonstrating high-quality design and site planning that includes amenities for employees and customers; and
4. Support the development of industrial uses which satisfy performance standards that protect the environment.
B. Land Use Regulations.
1. Allowed Land Uses. See Table 23.206-1: Allowed Land Uses in Manufacturing District.
C. Additional Permit Requirements. See Section 23.206-1: Allowed Land Uses in Manufacturing Districts.
D. Development Standards. See Table 23.206-15 for development standards in the M- RD district.
TABLE 23.206-15. M-RD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Standards Supplemental
Standards
Lot Area, Minimum No minimum 23.304.020– Lot
Requirements
Floor Area Ratio, Maximum 2.0
Lot Line Setbacks, Minimum
Front No minimum
Rear No minimum
Interior Side No minimum
Street Side No minimum
23.304.030–
Setbacks
Building Separation, Minimum No minimum
Lot Coverage, Maximum 80% 23.304.120– Lot
Coverage
Minimum Usable Open Space, Minimum, per
1,000 square feet of gross floor area
20 square feet
23.304.090 –
Usable Open
Space
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 19 of 26
Main Building Height, Maximum 55 ft
105 [1]
23.304.050–
Building Height
[1] Maximum Main Building Height of 105 feet may be allowed pursuant to Section
23.206.100(D)(1) (Modification of Development Standards on Large Sites).
1. Modifications to Development Standards on Large Sites. (a) Purpose. The purpose of these provisions is to facilitate the development and reuse of large sites as an urban campus-like environment with high-quality design and site planning with amenities for employees and customers. (b) Applicability. This section applies to projects located on a site of at least 9 acres, which may comprise multiple parcels and blocks, excluding intervening streets/roads/right-of-way or similar.
(c) Allowed Modification. The ZAB shall allow modifications to lot coverage, height and setback standards in Table 23.206-15, as follows, subject to the permit findings in Section 23.206.100(D)(1)(e):
i. Main building(s) may comply with the maximum FAR and coverage standards on a project-wide basis, rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis, as follows:
a) The FAR and/or coverage for main buildings on an individual parcel shall not exceed the maximum allowed in Table 23.206-15 by more than 20 percent.
b) The project complies with the maximum allowed FAR and coverage in Table 23.206-15.
ii. Main building(s) shall not exceed a maximum building height of 105 feet. (d) Development Plan. The applicant shall submit a development plan that includes all of the following:
i. A detailed phasing plan that shows the general location and timing of all physical development, including on and off-site infrastructure, architectural plans, and locations of proposed uses; and
ii. A detailed development comparison demonstrating how the changes in development standards for the proposed project maximize amenities for both employees and customers.
(e) Findings for Approval.
i. To approve any modification allowed in this section, the ZAB shall make all of the following findings:
a) That the modification(s) to the development standard(s) are warranted to support a project that demonstrates enhanced design and site planning. Enhanced design elements shall include but not
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 20 of 26
be limited to varied and unique architectural features and innovative site layouts that maximize amenities for both employees and customers. Such modification(s) shall result in a development that achieves the purposes of the M-RD district which could not be achieved by strict application of the development standards; and b) The applicant has demonstrated that each phase of development does not unduly burden future project implementation, ensures implementation of the project within a reasonable time period, and all required on and off-site infrastructure and amenities are provided. ii. To approve a Modification to Development Standards on Large Sites, the ZAB shall also make all required Use Permit findings and follow all procedures in Section 23.406.040 (Use Permits) and any additional Use Permit findings required by the Zoning Ordinance for the use or development in the applicable district.
(f) Conditions of Approval. Additional project specific conditions may be imposed to support the findings for approval. Project specific requirements may include but are not limited to a reimbursement agreement, surety/bond/letter of credit, or private maintenance agreement. The approving body shall identify the project requirements within the Conditions of Approval.
(g) Deed Restriction. A deed restriction shall be prepared requiring compliance with the Conditions of Approval (and as amended), in perpetuity. The property owner shall file and record the deed restriction with the Alameda County Recorder’s Office.
E. Permit Findings. See Section 23.206.110 (Permit Findings).
Section 8. That BMC Section 23.206.110 be adopted to read:
23.206.110 Permit Findings
E. All Manufacturing Districts. To approve an AUP or a Use Permit in a Manufacturing District, the review authority must find that the project:
1. Is consistent with the purposes of the district;
2. Is compatible with the surrounding uses and buildings;
3. Complies with the adopted West Berkeley Plan; and
4. Meets any applicable performance standards for off-site impacts.
F. Additional Findings. In addition to the findings in Section 23.206.110(A) (All Manufacturing Districts), the review authority must also make the following findings to approve an AUP or Use Permit in each of the Manufacturing Districts.
1. M and MM Districts. The project:
(a) Is unlikely, under reasonably foreseeable circumstances, to induce a substantial change of use in buildings from manufacturing, wholesale trade, or warehousing uses; and
(b) Is designed in such a manner to be supportive of the industrial character of the district. Such physical compatibility shall include materials used; facade
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 21 of 26
treatments; landscaping; lighting; type, size and placement of awnings, windows, and signs; and all other externally visible aspects of the design of the building and site.
2. MU-LI District. The project:
(a) Is unlikely, under reasonably foreseeable circumstances, to induce a substantial change of use in buildings from manufacturing, wholesale trade, or warehousing uses;
(b) Is designed in such a manner to be supportive of the industrial character of the district. Such physical compatibility shall include materials used; facade treatments; landscaping; lighting; type, size and placement of awnings, windows, and signs; and all other externally visible aspects of the design of the building and site; and
(c) If the building and/or site is split between the MU-LI district and the C-W district, there are clear and appropriate distinctions in all design aspects between the portions of the building and site within the MU-LI district and the portions within the C-W district.
3. MU-R District. The project:
(a) Is unlikely, under reasonably foreseeable circumstances, to either induce or contribute to a cumulative change of use in buildings away from residential, live/work, light industrial, or arts and crafts uses; and (b) Is designed to be supportive of the character and purposes of the district.
4. M-RD District. The project:
(a) Is unlikely, under reasonably foreseeable circumstances, to either induce or contribute to a cumulative change of use in buildings away from industrial or heavy commercial uses; and
(b) Is designed to be supportive of the character and purposes of the district.
Such physical compatibility shall include materials used; facade treatments; landscaping; lighting; type, size and placement of awnings, windows, and signs; and all other externally visible aspects of the design of the building and site.
Section 9. That Table 23.302-2 within BMC Section 23.302.020(E) be amended to read:
Table 23.302-2. Permit Requirements for Outdoor Uses
DISTRICT/USE CHARACTERISTICS [1] PERMIT
REQUIRED
All Commercial Districts Except for C-W
Not abutting a residential district AUP
Abutting a residential district UP(PH)
C-W
Not abutting a residential district and less than 10,000 s. ft. AUP Abutting a residential district UP(PH)
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 22 of 26
10,000 sq. ft. or more UP(PH)
M, MM, M-RD [2]
Less than 20,000 sq. ft. ZC
20,000 sq. ft. or more AUP
MU-LI
Less than 20,000 sq. ft. ZC
20,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. AUP
More than 30,000 sq. ft. UP(PH)
MU-R
Not abutting a residential district AUP
Abutting a residential district UP(PH)
Notes:
[1] Size is measured as the lot area of the outdoor activity or storage. [2] In the M,MM, and M-RD districts, permits are required only for activity or storage not ancillary to a permitted use.
Section 10. That BMC Section 23.302.070(E)(4) be amended to read:
4. MU-LI, MU-R, and M-RD District – Findings.
(a) To approve an AUP or Use Permit to establish or expand a food service establishment in the MU-LI, MU-R, or M-RD district, the review authority must find that the establishment of the use, given its size, location, physical appearance and other relevant characteristics, will not have a significant detrimental impact on the industrial character of the area.
Section 11. That Table 23.302-7 within BMC Section 23.302.070(G) be amended to read:
TABLE 23.302-7: PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING LOTS/STRUCTURES
DISTRICT PERMIT REQUIRED
Residential Districts
R-3 Use Permit for all parking lots and structures. [1]
R-S, R-SMU, R-
BMU
Use Permit for parking structures only. Parking lots are not permitted, except on lots between Acton Street and Virginia Gardens and between Peralta Avenue and Northside Avenue in the R-BMU.
All other
residential
districts
Use Permit for all parking lots and structures.
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 23 of 26
Commercial Districts
C-C, C-U Zoning Certificate for parking lots and structures with 5 spaces or fewer. Use Permit for more than 5 spaces.
C-SO AUP for parking lots and structures with 5 spaces or fewer. Use Permit for more than 5 spaces.
C-DMU AUP for parking lots with 8 spaces or fewer. Use Permit for all parking structures. Lots with more than 8 spaces not permitted.
C-N, C-E, C-
NS, C-SA Use Permit for all parking lots and structures.
C-T Use Permit for all parking structures. All parking lots not permitted.
C-W AUP for parking lots and structures with 10 spaces or fewer. Use Permit for parking lots and structures with more than 10 spaces.
Manufacturing Districts
M, MM
AUP for parking lots and structures with 10 or fewer spaces exclusively for uses in the district. Use Permit for parking lots and structures with any number of spaces not exclusively for uses in the district.
MU-LI, M-RD
Zoning Certificate for parking lots and structures with 10 or fewer spaces exclusively for uses in the district. AUP for parking lots and structures with 11 spaces or more exclusively for uses in the district.
Use Permit for parking lots and structures with any number of spaces not exclusively for uses in the district.
MU-R
Zoning Certificate for parking lots and structures exclusively for uses in the district. Use Permit for parking lots and structures not exclusively for uses in the district.
Notes:
Parking lots and structures in the R-3 district are not permitted within the Southside Plan area
Section 12. That Table 23.322-4 within BMC Section 23.322.030(C) is hereby amended to read:
TABLE 23.322-4: REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING IN MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS Land Use Required Parking Spaces
Residential Uses
Accessory Dwelling
Unit None required
Dwellings None required
Group Living None required
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 24 of 26
Land Use Required Parking Spaces
Accommodation
Non-Residential
Uses
All non-residential
uses except uses
listed below
M-RD District: None required
All Other Districts: 2 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Art/Craft Studio
M-RD District: None required
All Other Districts: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Community Care
Facility None required
Food Service
Establishment
M-RD District: None required
All Other Districts: 1 per 300 sq. ft.
Library 1 per 500 sq. ft. of publicly accessible floor area Laboratories M-RD District: None required
All Other Districts: 1 per 650 sq. ft.
Nursing Home 1 per 5 residents, plus 1 per 3 employees
Medical Practitioners One per 300 sq. ft.
Large Vehicle Sales
and Rental
MU-LI District: 1.5 per 1,000 sq. ft.
M-RD District: None required
All Other Districts: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. of display floor area plus 1 per 500 sq. ft. of other floor area; 2 per service bay Manufacturing MU-R District: 1.0 per 1,000 sq. ft.
M-RD District: None required
All Other Districts: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. for spaces less than 10,000 sq. ft.; 1 per 1,500 sq. ft. for spaces 10,000 sq. ft. or more
Storage, warehousing,
and wholesale trade
M-RD District: None required
All Other Districts: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. for spaces of less than 10,000 sq. ft.; 1 per 1,500 sq. ft. for spaces 10,000 sq. ft. or more
Live/Work MU-LI District: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. of work area where workers/clients are permitted
MU-R District: if workers/clients are permitted in work area, 1 per first 1,000 sq. ft. of work area and 1 per each
additional 750 sq. ft. of work area
Research and
Development
M-RD District: None required
All Other Districts: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 25 of 26
Land Use Required Parking Spaces
Notes:
[1] For multiple dwellings where the occupancy will be exclusively for persons over the age of 62, the number of required off-street parking spaces may be reduced to 25% of what would otherwise be required for multiple-family dwelling use, subject to obtaining a Use Permit.
Section 13. That Table 23.322-12 within BMC Section 23.322.100(A) be amended to read:
TABLE 23.322‑12: LAND USES REQUIRING OFF-STREET LOADING SPACES District Land Use [1]
R-1, R-1A, R-2 Schools 10,000 sq. ft. or more
R-2A Senior congregate housing, nursing homes and schools 10,000 sq. ft. or more
R-3 Senior congregate housing, hospitals, nursing homes, schools 10,000 sq. ft. or more
R-4, R-5 Senior congregate housing, hospitals, nursing homes, offices, schools 10,000 sq. ft. or more
R-S, R-SMU All non-residential uses 10,000 sq. ft. or more All C Districts
except C-T All commercial uses 10,000 sq. ft. or more
C-T No loading spaces required for all land uses
All M Districts
except M-RD All commercial and manufacturing uses 10,000 sq. ft. or more M-RD
Research and Development uses 25,000 sq. ft. or more; All other commercial and manufacturing uses 10,000 sq. ft. or more.
Note:
[1] Land use size is total gross floor area.
Section 14. That Table 23.322-13 within BMC Section 23.322.100(B) be amended to read:
TABLE 23.322-13: NUMBER OF REQUIRED OFF-STREET LOADING SPACES District Spaces Required [1]
Residential and
Commercial Districts
1 space for the first 10,000 sq. ft. plus 1 additional space for each additional 40,000 sq. ft
Manufacturing
Districts
Research and Development uses in M-RD: 25,000 to
100,000 sq. ft. – 1 space; more than 100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft. – 2 spaces; each additional 100,000 sq. ft. – 1 space.
Ordinance No. 7,957-N.S. Page 26 of 26
District Spaces Required [1]
All other uses in all other M Districts: 1 space for the first 10,000 sq. ft. plus 1 additional space for each additional 25,000 sq. ft
Note:
[1] Land use size is total gross floor area.
Section 15. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on March 25, 2025, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:
Ayes: Bartlett, Blackaby, Humbert, Kesarwani, Lunaparra, O’Keefe, Taplin, Tregub, and Ishii.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
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
April 15, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Subject: Police Accountability Board – Appointment of New Member
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution appointing a new member to the Police Accountability Board nominated by Vice-Mayor Bartlett.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
All PAB commissioners are eligible to receive a stipend of up to $300 per month.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
There are currently three vacant seats on the PAB, including one alternate position.
Vice-Mayor Bartlett has nominated Macharia Edmonds to serve on the Police Accountability Board. Macharia Edmonds meets the eligibility criteria as verified by city staff in accordance with the requirements of the City Charter and may be appointed by a majority vote of the Council.
Commissioner Nominated By
Vacant Mayor Ishii
Alexander Mozes Councilmember Kesarwani
David Williams Councilmember Taplin
Vacant Councilmember Bartlett
Kitty Calavita Councilmember Tregub
Leah Wilson Councilmember O’Keefe
Juliet Leftwich Councilmember Blackaby
Joshua Cayetano Councilmember Lunaparra
Randy Wells Councilmember Humbert
Vacant Alternate
Article XVIII, Section 125, Part 6 of the City Charter states, “The Mayor and each City Councilmember shall nominate one candidate from an applicant pool at a meeting of the City Council and that each individual nominee must be approved by a majority vote of the City Council.”
03
Police Accountability Board – Appointment of Members CONSENT CALENDAR April 15, 2025
Members of the Police Accountability Board must:
Be a resident of the City
Be at least 18 years of age
Not be an employee, officer, or contractor with the City, a current sworn police officer from any agency, or a current employee, official, or representative of an employee association representing sworn police officers
Be fair minded and objective with a demonstrated commitment to community service The City Charter indicates that desirable qualities of a Board member are familiarity with human resources, law, police procedures, police oversight, or involvement in civil rights or community organizations and that the City Council shall endeavor to establish a Board that is broadly inclusive and reflective of race, ethnicity, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, economic status, neighborhoods, and various communities of interest in the City.
BACKGROUND
Measure II was adopted on November 3, 2020, by the voters of Berkeley to establish an Office of the Director of Police Accountability and create a new Police Accountability Board (hereafter “Board”), both of which are independent of the City Manager. The members of the Board are approved by vote of the full Council.
In June of 2021 the Mayor and Members of the City Council nominated and appointed the initial nine members of the PAB and also appointed one alternate commissioner.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects, climate impacts, or sustainability opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The appointment is provided for by the City Charter and pursuant to the nomination submitted by Vice-Mayor Bartlett.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.
CONTACT PERSON
Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900
Attachments:
1: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. -N.S.
APPOINTMENT OF MACHARIA EDMONDS TO THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD
WHEREAS, Measure II was adopted on November 3, 2020 by the voters of Berkeley to create a new Police Accountability Board; and
WHEREAS, Article XVIII, Section 125, Part 6 provides for the Council’s appointment of board members; and
WHEREAS, the Vice-Mayor Bartlett submitted a nominee for appointment by the full council; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the following applicant is hereby appointed to the Police Accountability Board:
Nominee Nominated By
Macharia Edmonds Vice-Mayor Bartlett
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
April 15, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Contract: University of California, San Francisco for Encampment Resolution Funding Research Evaluation
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract and any necessary amendments with The Regents of the University of California, on behalf of its San Francisco campus, to evaluate the success of its Encampment Resolution Funding Round 3 (ERF-3), for a term of two years (January 1, 2025 – December 31, 2026) and in an amount not to exceed $200,000.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Adopting this resolution will result in an expenditure contract with The Regents of the University of California, on behalf of its San Francisco campus, for a total amount not to exceed $200,000. Funding for this contract will be paid using the City’s existing ERF-3 grant from the State of California, and will be appropriated as part of the Second Annual Appropriations Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2025.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On November 19, 2024, the City Council approved the Homeless Response Team’s plans to master lease the Howard Johnson motel on University Avenue (“Capri motel”) for use as a low-barrier, noncongregate shelter, and to target those 26 rooms to people living in the 2nd/Cedar Street encampments, which staff were directed by Council on September 10, 2024 to prioritize for closure. The funding source for this project is $5.4M in ERF-3 funding from a grant from the State of California, the receipt of which was also approved by Council at the November 19, 2024 meeting. Staff in Neighborhood Services and HHCS partnered closely with Dorothy Day House to quickly open this shelter on January 15, 2025. At the time of submission of this report (March 13, 2025), 42 people had been moved indoors from the 2nd St/Cedar St encampments (including 35 into the Capri motel), essentially vacating the entire encampment; staff are slowly working to clean the unwanted belongings and debris left behind. A huge part of the success of this encampment resolution has been the use of $150,000 in ERF-3 funding to pilot an RV Buy Back program, coupling a cash offer for RVs being used as shelter in exchange for the RV occupant moving into interim housing. So far, of the 21 vehicles offered this
04
Contract with UCSF for Encampment Resolution Evaluation CONSENT CALENDAR April 15, 2025
opportunity, the occupants of all but one of them agreed to the funding and have moved into interim housing.
Prior to submission of the ERF-3 grant application to the State, staff secured a partnership with UCSF Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative to perform a scientifically-rigorous research evaluation of the Homeless Response Team’s use of the grant to resolve these encampments. Specifically, the evaluation seeks to address the following questions:
1. Do those offered non-congregate shelter accept the intervention? What are the characteristics of those who accept? What reasons do they provide for accepting the intervention? What strategies enhance acceptance? What are the characteristics of those who do not accept the intervention? What are the reasons they provide for why they turned down the intervention?
2. For oversized vehicle residents, what are the characteristics of those who accept the RV buy-back program? What reasons do they provide for accepting the buy- back? What strategies enhance acceptance? What are the characteristics of those who do not accept the buy-back? What are the reasons they provide for why they turned down the intervention?
3. For those who accepted non-congregate shelter, what are their opinions regarding their housing situation? What impact has the intervention had on other aspects of their lives? For those who did not accept non-congregate shelter, where have they stayed since leaving the encampment? How has leaving the encampment affected other aspects of their lives?
Given the short expenditure timelines for the grant imposed by the State, the City opened the Capri Motel (aka Howard Johnson) shelter program and began resolving the 2 nd St encampment in January 2025. However, UCSF researchers agreed to begin working on the evaluation in early January 2025 when the funds were first put into use by the City, before a contract could be negotiated. Therefore, staff are requesting that the contract start date be back-dated out of necessity, to reimburse UCSF for time already committed to the project.
Since UCSF is the only organization of its kind performing this type of research, and given the Council Budget and Finance Policy Committee’s vote in support of the plan to partner with them at their January 25, 2024 meeting, staff will be waiving competitive solicitation for the award of this contract.
Resolving encampments through the use of evidence-based interim housing and other services aligns with the City of Berkeley’s strategic plan priorities.
Contract with UCSF for Encampment Resolution Evaluation CONSENT CALENDAR April 15, 2025
BACKGROUND
On November 27, 2023, the State of California’s Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH) released a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Encampment Resolution Funding Program, Round 3, Rolling Application (ERF-3-R), a $400M statewide competitive grant opportunity to fund local demonstration projects that assist people living in encampments to safe, low-barrier, and stable housing pathways. The ERF program is intended to fund actionable, person-centered local proposals that resolve the experience of unsheltered homelessness for people residing in encampments, necessarily also addressing the safety and wellness of people within encampments, resolving critical encampment concerns, and transitioning individuals into interim shelter with clear pathways to permanent housing or directly into permanent housing, using data-informed, non-punitive, low-barrier, person-centered, Housing First, and coordinated approaches.
On January 25, 2024, City staff presented a plan, including the proposed priority encampment and a request for local Measure P match funding, to the Budget and Finance Policy Committee of the Council. This plan included a commitment to work with UCSF to research and evaluate the success of the City’s use of ERF-3 dollars. The Committee voted to approve staff’s application. Staff successfully completed and submitted the application on January 31, 2024. The City’s application was initially declined by the State on April 22, 2024 but staff addressed the State’s feedback, resubmitted the grant, and were awarded the full amount on September 27, 2024. Council approved the receipt of the grant on November 19, 2024.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Helping unhoused people currently living in West Berkeley transition into interim and permanent housing placement will minimize the detrimental environmental impacts associated with encampment homelessness over the long run, including vector and fire hazards, accumulation of trash and waste, and impacts on sensitive waterways. It will also reduce the impact of these environmental elements on the health and safety of people with no shelter.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
With their vote of support at their January 25, 2024, meeting, the Budget and Finance Policy Committee approved the partnership with UCSF for this evaluation. The Homeless Response Team is committed to following evidence-based best practices in the provision of interim and permanent housing to resolve encampments, yet encampment resolution— as a local government activity increasingly becoming necessary across the United States—remains an essentially un-studied intervention from a research perspective. With the research findings emerging from this partnership, Berkeley will once again be on the leading edge of disseminating best practices for humanely resolving encampments.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.
Contract with UCSF for Encampment Resolution Evaluation CONSENT CALENDAR April 15, 2025
CONTACT PERSON
Josh Jacobs, Homeless Services Coordinator, 510 225-8035 Attachments:
1: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, ON BEHALF OF ITS SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS, TO PERFORM
ENCAMPMENT RESOLUTION EVALUATION RESEARCH FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000 FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2025 TO DECEMBER 31, 2026.
WHEREAS, on November 27, 2023, the State of California released a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Encampment Resolution Funding Round 3 (ERF-3-R) Program, a Statewide, competitive $400M funding opportunity to further the State’s understanding of best practices to compassionately resolve encampments by assisting their residents into safe and stable pathways to housing; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2024, the Budget and Finance Policy Committee of the City Council unanimously voted to approve city staff’s grant application including a proposed research partnership with UCSF for the purposes of evaluating this encampment resolution effort; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2024, the City Council approved the acceptance of $5.4M in ERF-3-R funding from the State as well as a contract with Dorothy Day House to operate the Howard Johnson motel as noncongregate interim housing; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to prioritize the closure of the encampments on 2 nd and Cedar Streets in Northwest Berkeley at their September 10, 2024 regular meeting; and
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2025, the City and Dorothy Day House opened the Howard Johnson motel as noncongregate interim housing for individuals currently residing in the 2nd/Cedar encampments, to effectuate Council’s direction to resolve those encampments; and
WHEREAS, the University of California, San Francisco’s Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative will partner with the City to perform evaluative research on this program, to better advance knowledge and best practices on effectively and compassionately ending encampment homelessness.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to enter into a contract and all necessary amendments for the period January 1, 2025 TO December 31, 2026, with The Regents of the University of California, on behalf of its San Francisco campus, to perform encampment resolution evaluation research; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the contract amount will not exceed $200,000 with funding to be paid from the Encampment Resolution Fund Round 3 (ERF-3) grant already received by the City. A recorded signature copy of said contract and any amendments will be on file in the City Clerk Department.
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
April 15, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance
Subject: Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on April 15, 2025
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request for proposals or invitation for bids (attached to staff report) that will be, or are planned to be, issued upon final approval by the requesting department or division. All contracts over the City Manager’s threshold will be returned to Council for final approval.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Total estimated cost of items included in this report is $15,794,774 PROJECT Fund Source Amount
FY26 and FY27 Healthy Berkeley
Community Funding 011 Discretionary $2,294,774
On-Call Electrical Services for City Facilities 511
501
T1 Infstr and Fac
CIP $700,000
On-Call Structural Services for City Facilities 511
501
T1 Infstr and Fac
CIP $500,000
FY2025 Sanitary Sewer & Storm Drain
Rehabilitation Project:
Union Pacific Railroad Corridor
611
616
Sanitary S
Clean Storm Water $8,800,000
Elevator Maintenance Services 011
627
636
672
673
138
101
Discretionary
Off Street Parking
Bldg Purchases & MGMT
Equipment Maintenance
Building Maintenance
Parks Tax
Library Tax
$350,000
On-Call HVAC Services 636
673
Bldg Purchases & MGMT
Building Maintenance $300,000
Indoor/Outdoor Painting 673 Building Maintenance $100,000 Public Works Supervisor Training 673
601
672
611
Building Maintenance
Zero Waste
Equipment Maintenance
Sanitary Sewer Operation
$150,000
05
Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals CONSENT CALENDAR Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council April 15, 2025 Approval on April 15, 2025
Fire/Life Safety Equipment Monitoring 636
672
601
011
627
Off Street
Equipment Maintenance
Zero Waste
Discretionary
Off Street Parking
$350,000
On-Call Electrical Services 127
134
142
State Transportation Tax
One Time Funding
Street Lighting
$1,100,000
On-Call Equitable Community Engagement
Services
N/A N/A $1,000,000
Public Art for the Santa Fe Trackbed to Park
Conversion
148 Cultural Trust $150,000
Total: $15,794,774
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On May, 6, 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,035-N.S. effective June 6, 2008, which increased the City Manager’s purchasing authority for services to $50,000. As a result, this required report submitted by the City Manager to Council is now for those purchases in excess of $100,000 for goods; and $200,000 for playgrounds and construction; and $50,000 for services. If Council does not object to these items being sent out for bid or proposal within one week of them appearing on the agenda, and upon final notice to proceed from the requesting department, the IFB (Invitation for Bid) or RFP (Request for Proposal) may be released to the public and notices sent to the potential bidder/respondent list.
BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,035-N.S., amending the City Manager’s purchasing authority for services
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Finance Department reviews all formal bid and proposal solicitations to ensure that they include provisions for compliance with the City’s environmental policies. For each contract that is subject to City Council authorization, staff will address environmental sustainability considerations in the associated staff report to City Council.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Need for the goods and/or services.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.
CONTACT PERSON
Roopreet Walia-Soorma, Senior Buyer, Finance, 510-981-7311
Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals CONSENT CALENDAR Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council April 15, 2025 Approval on April 15, 2025
Attachments:
1: Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on April 15, 2025
a. FY26 and FY27 Healthy Berkeley Community Funding
b. On-Call Electrical Services for City Facilities
c. On-Call Structural Services for City Facilities
d. FY2025 Sanitary Sewer & Storm Drain Rehabilitation Project:
Union Pacific Railroad Corridor
e. Elevator Maintenance Services
f. On-Call HVAC Services
g. Indoor/Outdoor Painting
h. Public Works Supervisor Training
i. Fire/Life Safety Equipment Monitoring
j. On-Call Electrical Services
k. On-Call Equitable Community Engagement Services
l. Public Art for the Santa Fe Trackbed to Park Conversion Note: Original of this attachment with live signature of authorizing personnel is on file in General Services.
NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: April 15, 2025
Attachment 1
SPECIFICATION
NO.
DESCRIPTION OF
GOODS /
SERVICES BEING
PURCHASED
APPROX. RELEASE
DATE
APPROX. BID
OPENING DATE
INTENDED USE ESTIMATED COST BUDGET CODE TO BE
CHARGED
DEPT. / DIVISION CONTACT NAME &
PHONE
25-11718-C FY26 and FY27
Healthy Berkeley
Community Funding
3/10/2025 4/10/2025 Community based services to
promote reduction of the
consumption of sugar-sweetened
beverages and to address the
effects of sugar-sweetened
beverage consumption on health.
NTE $2,294,774 HHHSSB2301 (Project
Code)
GL: 011-51-507-507-
0000-000-459-636110
HHCS/ Public Health Roberto Terrones
981-5324
Dept Total $2,294,774
25-11719-C On-Call Electrical
Services for City
Facilities
4/16/2025 5/15/2025 Electrical services for upcoming
City projects including T1
$700,000 30% PW
511-54-623-6770000-
000-444-612310
70% PW
501-54-623-677-0000-
000-444-612310
TBD (on-call contract)
funds are built into
projects
PW/Eng Priya Chopra
292-0064
25-11720-C On-Call Structural
Services for City
Facilities
4/16/2025 5/15/2025 Structural Engineering services
for upcoming City projects
including T1.
$500,000 30% PW
511-54-623-6770000-
000-444-612310
70% PW
501-54-623-677-0000-
000-444-612310
TBD (on-call contract)
funds are built into
projects
PW/Eng Priya Chopra
292-0064
25-11722-C FY2025 Sanitary
Sewer & Storm
Drain Rehabilitation
Project:
Union Pacific
Railroad Corridor
4/16/2025 5/1/2025 Fulfill Sewer Consent Decree
requirement.
and storm drain rehabilitation and
replacement project.
Sewer (611)
Construction with
Contingency
$8,250,000
Storm (616)
Construction
with Contingency
$550,000
Total
$8,800,000
611-54-623-676-0000-
000-473-665130-
PWENSR2404
616-54-623-675-0000-
000-473-665120-
PWENSR2404
Public Works - Engineering Jonathan Caudillo
981-6427
Daniel Akagi
981-6394
1 of 5
NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: April 15, 2025
Attachment 1
25-11723-C Elevator
Maintenance
Services
4/16/2025 5/1/2025 Maintenance, inspection and
repair of city’s elevators
$350,000 over three
years with two 1-year
optional extensions
011-54-624-692-0000-
000-412-624110-
627-54-622-665-3001-
000-474-624110-
627-54-622-665-3002-
000-474-624110-
636-54-624-692-0000-
000-474-624110-
672-54-626-722-0000-
000-474-624110-
673-54-624-692-0000-
000-474-624110-
138-52-542-568-0000-
000-461-612990-
101-22-242-272-0000-
000-463-612990-
011-21-203-000-0000-
000-424-624110-
Public Works, PRW, LIbrary Tucker Brofft
981-5375
Erika Barros
981-6462
25-11724-C On-Call HVAC
Services
4/16/2025 5/1/2025 On-Call HVAC Services for City
facilities, included
1947 Center
St., and rental of HVAC
equipment as needed.
$300,000 over three
years, with two
optional extension
years
636-54-624-697-0000-
000-472-612990-
673-54-624-692-0000-
000-474-624110-
Public Works/
Facilities
Electrical
Tucker Brofft
981-5375
Erika Barros
981-6264
25-11725-C Indoor/Outdoor
Painting
4/16/2025 5/1/2025 Painting for exterior and interior of City-owned and maintained
facilities
NTE of $100,000
over three years with
two 1-year optional
extensions
673-54-624-692-0000-
000-472-624110-
Public Works/Facilities Tucker Brofft
981-5375
Erika Barros
981-6264
25-11726-C Public Works
Supervisor Training
5/1/2025 6/1/2025 Supervisory Training will be
provided to cohorts of 15 – 20
staff. It is anticipated that this
supervisor training will take 40
hours during the year including
but not limited to:
Conversations – Regular and
Difficult
Coaching
Building & Leading a high
performing Team / Measuring
Staff Success / Accountability
Progressive Discipline
Purchasing / Division Budget
Planning / Scheduling / Overtime
Management
Succession Planning /
Documentation
Giving and Receiving Feedback /
Performance Evaluations
$150,000 over two
years
673-54-624-692-0000-
000-472-612990-
601-54-625-714-0000-
000-472-612990-
601-54-621-654-0000-
000-472-612990-
672-54-621-654-0000-
000-472-612990-
611-54-623-676-0000-
000-472-612990-
Public Works Tucker Brofft
981-5375
Erika Barros
981-6264
SPECIFICATION
NO.
DESCRIPTION OF
GOODS /
SERVICES BEING
PURCHASED
APPROX. RELEASE
DATE
APPROX. BID
OPENING DATE
INTENDED USE ESTIMATED COST BUDGET CODE TO BE
CHARGED
DEPT. / DIVISION CONTACT NAME &
PHONE
2 of 5
NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: April 15, 2025
Attachment 1
25-11727-C Fire/Life Safety
Equipment
Monitoring
4/16/2025 5/1/2025 Monitoring and inspection of City
Fire/Life safety systems
$350,000 over three
years with two 1-year
optional extensions
636-54-624-692-0000-
000-474-624110-
672-54-626-722-0000-
000-474-624110-
673-54-624-692-0000-
000-474-624110-
601-54-627-734-3023-
000-474-624110-
011-54-624-692-0000-
000-412-624110-
627-54-622-665-3001-
000-474-624110-
Public Works/Facilities Tucker Brofft
981-5375
Erika Barros
981-6264
25-11728-C On-Call Electrical
Services
4/16/2025 5/1/2025 On-Call Electrical Services with
multiple vendors (up to three) to
support City of Berkeley’s
Electrical Division. Vendors will
provide support on critical
electrical projects and task,
including:
-Traffic & Pedestrian Signal
Maintenance and Repair
-Video and Loop Detection
-ADA Pedestrian Upgrades
-Conduit repairs and support of
Electric Vehicle Charges in City-
owned Garages
-Parking, Parks, Pathway and
Sports lighting installation,
maintenance and repair.
-Indoor electrical services and
repairs
-Ad Hoc Electrical Work such as
pumps, UPS.
-If available directly or
subcontracted – electrical
inspection & permitting
$1,100,000 million
over three years,
with two 1-year
optional extensions
Estimated
$300k per FY
127-54-622-668-0000-
000-431-612990-
127 Funds to be entered
in CBE mid-biennial
update - FY26, FY27 &
FY28.
134-54-624-695-0000-
000-431-612990-
142-54-624-694-3018-
000-426-612990-
142 Funds to be entered
via mid-biennial update
FY 2026 Line Item
Changes.
Public Works/
Electrical
Tucker Brofft
981-5375
Dept Total $12,350,000
25-11721-C On-Call Equitable
Community
Engagement
Services
4/16/2025 6/24/2025 On-call services to provide
various equitable community
engagement services, including
but not limited to: building
community relationships,
education, research, conducting
training for employees, facilitating
meetings and public forums,
distributing compensation to
community, conducting surveys,
conducting targeted meetings,
and supporting services for in-
person/virtual events.
$1,000,000 We don’t have a specific
project or a specific
funding source at this
time, however we do
want to have an on-call
contract in place for any
future budget referrals
we receive. PRW, PW,
and HHCS have also
expressed interest and
would like to be able to
use this contract once
it’s in place.
Planning/Office of Energy and
Sustainable Development
Katie Van Dyke
981-7401
SPECIFICATION
NO.
DESCRIPTION OF
GOODS /
SERVICES BEING
PURCHASED
APPROX. RELEASE
DATE
APPROX. BID
OPENING DATE
INTENDED USE ESTIMATED COST BUDGET CODE TO BE
CHARGED
DEPT. / DIVISION CONTACT NAME &
PHONE
3 of 5
NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: April 15, 2025
Attachment 1
Dept Total $1,000,000
25-11729-C Public Art for the
Santa Fe Trackbed
to Park Conversion
4/16/2025 5/1/2025 Contract an Artist to design,
fabricate, and install two pieces of
outdoor public art at the Santa Fe
Trackbed to Park Conversion
$150,000 148-21-208-252-0000-
000-446-612990-
CMO/OED/CIVIC ARTS Mark Salinas
981.7538
Dept Total
TOTAL $15,794,774
SPECIFICATION
NO.
DESCRIPTION OF
GOODS /
SERVICES BEING
PURCHASED
APPROX. RELEASE
DATE
APPROX. BID
OPENING DATE
INTENDED USE ESTIMATED COST BUDGET CODE TO BE
CHARGED
DEPT. / DIVISION CONTACT NAME &
PHONE
4 of 5
Attachment 1
5 of 5
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
April 15, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Department
Subject: Contract No. 32200086 Amendment: Crisis Services of Alameda County for Mental Health Crisis Line
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32200086 with Crisis Services of Alameda County for Mental Health Crisis Line services for a total contract not to exceed amount of $100,000 through June 30, 2028. This amendment will add $50,001, as well as extend the contract term three years.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
This amendment will add $50,001 to the contract. Resources for the contract have been included in the FY 2025 Budget and will be provided from the Community Services and Supports Development fund 315.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Crisis Services of Alameda County has performed well under Contract No. 32200086, and provided a consistently high quality of service. Using their crisis line as a resource for Mental Health Division clients allows us to offer 24-hour support to those in need, as well as providing an additional option clients can rely upon when experiencing an unexpected crisis. This is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily-accessible service and information to the community.
BACKGROUND
Clients served by the Mental Health Division have consistently indicated that having the ability to obtain crisis support outside of business hours would be a tremendous support. Clinicians and Program Supervisors explored a number of potential options to meet this need, and it was determined that Crisis Services of Alameda County fulfilled all requirements in the most comprehensive way. Continuing work with a local provider who works well with our clients would benefit the Division and the City as a whole.
06
Amending Contract No. 32200086 CONSENT CALENDAR
April 15, 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects, climate impacts, or sustainability opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Given their significant experience in providing crisis line services, Crisis Services of Alameda County is uniquely qualified to perform the services required.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
City Council could decide not to approve the attached Resolution and the City could issue a Request for Proposals to find a different service provider. However, City staff does not recommend this option because we have received positive feedback from consumers on the availability of the service provided by Crisis Services of Alameda County. Also, due to the lengthy process to start a new Request for Proposals, it could jeopardize the continuity of the service. Lastly, this is a very specialized service for our mental health clientele and the likelihood that the same vendor would be selected is very high as they are a high-quality local provider.
CONTACT PERSON
Conor Murphy, Associate Management Analyst, HHCS, (510) 981-7611 Jeffrey Buell, Mental Health Manager, HHCS, (510) 981-7682 Attachments:
1: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
AMENDING CONTRACT NO. 32200086 WITH CRISIS SERVICES OF ALAMEDA
COUNTY FOR MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS LINE
WHEREAS, the City’s Mental Health Division has had a consistent need for after-hours crisis support for clients served over many years; and
WHEREAS, the services in this contract have enabled the Mental Health Division to work with a local crisis line provider, increasing the provision of after-hours crisis line services for our clients; and
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2021 the City Manager authorized execution of Contract No. 32200086 with Crisis Services of Alameda County for Mental Health Crisis Line services, amending which contract is the focus of this report; and WHEREAS, funding for this contract has been included in the FY 2025 Budget and will be provided from the Community Services and Supports Development fund 315.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32200086 with Crisis Services of Alameda County for Mental Health Crisis Line services for a total contract not to exceed amount of $100,000 for the period beginning September 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2028. A record signature copy of the contract and any amendments shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/
CONSENT CALENDAR
April 15, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Department
Subject: Contract No. 32200191 Amendment: Options Recovery for Substance Use Disorder Services co-location
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32200191 with Options Recovery for Substance Use Disorder services for a total contract not to exceed amount of $1,000,000 through June 30, 2027. This amendment will add $500,000 and two years to the contract term.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
This amendment will add $500,000 to the contract. Resources for the contract have been included in the FY 2025 Budget and will be provided from the Community Services and Supports Development Fund 315, subject to approval of Annual Appropriations Ordinance Number Two.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Annual Update included new funding for Substance Use Disorder (SUD) services. The additional funding and flexibility in the use of previously allocated MHSA funds allowed Berkeley Mental Health (BMH) to work with a local SUD provider to co-locate SUD services at the Mental Health Adult clinic. This change increased the provision of SUD services for BMH clients, providing an opportunity for staff to obtain consultations on SUD services, and making referrals into SUD services outside of the Mental Health Adult clinic easier for consumers. This is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily-accessible service and information to the community.
BACKGROUND
A large portion of individuals who currently receive services at BMH are also suffering from co-occurring disorders, having both mental health issues and substance use disorders. In an effort to increase the capacity to serve individuals with substance use disorders, BMH sought out the services of a local SUD provider. On January 18, 2022
07
Amending Contract No. 32200191 CONSENT CALENDAR
April 15, 2025
City Council approved Resolution No. 70,182-N.S., authorizing Contract No. 32200191 with Options Recovery for SUD co-location services, amending which contract is the focus of this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects, climate impacts, or sustainability opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
As part of the current contract, Options Recovery has been collecting bi-weekly and monthly data to track client progress in goal setting, identifying barriers to success, and assessing key factors such as substance use, mood fluctuations, and pain levels.
Results have been overwhelmingly positive thus far. This data-driven approach not only enhances client engagement but also informs best practices for integrating goal attainment into co-occurring disorder treatment.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
City Council could decide not to approve the attached Resolution and the City could issue a Request for Proposals to find a different service provider. However, City staff does not recommend this option because we have received positive feedback from consumers on the quality and availability of the service provided by Options Recovery.
Also, due to the lengthy process to start a new Request for Proposals, it could jeopardize the continuity of the service.
CONTACT PERSON
Conor Murphy, Associate Management Analyst, HHCS, (510) 981-7611 Jeffrey Buell, Mental Health Manager, HHCS, (510) 981-7682 Attachments:
1: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
AMENDING CONTRACT NO. 32200191 WITH OPTIONS RECOVERY FOR
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER SERVICES CO-LOCATION
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2021 by Resolution No. 70,012-N.S. City Council approved the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Annual Update, which included funding for Substance Use Disorder (SUD) services; and WHEREAS, the services in this contract have enabled the Mental Health Division to work with a local SUD provider to co-locate SUD services at the Mental Health Adult clinic, increasing the provision of SUD services for our clients; and WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022 City Council approved Resolution No. 70,182-N.S., authorizing Contract No. 32200191 with Options Recovery for SUD co-location services, amending which contract is the focus of this report; and WHEREAS, funding for this contract have been included in the FY 2025 Budget and will be provided from the CSS Development Fund 315, subject to approval of Annual Appropriations Ordinance Number Two.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32200191 with Options Recovery for Substance Use Disorder services for a total contract not to exceed amount of $1,000,000 for the period beginning January 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2027. A record signature copy of the contract and any amendments shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
CONSENT CALENDAR
April 15, 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. 32000177 Amendment: NextRequest for Public Records Act (PRA) Response Software
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000177 with NextRequest for software hosting, implementation, maintenance and related services for a Public Records Act Response Software System, for an additional amount not to exceed $61,098, for a total not to exceed value of $194,475.07, for the period commencing on July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2027.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for the additional software license term in the amount of $61,098 is available in the Department of Information Technology’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 and 2027 IT Cost Allocation Fund as itemized below. Spending for this contract and related amendments in future fiscal years is subject to Council’s approval of the proposed citywide budget and annual appropriation ordinances.
FY 2026: Software Maintenance
Budget Code: 680-35-364-000-0000-000-472-613130$29,094
(IT Cost Allocation, 311 Customer Service, Software Maintenance) FY 2027: Software Maintenance
Budget Code: 680-35-364-000-0000-000-472-613130$32,004
(IT Cost Allocation, 311 Customer Service, Software Maintenance) $61,098 Total FY 2026-2027: Software Maintenance and Professional Services
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
City staff currently use the NextRequest PRA platform to receive public records requests, manage internal communication and data collection for these requests, and respond to the community. Community members, who issue public records requests, receive automatic email confirmations from NextRequest and can track the status of their request through the NextRequest portal.
08
Contract No. 32000177 Amendment: NextRequest for PRA Software CONSENT CALENDAR April 15, 2025
In 2024, City staff received and processed 2189 new public records requests for the City via the NextRequest system. The average time to respond to these requests was eight days, and the average time to fulfillment was twenty-five days.
The NextRequest Public Records Act Response software system is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing the city’s goal to be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily accessible service and information to the community.
BACKGROUND
Prior to installing NextRequest software, Community members would submit requests by email, US Mail, in person through the City Clerk’s office, or directly to City departments.
PRA requests were completed using an on-line form by City Clerk staff and allocated to the responsive department to take action.
In 2011, in an effort to streamline the process, the City adapted the case forms in the Lagan CRM system, a case management system used by 311 Customer Service Call Center, to capture requests for public records. Lagan CRM captured case information but lacked the capability to capture the requirements needed to fulfill PRA requests. In addition, the Lagan CRM was not easily searchable by “key words”, and staff responding to a PRA could not access report information on notes, attachments or case description.
This limitation made searching for past responsive documents challenging. As a result, departments such as Planning and Public Works who routinely receive multiple requests for the same information were forced to duplicate work that had already been performed to fulfill a PRA request.
Furthermore, the Open Data Commission required the City of Berkeley to report annually on the number of PRA’s handled. The report was processed by the City Attorney’s office and required information including the quantity of PRA’s responded to on time, the number of PRA’s where primary fulfillment date is beyond the required ten days, and the total number of days to fulfill a PRA. To produce this report, the City Attorney’s office worked extensively with the 311 Customer Service manager and took weeks to prepare.
The system did not produce the level of detail needed to respond to the Open Data Commission.
Given the challenges of the system, on November 14, 2018, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) #19-11255-C for an improved Public Records Act Response System, including a redaction module to enable better management of redacting the sensitive information.
The City received two (2) responses to the Public Records Act Response System RFP by the December 13, 2018 deadline. A committee of 7+ staff from the City Clerk, City Attorney, Planning, Fire, Police, and Information Technology departments conducted a comprehensive evaluation process that included proposal reviews, vendor demonstrations, and reference checks. NextRequest was selected because they offered the most comprehensive and user-friendly solution to meet the City’s needs.
Contract No. 32000177 Amendment: NextRequest for PRA Software CONSENT CALENDAR April 15, 2025
The City completed the implementation of the NextRequest platform in November 2020.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
NextRequest provides an improved system with a secure customer-facing portal to allow individuals to conduct self-service searches for public record requests. Additionally, requestors receive City generated documents systematically, reducing paper, use of copy equipment, and trips to City Clerk’s office to view and retrieve documents. This supports the reduction of our carbon footprint and goals of the City’s Climate Action Plan. Further the public can search, find, and retrieve document records stored in the PRA portal, reducing the need to enter a new public records request.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends continuing the use of the NextRequest PRA processing software as it best meets City needs and they scored the highest in the evaluation performed by City staff. NextRequest excels at meeting the City’s requirements for a secure public facing portal to provide customers with self-service (24/7/365) technology to make requests and to check the status of PRA requests. Publishing common documents to the portal streamlines service delivery for customers and eliminates publishing duplicate requests.
Both City staff and the community greatly benefit from the functionality offered by NextRequest.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternatives were considered as staff finds this software extremely helpful both for City staff and to the community. Additionally, ongoing software licensing and support is required for usage.
CONTACT PERSON
Kevin Fong, Director, Information Technology, 510-981-6541 Attachments:
1: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
CONTRACT NO. 32000177 AMENDMENT: NEXTREQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS
ACT RESPONSE SOFTWARE SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has identified the need to improve the efficiency of its management of Public Records Act requests; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2018, the City of Berkeley issued a Request for Proposal No.19-11255-C for an improved Public Records Request Response Software System and received two responding bidders; and
WHEREAS, in response to the City’s Request for Proposal, NextRequest responded with a proposal that received the highest rating among those submitted by competing vendors; and
WHEREAS, the City receives approximately 2000 requests per year and maintaining software support is critical to the proper functioning of the system; and WHEREAS, funding for the additional software license term in the amount of $61,098 is available in the Department of Information Technology’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 and 2027 IT Cost Allocation Fund, and spending for this contract and related amendments in future fiscal years is subject to Council’s 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 hereby authorized to amend Contract No. 32000177 with NextRequest for software hosting, implementation, maintenance and related services for a Public Records Act Response Software System, for an additional amount not to exceed $61,098, for a total not to exceed value of $194,474.07, for the period commencing on July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2027.
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
April 15, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Purchase Order with Multiquip Inc. for a Portable Emergency Power Generator for Berkeley Tuolumne Family Camp
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution allowing the City to participate in Sourcewell contract bid procedures and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase order for one Multiquip Portable Generator and associated options with Multiquip Inc. in an amount not to exceed $116,766.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The cost of the Multiquip portable generator is $116,766 and includes purchasing, shipping, installation, and sales tax. Funding for this purchase is available in the FY 2025 General Fund (Fund 011) budget.
General Fund
(011)
011-52-545-000-0000-000-461-664120-
PRWCP25004-011-GEN-CONSTRUCT
$116,766
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Due to the increasing frequency of Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) and intermittent power losses at Berkeley Tuolumne Family Camp during the summer season, the Camp needs a portable power generator. The generator will provide emergency power to the dining hall facility refrigeration units to prevent the emergency spoilage of food for the 300 plus visitors at Camp each day that has already occurred several times. Council authorization of a Purchase Order with Multiquip, Inc. for a new portable generator is required to make this purchase.
BACKGROUND
Berkeley Tuolumne Camp reopened in 2022 following a complete rebuild after the Camp was destroyed by the Rim Fire in 2013. With the exception of $2.7M paid by the City, insurance funding paid for the $56M rebuild project. This insurance funding covered “as-was replacement” and current code upgrades only. Therefore, the rebuild only paid for a back-up generator for the Water Treatment and Distribution system, the
09
Purchase Order with Multiquip Inc. for portable emergency power generator for CONSENT CALENDAR Berkeley Tuolumne Family Camp April 15, 2025
septic system, and emergency lighting as required by current State Building Code.
Since reopening, intermittent and prolonged power outages have become more common as Pacific Gas and Electric works to alleviate wildfire ignition caused by electrical facilities during peak fire risk periods. These power outages have been substantial and several times have caused the emergency spoilage of refrigerated and frozen food that is needed for the 300 plus guests who stay at Camp per day during the Summer. The installation of a new generator and electrical connection will ensure that these emergency situations will be prevented.
The City is presently a member of Sourcewell, a municipal contracting agency operating under the legislative authority of Minnesota Statue 123A.21 that conducts a competitive bidding procurement system for public agencies. After competing in a Sourcewell bidding process for portable construction equipment in 2022, the prices for Multiquip equipment were approved by Sourcewell Contract No. 020923-MTQ, which the City can now use to purchase the new generator.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The new Multiquip portable emergency power generator at Berkeley Tuolumne Camp will be powered by renewable diesel fuel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions when compared to other fuels, and will meet all current air quality emissions standards. This project helps the City with Strategic Plan Goal 7 to be “a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.”
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The new generator will allow the City’s Berkeley Tuolumne Family Camp to maintain electrical service during intermittent power outages and prevent the emergency spoilage of the Camp’s food supply. This purchase will support the City’s Strategic Plan Goal 1 of “providing state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.”
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None
CONTACT PERSON
Steph Chu, Recreation and Youth Services Manager, 510-981-6707 Justin Pitcher, Recreation Program Supervisor, 510-981-5123 Attachments:
1: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
PURCHASE ORDER WITH MULTIQUIP INC. FOR A PORTABLE EMERGENCY
POWER GENERATOR FOR BERKELEY TUOLUMNE FAMILY CAMP
WHEREAS, the increasing frequency of Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) and intermittent power losses at Berkeley Tuolumne Family Camp during the summer season has resulted in the emergency spoilage of food needed for the 300 plus visitors at Camp each day several times; and
WHEREAS, the City is presently a member of Sourcewell, a municipal contracting agency operating under the legislative authority of Minnesota Statue 123A.21 that conducts a competitive bidding procurement system for public agencies. After competing in a Sourcewell bidding process for portable construction equipment in 2022, the prices for Multiquip equipment were approved by Sourcewell Contract No. 020923- MTQ, which the City can now use to purchase the new generator; and WHEREAS, funds are available in the amount of $116,766 in the FY 2025 General Fund (011) for this purchase.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a purchase order with Multiquip, Inc. for one portable emergency power generator for Berkeley Tuolumne Family Camp in an amount not to exceed $116,766 through the Sourcewell contract bid process.
1900 Addison Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-4950 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/dpa
CONSENT CALENDAR
April 15, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Police Accountability Board (PAB)
Submitted by: Hansel A. Aguilar, Director of Police Accountability (DPA) & Secretary of the Police Accountability Board (PAB)
Subject Proclamation of the City of Berkeley Designating April 17 as Police Accountability Day
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a proclamation declaring April 17 as Police Accountability Day to honor the establishment of civilian oversight of law enforcement in the City of Berkeley through the founding of the Police Review Commission and to reaffirm the City’s commitment to police accountability and transparency. The proclamation encourages the Police Accountability Board and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability to collaborate with community organizations, educational institutions, and local leaders to organize events, initiatives, and activities that raise public awareness and promote engagement in police accountability. Additionally, the proclamation will reaffirm the City of Berkeley’s dedication to being a national leader in police accountability, advancing policies and practices rooted in justice, equity, and community trust.
SUMMARY
This report provides formal reasons why April 17 should be designated as Police Accountability Day.
Recommendations include, but are not limited to:
To provide an annual opportunity to reflect on Berkeley’s leadership in police oversight.
To honor the contributions of the Police Review Commission, Police Accountability Board, and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability. To engage the community in discussions and actions that strengthen trust and accountability in policing.
10
Police Accountability Board Recommendation: Police Accountability Day CONSENT CALENDAR April 15, 2025
To underscore the importance of ongoing efforts to advance equitable and just policing practices.
To foster stronger relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
To commemorate the founding of the Police Review Commission. To celebrate the City’s continued commitment to police accountability and transparency.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There are no identifiable fiscal impacts associated with these recommendations.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Currently, there is no day that commemorates the founding of the Police Review Commission.
BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley has a longstanding tradition of leadership in civilian oversight of law enforcement, exemplified by the establishment of the Police Review Commission (PRC) on April 17, 1973, through Ordinance No. 4644-N.S. The founding of the PRC was a groundbreaking step towards transparency, accountability, and community trust in policing practices, setting a national example for civilian oversight.
In November 2020, Berkeley voters approved Measure II, which replaced the PRC with the Police Accountability Board (PAB) and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability (ODPA) to strengthen oversight powers, modernize practices, and reaffirm the City’s commitment to equitable law enforcement oversight. Measure II represents a significant evolution in the City’s approach to police accountability, ensuring that the principles of justice, transparency, and fairness remain at the forefront of law enforcement practices. Civilian oversight of law enforcement plays a critical role in promoting procedural justice, protecting civil rights, and enhancing public safety, both locally and across the nation.
At its March 5, 2025, regular meeting, the PAB unanimously approved a resolution recommending that the City Council designate April 17 as “Police Accountability Day”. 1 Designating this day would provide an annual opportunity to reflect on Berkeley’s leadership in police oversight, honor the contributions of the PRC, PAB, and ODPA, and engage the community in discussions and actions that strengthen trust and accountability in policing. Recognizing Police Accountability Day underscores the ongoing commitment to advancing equitable and just policing practices while fostering stronger relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve. 1 March 5, 2025 PAB Regular Meeting Recording (relevant discussion at [54:30:00-58:39:00]) :
https://youtu.be/X-c0A5Uc--0?si=S91NDBIo4NIgTL3v
Police Accountability Board Recommendation: Police Accountability Day CONSENT CALENDAR April 15, 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with this report.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The PAB presents these recommendations for City Council, aimed honoring the contributions of the PRC, PAB, and ODPA.
CONTACT PERSON
Hansel A. Aguilar, Director,
Office of the Director of Police Accountability (510) 981-4950 Attachments:
1. PAB Resolution No. 2025-0010
2. Proclamation of the City Of Berkeley Designating April 17 As Police Accountability Day
Police Accountability Board Recommendation: Police Accountability Day CONSENT CALENDAR April 15, 2025
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-0010
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF APRIL 17 AS POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY DAY
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1973, the City of Berkeley established the Police Review Commission (PRC) through Ordinance No. 4644-N.S., becoming a pioneer in civilian oversight of law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the founding of the PRC marked a historic commitment by the City of Berkeley to ensure transparency, accountability, and community trust in policing practices; and
WHEREAS, in November 2020, Berkeley voters overwhelmingly approved Measure II, which replaced the PRC with the Police Accountability Board (PAB) and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability (ODPA) to enhance oversight powers, increase transparency, and strengthen the City’s commitment to police accountability; and WHEREAS, Measure II established the PAB and ODPA as integral components of a modern and robust civilian oversight framework, ensuring continued dedication to the principles of fairness, equity, and justice in law enforcement oversight; and WHEREAS, civilian oversight of law enforcement continues to play an essential role in promoting procedural justice, protecting civil rights, and enhancing public safety; and WHEREAS, recognizing April 17 as Police Accountability Day would serve as an opportunity for the community to reflect on the progress made in police accountability, honor the work of civilian oversight bodies, and reaffirm the City’s commitment to equitable and just law enforcement practices; and
WHEREAS, the designation of Police Accountability Day would also underscore the importance of police accountability as a cornerstone of democracy, community trust, and public safety both locally and nationwide.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Police Accountability Board and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability urge the Berkeley City Council to designate April 17 as Police Accountability Day; and
Police Accountability Board Recommendation: Police Accountability Day CONSENT CALENDAR April 15, 2025
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this day shall be commemorated annually to highlight the importance of civilian oversight, community engagement, and the continuous pursuit of fairness and justice in law enforcement; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the PAB and ODPA will collaborate with community organizations, educational institutions, and local leaders to host events, discussions, and activities to educate and engage the public on police accountability and the legacy of the Police Review Commission; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City of Berkeley reaffirms its commitment to being a national leader in police accountability and to advancing policies and practices that uphold the principles of justice, transparency, and community trust.
Adopted on: March 5, 2025
Police Accountability Board Recommendation: Police Accountability Day CONSENT CALENDAR April 15, 2025
RESOLUTION VOTING RESULTS
Board Member Aye No Abstain
Calavita x
Cayetano x
Leftwich x
Williams x
Wilson x
Total: 5 Ayes, 0 No
CERTIFICATION
I, Joshua Cayetano, as Chair of the Police Accountability Board, hereby certify the accuracy of the voting results contained in this document.
Joshua Cayetano,
Chair of the Police Accountability Board
Date
I, Hansel A. Aguilar, witnessed the signing of this document and can confirm that the signature, whether physical or electronic, belongs to Joshua Cayetano. I have signed this document below as a witness to the signing.
Hansel A. Aguilar,
Director of Police Accountability &
Secretary to the Police Accountability
Board
Date
Police Accountability Board Recommendation: Police Accountability Day CONSENT CALENDAR April 15, 2025
PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY OF BERKELEY DESIGNATING APRIL 17 AS POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY DAY
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has a longstanding tradition of leadership in civilian oversight of law enforcement, exemplified by the establishment of the Police Review Commission (PRC) on April 17, 1973, through Ordinance No. 4644-N.S.; and WHEREAS, the founding of the PRC was a groundbreaking step toward transparency, accountability, and community trust in policing practices, setting a national example for civilian oversight; and
WHEREAS, in November 2020, Berkeley voters approved Measure II, which replaced the PRC with the Police Accountability Board (PAB) and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability (ODPA) to strengthen oversight powers, modernize practices, and reaffirm the City’s commitment to equitable law enforcement oversight; and WHEREAS, Measure II represents a significant evolution in the City’s approach to police accountability, ensuring that the principles of justice, transparency, and fairness remain at the forefront of law enforcement practices; and
WHEREAS, civilian oversight of law enforcement plays a critical role in promoting procedural justice, protecting civil rights, and enhancing public safety, both locally and across the nation; and
WHEREAS, designating April 17 as Police Accountability Day provides an annual opportunity to reflect on Berkeley’s leadership in police oversight, honor the contributions of the PRC, PAB, and ODPA, and engage the community in discussions and actions that strengthen trust and accountability in policing; and
WHEREAS, the recognition of Police Accountability Day underscores the importance of ongoing efforts to advance equitable and just policing practices, fostering stronger relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City of Berkeley hereby designates April 17 as Police Accountability Day to commemorate the founding of the Police Review Commission and to celebrate the City’s continued commitment to police accountability and transparency; and
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED, that the City of Berkeley encourages the Police Accountability Board and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability to collaborate with community organizations, educational institutions, and local leaders to host events, educational programs, and activities that promote public awareness and engagement on issues of police accountability; and
Police Accountability Board Recommendation: Police Accountability Day CONSENT CALENDAR April 15, 2025
BE IT FINALLY PROCLAIMED, that the City of Berkeley reaffirms its dedication to being a national leader in police accountability, advancing policies and practices that reflect the values of justice, equity, and community trust.
Mayor Adena Ishii Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani Councilmember Terry Taplin Councilmember Ben Bartlett Councilmember Igor Tregub Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe Councilmember Brent Blackaby Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra Councilmember Mark Humbert
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Police Accountability Board (PAB)
Submitted by: John “Chip” Moore, Chair of the Police Accountability Board Hansel A. Aguilar, Director of Police Accountability
Subject: Berkeley Police Department Texting Offences: An Independent Investigation by the Police Accountability Board
RECOMMENDATION
The Police Accountability Board formally recommends to the City Council that it:
1. Pass an ordinance or otherwise affirm the Police Accountability Board’s ability to access documents and records in furtherance of its central accountability function, consistent with Charter Amendment Section 125.
2. Adopt a robust resolution ensuring full and meaningful accountability for sworn officers—whether on-duty or off-duty—who engage in misconduct of any kind, but especially actions or expressions of racial or other types of bias.
3. Direct the City Manager to work with the Berkeley Police Department, Police Accountability Board, and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability to create a public repository to fulfill the vision of California Penal Code Section 832.7(b)(1), allowing for transparency in cases of sustained allegations of officer racism or other discriminatory conduct or expression.
4. Call on California state legislators to extend the prohibition on arrest quotas, which are currently limited to the California Vehicle Code (Section 41600 – 41603).
POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On February 25, 2025, the Public Safety Policy Committee adopted the following action:
M/S/C (Kesarwani/O’Keefe) to send item to City Council with a negative recommendation.
Vote: All Ayes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
April 15, 2025
11a
Berkeley Police Department Texting Offences: An Independent Investigation by the Police Accountability Board
CONSENT CALENDAR
April 15, 2025
2 SUMMARY
In accordance with City Charter Section 125(17)(a), the City of Berkeley Police Accountability Board’s Subcommittee on Policy and Practices conducted an examination of policies, practices, and procedures within the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) concerning the Downtown Task Force (DTF) and Bike Unit allegations.
A Special Meeting of the PAB was convened on November 15, 2022, where the Board voted to establish a subcommittee to review all policies and practices related to the allegations made by former BPD Officer Corey Shedoudy, which were made public on November 10, 2022. The subcommittee, initially chaired by former Board Member Cheryl Owens and later by Board Member Kitty Calavita following Owens’ resignation, also included PAB Chair John (Chip) Moore. The allegations involved racist text messages, bias against the unhoused, and pressure to meet arrest quotas, with the Sergeant of the DTF implicated.
Despite the PAB's authority under Section 125(3)(a) of the City Charter to access departmental records without redaction or limitation, the subcommittee encountered numerous obstacles in obtaining the necessary materials. This review revealed several areas where BPD policies and practices did not meet best practices, policy, or legal standards. Specifically, the findings included:
Expectations to achieve certain arrest numbers.
Exchange of racially charged and discriminatory text messages among DTF officers.
Use of personal cellphones for discussing work-related matters. Essentially unlimited overtime for DTF officers.
Vague or absent policies in critical areas that could lead to legal violations or undermine fair policing.
Insufficient knowledge of BPD policies and State law among some DTF members.
The Board's preliminary recommendations for improving BPD policies and practices include:
Establishing a new policy prohibiting formal or informal arrest quotas. Ensuring fair enforcement of stay-away orders in accordance with State law. Increasing training on BPD policies and State law.
Revising policies related to Fair and Impartial Policing, Standards of Conduct, Early Warning System, Employee Speech, Expression and Social Networking, Personal Communication Devices, and Overtime Compensation Requests.
Additionally, the PAB recommends that the City Council:
Berkeley Police Department Texting Offences: An Independent Investigation by the Police Accountability Board
CONSENT CALENDAR
April 15, 2025
3 Pass an ordinance in line with Charter Amendment Section 125(3)(a)(7) to enable the PAB to self-initiate investigations of potential misconduct and access internal records for such investigations.
Adopt a resolution to ensure comprehensive accountability for officers who engage in misconduct, consistent with the City’s 2024 State and Federal Legislative Agenda.
Direct the City Manager to collaborate with the BPD, PAB, and Office of the Director of Police Accountability to establish a public repository, as envisioned by California Penal Code Section 832.7(b)(1), to ensure transparency regarding sustained findings of discriminatory conduct.
Advocate for state legislators to extend the prohibition on arrest quotas, currently limited to the California Vehicle Code (Section 41600–41603), to encompass all California law enforcement activities.
This report aims to not only highlight deficiencies in BPD policies and practices but also to offer concrete recommendations for addressing these issues. Achieving these goals will require the collective efforts of the PAB, BPD leadership, the City Manager, and the City Council. Through this report, the PAB reaffirms its commitment to collaboration, justice, fairness, trust, and community safety.
In support of these objectives, the ODPA submits a complementary report to provide additional information related to the PAB’s findings, in accordance with Chapter VI, Section C.1. of the City of Berkeley’s Commissioner’s Manual.
The PAB initially submitted this report to the City Council for presentation at the October 1, 2024 Regular Meeting but was deferred to the Public Safety Committee1. During the PAB meeting on September 25, 2024, the PAB voted to request the withdrawal of the item2, a request that was granted by the Public Safety Committee.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Implementing the PAB's recommendations will incur costs related to staff time, technology requirements, and maintenance of such technology.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On November 10, 2022, Corey Shedoudy, a former member of the Berkeley Police Department’s (BPD) Downtown Task Force and Bike Unit (DTF), alleged that the DTF had arrest quotas and used questionable legal tactics, such as “stop and frisk,” probationary searches without reasonable suspicion, and a broad interpretation of stay- 1 September 26, 2024 Agenda & Rules Committee Special Meeting Minutes:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-minutes/09-16%20Minutes%20- %20Agenda%20Committee.pdf
2 The motion carried with 6 ayes in favor, 0 noes, and 2 PAB members absent. Police Accountability Board Regular Meeting Minutes for September 25, 2024: [link]
Berkeley Police Department Texting Offences: An Independent Investigation by the Police Accountability Board
CONSENT CALENDAR
April 15, 2025
4 away orders from UC Berkeley. To support his claims, Officer Shedoudy provided a series of text messages from the DTF that contained derogatory comments about homeless individuals and people of color.
In response to these allegations, the PAB began a policy review on November 15, 2022, exercising its authority under Section 125(17)(a) of the Berkeley City Charter. A subcommittee was formed to examine the policies and practices related to the allegations.
In December 2022, the City of Berkeley retained the law firm Swanson & McNamara to investigate the claims. During this investigation, the text messages provided by Mr.
Shedoudy were authenticated.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the PAB is to promote public trust through independent, objective civilian oversight of the Berkeley Police Department, provide community participation in setting and reviewing Police Department policies, practices, and procedures, and offer a means for prompt, impartial, and fair investigations of complaints brought by members of the public against sworn employees of the Berkeley Police Department.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with this report.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Accepting the recommendations from the Police Accountability Board will improve public trust by enhancing transparency and accountability within the Berkeley Police Department. Implementing these recommendations will strengthen oversight in the city, allowing the Board to fulfill its intended purpose effectively.
CONTACT PERSON
Hansel A. Aguilar, Director of Police Accountability
Office of the Director of Police Accountability, (510) 981-4950 Attachments:
1: PAB Report “Berkeley Police Department Texting Offences: An Independent Investigation by the Police Accountability Board”
2: ODPA Companion Report “Companion Report to Berkeley Police Department Texting Allegations An Independent Investigation by the Police Accountability Board”
Berkeley Police Department
Memorandum
From: Chief Jennifer Louis Date: 2/18/2025
To: Berkeley City Council Public Safety Policy Committee Subject: Berkeley Police Department Response Regarding the Police Accountability Board and Office of the Director of Police Accountability 2024 Texting Offenses Reports The Berkeley Police Department (BPD) has reviewed the recent reports and their accompanying recommendations from the Police Accountability Board (PAB) and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability (ODPA) responding to the independent investigation completed by Swanson & McNamara into text exchanges among BPD officers on the bike team. It is important to note that neither the PAB nor ODPA reports dispute the findings of the independent investigation; rather, they offer recommendations based on their review of the report.
The Department remains committed to robust oversight and accountability in the performance of our core services. BPD must therefore carefully assess all recommendations to ensure they are warranted and appropriate and their benefits justify any cost and potential disruption to the provision of public safety services.
We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our positions and explain how current practices address many of the concerns raised.
PAB Recommendations to the Department
The PAB report calls for revisions to several key policies as well as increased training on laws and policies. The ODPA companion report does not make recommendations directly to the police department.
Policy Updates
PAB Recommendation:
Revise key policies including:
a. Fair and Impartial Policing (Policy 401)
b. Personal Communication Devices (Policy 701)
c. Employee Speech, Expression, and Social Networking (Policy 1029) d. Early Warning System (Policy 1041)
e. Standards of Conduct (Policy 321)
f. Overtime Compensation (Policy 1019)
g. Adopt a standalone policy prohibiting formal or informal arrest quotas.
BPD Response:
BPD is actively collaborating with the PAB on a number of policy reviews initiated by the PAB. Additionally, the department is preparing to implement a next-generation Early Intervention System (EIS) platform to strengthen our existing EIS process and further enhance oversight. Over the course of the last several years, a number of the above policies have been updated, as BPD worked to complete Council recommendations related to fair and impartial policing, City Auditor recommendations regarding overtime, and our process to convert departmental General Orders to Lexipol Policies.
The Charter empowers the PAB to initiate reviews and propose specific policy amendments, and we welcome any detailed proposals. We remain committed to continuous improvement, and making thoughtful, intentional,
Berkeley Police Department
Memorandum
and productive policy updates is a critical responsibility for the BPD that requires significant staff time and is undertaken only when it aligns with our departmental mission as well as our core commitment to public safety and operational efficiency. We currently have no additional substantive policy changes planned from the list provided.
Training and Oversight
PAB Recommendation:
Increase training on state laws, stay-away orders, and internal policies. Implement clearer accountability mechanisms for policy enforcement.
BPD Response:
The department’s Policy and Training Unit ensures that all officers understand state laws and internal policies through comprehensive and ongoing training programs. Our training needs are continuously driven by legal mandates, timely legal updates, data analysis, audits, and early intervention efforts. These mechanisms ensure that we are providing training exactly where it is needed. Currently, review of the independent investigation as well as our internal assessments show that our existing training adequately addresses these standards and no additional training measures regarding stay-away orders are warranted at this time.
Additional Considerations
A range of additional recommendations from the PAB and ODPA are directed to the City Council, City Manager and the community to further manage our law enforcement practices. The Department would like to provide the Public Safety Policy Committee additional background to assist as helpful with a deeper understanding of the key issues and needs.
Key themes emerging from these proposals include:
Expanded Access and Transparency:
o The reports articulate proposals to expand the PAB’s authority to access unredacted internal records (under Charter Section 125) and to create a public database for sustained misconduct findings. It is important to note that there is an ongoing dialogue between the City and the Berkeley Police Officer’s Association regarding the scope of PAB access as part of the process to establish PAB’s Permanent Regulations for handling Investigations and Complaints. Currently, we continue to rely on Charter Provisions, existing PAB’s Temporary Regulations as well as public record procedures, all which balance transparency with considerations for community member and officer privacy rights.
Accountability and Legislative Adjustments:
o A number of recommendations address accountability for officer misconduct—including both on- and off-duty behavior—and call for resolutions or legislative changes (such as extending the prohibition of arrest quotas to all law enforcement activities). Our current policies are designed to meet these accountability goals, and any proposed amendments would need to be weighed against broader policy priorities and fiscal implications. Operational Enhancements and Oversight Mechanisms:
o Several proposals suggest operational improvements such as real-time audits of body-worn camera footage, revised protocols for handling complaints against the police chief, and the
Berkeley Police Department
Memorandum
development of a comprehensive communications policy during investigations. Our established oversight processes already provide multiple layers of review and safeguard public communications. These suggestions would require serious trade-offs regarding funding, administrative processes, and the balance of oversight responsibilities between existing bodies (such as the City Manager’s Office and the Chief of Police). External Assessment and Accreditation:
o The reports express interest in evaluating the potential benefits of external assessment tools— including law enforcement accreditation and standardized performance metrics—to supplement our robust internal oversight systems. While external evaluations may offer additional insights, they also involve significant administrative requirements and must be considered in the context of Berkeley’s unique operational, administrative and oversight environment. Additional Proposals and Considerations:
o Other recommendations touch on topics such as randomized audits of city-issued devices, the formulation of an alcohol rehabilitation leave policy, and Charter amendments to expand investigative authority or secure independent legal counsel for oversight agencies. Each of these proposals carries distinct operational and fiscal trade-offs that should be properly weighed.
Our department remains committed to effective oversight, accountability, and continuous improvement. We believe these efforts must be rooted in our core departmental priorities and established practices to enhance public safety and operational efficiency. To that end, many of the proposals in these reports will require further stakeholder engagement, clear funding sources, and alignment with existing practices to ensure they don’t interrupt our ability to deliver our core services at the high standard set by Council, the community, and ourselves.
Conclusion
We remain committed to working collaboratively with the PAB, ODPA, and all stakeholders to ensure that our policies and practices continue to support public safety and fair, effective law enforcement. Our department will continue to engage in dialogue as these issues evolve.
Thank you for your attention to this response.
Cc:
Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Hansel Aguilar, Director of Police Accountability
Josh Cayetano, Police Accountability Board Chair
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
BERKELEY POLICE
DEPARTMENT TEXTING
OFFENCES
An Independent Investigation by the
Police Accountability Board
Police Accountability Board
City of Berkeley, CA
July 10, 2024
Prepared by:
Approved by the PAB on
MAYOR
Jesse Arreguín
CITY COUNCIL
Rashi Kesarwani, District 1
Terry Taplin, District 2
Ben Bartlett, District 3
Igor Tregub, District 4
Sophie Hahn, District 5
Susan Wengraf, District 6
Cecilia Lunaparra, District 7
Mark Humbert, District 8
City Manager Berkeley Police Department
LaTanya Bellow, Interim City Manager Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD (PAB) MEMBERS
John “Chip” Moore, Chair
Leah Wilson, Vice-Chair
Brent Blackaby
Kitty Calavita
Joshua Cayetano
Juliet Leftwich
Alexander Mozes
David Williams
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY (ODPA) STAFF Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Director of Police Accountability Jose De Jesus Murillo, Policy Analyst
Jayson Wechter, Investigator
Keegan Horton, Investigator
Melanie E. Beasley, Administrative Analyst
Lucky, Therapy Animal
1 Table of Contents
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 4 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 7 DATA SOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 11 LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA ............................................................................................................... 11 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................. 13 Authenticated Text Messages ........................................................................................................ 13 Statistical Analyses ........................................................................................................................... 13 Policy and Practices Deficiencies and Recommendations .................................................... 17 Fair and Impartial Policing, Policy 401 ..................................................................................... 18 Personal Communication Devices, Policy 701 ....................................................................... 19 Employee Speech, Expression, and Social Networking, Policy 1029 .............................. 20 Early Warning System, Policy 1041 .......................................................................................... 20 Standards of Conduct, Policy 321 ............................................................................................. 22 Overtime Compensation Requests, Policy 1019 .................................................................. 22 Prohibition on Arrest Quotas ...................................................................................................... 24 Stay-away Orders ........................................................................................................................... 25 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION ................................................................... 26 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ 29 ATTACHMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... 31 ATTACHMENT 1. Fair and Impartial Policing: POLICY 401 (with recommended changes in red). ................................................................................................................................................... 32 ATTACHMENT 2. Personal Communication Devices: POLICY 701 (with recommended changes in red) ................................................................................................................................... 36 ATTACHMENT 3. Employee Speech, Expression and Social Networking: POLICY 1029 (with recommended changes in red) ............................................................................................ 41 ATTACHMENT 4. EARLY WARNING SYSTEM: POLICY 1041 (recommended changes in red) ......................................................................................................................................................... 46 ATTACHMENT 5. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT: Policy 321 (with recommended changes in red) .................................................................................................................................................... 50 ATTACHMENT 6. Overtime Compensation Requests: Policy 1019 ...................................... 60 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................ 67 Appendix 1. City of Berkeley Contract for services with Swanson & McNamara LLP, Vendor Contract #32300109 ............................................................................................................ 68 Appendix 2. Text Messages Sent by the Downtown Task Force and Bike Unit Members ................................................................................................................................................................ 78 Appendix 3. Sample Quota Ban Policy ........................................................................................ 95
2 Table of Figures
Figure 1. Number of Arrest by Officer of the Downtown Task Force and Bike Unit ...................... 13 Figure 2. Downtown Task Force Arrest Numbers by Month ............................................................. 14 Figure 3. Race of Individuals Arrested by the Downtown Task Force/Bike Unit (Oct.2019 to Nov.2020) .................................................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 4. Downtown Task Force Arrest sent to Alameda County District Attorney's Office (Oct. 1, 2019 – Nov. 22, 2020) ............................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 5. Arrest made by the BPD (Jan. 2021 - Dec. 2022) .............................................................. 17
3 PREFACE
On November 10, 2022, Officer Corey Shedoudy, a former member of the Berkeley Police Department’s (BPD) Downtown Task Force and Bike Unit (DTF)1, claimed the DTF maintained arrest quotas and employed questionable legal tactics including “ stop and frisk, probation searches without reasonable suspicion of a crime, and a broad interpretation of stay-away orders from UC Berkeley."2
The allegations and the explicitness of th ose texts jolted the Berkeley community and its political leaders . Subsequently, t he City hired an outside law firm to investigate the authenticity of the texts and their implications. The texts were ultimately authenticated.
The community shock produced by these egregious sentiments and conduct by sworn BPD officers was compounded by t he realization that this behavior was only publicly known because a terminated member of the Department exposed it more than two years after the fact. The Police Accountability Board (PAB) and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability (ODPA) recognize and respect the hurt and suffering these expressions of apparent racism and disdain for the unhoused elicited in the community, particularly among those who are directly affected by such discriminatory attitudes and behaviors.
We are deeply troubled by these events. The PAB is designed to be a bridge between the community, the BPD, and the City leadership. Most importantly, however, it was established to ensure accountability, trust, and transparency. According to Section 125(1) of the Berkeley City Charter, the purpose of the PAB “is to promote public trust through independent, objective, civilian oversight of the Berkeley Police Department…”.3 The goal of this report is to fulfill that obligation to the Berkeley community. The PAB lacks the authorit y to independently initiate investigations into alleged misconduct by individual DTF members or to recommend discipline without a complaint being filed with the ODPA within 180 days of the incident .4 Instead, this report is mostly forward- looking in the ho pes that policy and practices reforms , coupled with rigorous oversight, can restore trust and help prevent future misconduct.
Restoring trust and helping prevent misconduct through robust oversight is not only the morally right thing to do ; i t is the fisc ally responsible thing as well. According to
1 The Downtown Task Force began operations in October 2019. In July 2020, it transitioned into a Bike Unit. The term “Downtown Task Force” or “DTF” will be used in this report to designate the unit from its beginning in October 2019.
2 Email send by Former Officer Shedoudy to the Berkeley City Council:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5edeeebc3032af28b09b6644/t/63725d28d35f08 7529c42dda/1668439336 808/Shedoudy+email+11-10-22.png
3 Berkeley City Charter Section 125(1): https://berkeley.municipal.codes/Charter/125(1) 4 Interim Regulations for Handling Complaints Against Sworn Officers of the Police Department, Section II.3.:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/PAB-ODPA.Interim.Regs_.Approved.2021-10-05.pdf
4 documents provided by the City Attorney’s office, over the last decade the City of Berkeley has had to respond to 471 legal claims related to BPD activities, costing the City $1,978,953, with more than $1,300,00 0 of this incurred in the last five years . The two most costly categories of liability were “excessive force” ($558,151) and “false arrest” ($338,551).
Reforms will involve not only changes in BPD policy and practice, but City Council action, robust accountability demanded from the BPD leadership, and ongoing efforts by the PAB to ensure full -bodied enforcement of all policies. Changes in law -on-the-books in the form of policy reforms will amount to nothing in the absence of changes in law -in- action, as policing ultimately takes place on the ground. Deterring the kind of behavior that was alleged by former Officer Shedoudy, and that uniformly offended the Berkeley community and eroded public trust, is a daunting challenge . It is achievable only if all hands are on deck.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In accordance with City Charter Section 125(17)(a) 5, the City of Berkeley Police Accountability Board’s Subcommittee on Policy and Practices relating to the Downtown Task Force and Bike Unit Allegations conducted an examination of policies, practices, and procedures within the Berkeley Police Department concerning matters related to that unit.
A Special Meeting of the PAB was called on November 15, 2022, at which the Board voted to form a subcommittee to do a policy revi ew of all policies and practices relating to Mr. Shedoudy’s allegations 6. The subcommittee was comprised of former Board Member Cheryl Owens, PAB Chair John (Chip) Moore, and Board Member Kitty Calavita, and was initially chaired by Board Member Owens. When Board Member Owens resigned from the Board, the subcommittee was Chaired by Board Member Calavita .7 The impetus for the review w as the set of allegations brought forth by former Berk eley Police Department (BPD) Officer Corey Shedoudy and made public on November 10, 2022. Mr. Shedoudy alleged that text messages expressing racist attitudes, bias against the unhoused, and pressure to meet arrest quotas, had been sent among members of the DTF, with the Sergeant of the DTF playing a central role.
5Berkeley City Charter Section 125(17)(a): https://berkeley.municipal.codes/Charter/125(17)(a) 6 Meeting Minutes for the PAB’s Regular meeting on November 15, 2022:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-minutes/cc.2022-11- 15%20SpecMtg.approved.minutes%20%281%29.pdf
7 On July 7, 2023, the ODPA received a policy complaint from a member of the public (DPA Case #2023 -PR-0004) regarding the allegations of the DTF’s arrest quotas and bias against people of color and the unhoused. At their regular meeting on September 27, 2023, the PAB voted to refer that policy complaint to this subcommittee since its work was well underway and responds (to the extent possible) to the issues raised in the complaint.
5 The PAB face d multiple challenges in accessing the materials necessary for its review, notwithstanding Section 125 (3)(a) of the City Charter, which gives the PAB the "powers and duties...to access records of City Departments"8, including "without redaction or limitation" records relating to policies and practices, disciplinary records, and internal investigative records 9 . The PAB Subcommittee spent many months of critical investigative time seeking—in some cases successfully, in other cases unsuccessfully— to overcome b arriers to access that had ostensibly been removed by these sections of the Charter Amendment.
This review identifies key areas where the BPD fell short of best practices, existing policy and/or legal requirements. Specifically, the Board found:
• There were expectations to reach certain arrest numbers; • BPD officers assigned to the DTF exchanged racially charged and discriminatory text messages;
• These BPD officers routinely used personal cellphones to discuss work -related matters;
• Overtime for DTF officers was essentially unlimited;
• Some BPD policies were vague or non-existent in subject areas that could prevent violations of law or compromise fair and impartial policing; • There was insufficient knowledge of specific BPD policies and State law among some DTF members;
The Board’s preliminary recommendations regarding BPD policies and practices include:
• Establishing a new freestanding policy prohibiting formal or informal arrest quotas; • Ensuring that stay-away orders are enforced fairly and consistent with State law; • Increasing training on BPD policies and State law; and • Making changes to BPD policies regarding Fair and Impartial Policing (#401)10; Standards of Conduct (#321) 11; the Early Warning System (#1041) 12; Employee
8 Berkeley City Charter Section 125(3)(a): https://berkeley.municipal.codes/Charter/125(3)(a)(5) 9 Berkeley City Charter Section 125(20)(a): https://berkeley.municipal.codes/Charter/125(20)(a) 10 BPD Policy 401 “Fair and Impartial Policing”: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/PAB- ODPA.Interim.Regs_.Approved.2021-10-05.pdf#page=321
11 BPD Policy 321 “Standard of Conduct”:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/RELEASE_20240301_T161429_Berkeley%20PD%20Policy%2 0Manual.pdf#page=189
12 BPD Policy 1041 “Early Warning System”:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/RELEASE_20240301_T161429_Berkeley%20PD%20Policy%2 0Manual.pdf#page=903
6 Speech, Expression and Social Networking (#1029) 13; Personal Communication Devices (#701)14; and Overtime Compensation Requests (#1019).15 The PAB further recommends that City Council:
• Pass an ordinance, consistent with Charter Amendment Section 125 (3)(a)(7)16, to allow the PAB to self-initiate investigations of potential misconduct and to access internal records in furtherance of those investigations. While policy reviews are important, it is at least as important to provide oversight of their implementation and practices on the ground.
• Adopt a robust resolu tion to ensure a full and meaningful accountability of sworn officers who engage in misconduct , whether on -duty or off-duty, consistent with the City’s 2024 State and Federal Legislative Agenda to “support efforts to increase peace officer accountability…”.17
• Direct the City Manager to work with the BPD, PAB and ODPA to create a public repository to fulfill the vision of California Penal Code Section 832.7(b)(1) 18, including but not limited to 832.7(b)(1)(D) which states that an exception to peace officer confidentiality is required for “any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in conduct including, but not limited to, verbal stat ements, writings, online posts, recordings, and gestures, involving prejudice or discrimination against a person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status.” • Encourage state legislators to extend the prohibition on arrest quotas, both formal and informal, in the Penal Code, which is currently limited to the California Vehicle Code (Section 41600-41603)19, to include all California law enforcement activity.
13 BPD Policy 1029 “Employee Speech, Expression and Social Networking”:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/RELEASE_20240301_T161429_Berkeley%20PD%20Policy%2 0Manual.pdf#page=860
14 BPD Policy 701 “Personal Communication Devices”:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/RELEASE_20240301_T161429_B erkeley%20PD%20Policy%2 0Manual.pdf#page=584
15 BPD Policy 1019 “Overtime Compensation Request”:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/RELEASE_20240301_T161429_Berkeley%20PD%20Policy%2 0Manual.pdf#page=827
16 Berkeley City Charter 125(3)(a)(7): https://berkeley.municipal.codes/Charter/125(3)(a)(7) 17 City of Berkeley’s 2024 State and Federal Legislative Platform. February 13, 2024 18 California Penal Code Section 832.7:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=832.7.&lawCode=PEN 19 California Vehicle Code Section 41600 – 41603:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=17.&title=&part=&chapt er=7.&article=
7 Our intent is not only to identify specific shortcomings in BPD policies and practices but to provide concrete steps toward rectifying them. This will require collective efforts by the PAB, the BPD and its leadership, the City Manager, and City Council. Through this report, the PAB reaffirms its commitment to the principles of collaboration, justice, fairness, trust, and community safety.
BACKGROUND
On November 1 0, 2022, former BPD Officer Corey Shedoudy who had been a member of the DTF but was terminated for misconduct, wrote to the Berkeley City Council alleging that text messages expressing racist attitudes, bias against the unh oused, and pressure to meet arrest quotas, had been sent among members of the DTF, with Sergeant Darren Kacalek playing a central role. The allegations included screenshots of the alleged texts.
On November 14, 2022, Secure Justice Exe cutive Director Brian Hofer urged the California Attorney General to investigate the BPD arrest quota allegation.20 Shedoudy’s claims continued to attract extensive media and public attention. The Los Angeles Times, San Fransisco Chronicle, Berkele yside, East Bay Times, and oth er media outlets all devoted space to the allegations.21
On November 17, 2022, the Center for Policing Equity, which had been hired by the City in 2015 to study potential racial disparities in BPD stops (a report presented to the City in 2018), issued a blunt 3-page statement in response to Shedoudy’s allegations.
It began, “The Center for Policing Equity is appalled by the views, actions, and frank disregard for public safety revealed in a series of leaked group chats among officers
20 Article: “Secure Justice Calls for Attorney General Investigation into BPD Arrest Quota Policy”: https://secure- justice.org/blog/secure-justice-calls-for-attorney-general-investigation-into-bpd-arrest-quota-policy 21 Article: Berkeley Police Department in turmoil over leaked texts about arrest quotas - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com): https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-17/berkeley-police-department-in-turmoil- over-leaked-texts-about-arrest-quotas ; Article: Head of Berkeley police union on leave following text message scandal, claims of arrest quotas (sfchronicle.com): https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/Report-Head-of- Berkeley-police-union-on-leave-17590377.php ; Article: Leaked texts from Berkeley police union leader show 'disturbing' comments (berkeleyside.org): https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/11/14/berkeley-police-text- messages-darren-kacalek-bpa ; Article: Berkeley Police Department, Interim Chief will be investigated after ex - police officer leaked texts alleging racist, illegal behavior (eastbaytimes.com):
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2022/11/16/berkeley-police-department-interim-chief-will-be-investigated-after- ex-police-officer-leaked-texts-alleging-racist-illegal-behavior/:; Article: Berkeley police officers’ ‘anti-homeless’ text messages probed | KRON4https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/berkeley-police-officers-anti-homeless-text- messages-probed/; Article: Leaked Text Messages Prompt Push to Delay New Police Chief in Berkeley – NBC Bay Area: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/east-bay/berkeley-police-text-messages-jennifer-louis/3078376/; Article: Fired Berkeley cop leaks texts alleging bias, quotas (berkeleyscanner.com):
https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/2022/11/15/policing/fired-berkeley-cop-leaked-texts-corey-shedoudy/
8 serving with the Berkeley, California Police Department (BPD).”22 The statement went on to characterize the texts as including “vile dehumanization” of the unhoused and “openly racist” views. It concluded, “The burden is now on the City of Berkeley and BPD to act with appropriate urgency in addressing these revelations, the institutional culture informing them, and their dire implications for Berkeley’s residents.”23 The City Council was poised to vote on appointing Interim BPD Chief Jen Louis as permanent Chief on November 15, 202 2, but the vote was postponed in the context of the allegations, including a claim that then Captain Louis knew of, and ignored, the alleged misconduct. The Mayor and Council Members noted that the appointment should be put on hold pending an investigation into the allegations, and the City Manager withdrew the item.24
In December 2022, the law firm of Swanson & McNamara was hired by the City of Berkeley25 to investigate. That investigation took the place of an investigation by the Internal Affairs Bureau of the BPD to dispel the perception of a conflict of interest in the context of the possibly wide-ranging nature of the inquiry.
The allegations that Swanson & McNamara was tasked with investigating included the following claims made by Mr. Shedoudy:
1. Allegations of an "unethical and illegal practice of arrest quotas of downtown unhoused ordered by [name] to DTF/Bike Force," which purportedly commenced when Chief Louis held the position of BPD Police Captain and persisted after her appointment as Interim Chief.
2. Assertions that the DTF/Bike Force was instructed to make 100 arrests per month.
3. Claims of meeting the alleged quota through questionable legal tactics, including stop and frisk, probation searches without reasonable suspicion, and “a very loose interpretation of stay-away orders from UC Berkeley”.
4. Criticisms of Captain Louis's perceived inaction.
22 Statement on Leaked Text Messages out of Berkeley Police Department:
https://policingequity.org/newsroom/official-statements/statement-on-leaked-text-messages-out-of-berkeley- police-department
23 Center for Policing Equity, 2022. https://policingequity.org/newsroom/official-statements/statement-on-leaked- text-messages-out-of-berkeley-police-department.
24 On May 9, 2023, prior to conclusion of the investigations into the DTF texting allegations, City Manager Dee Williams-Ridley once again forwarded to City Council her selection of Interim Chief Louis as permanent Chief, and Council voted to appoint her.
25 See Appendix 1: City of Berkeley Contract for services with Swanson & McNamara LLP, Vendor Contract #32300109
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/PublicAccess/api/Document/AU3fuyqXQXXZ%C3%81TG8am4tuCPyplZzCFLJ Zsb xFqBxmJ3aQZTBcxS%C3%89E7ECp9r6A30gZuhAImseUFcNLLtKRrEId7g%3D/
9 5. Allegations of "illegal arrest quotas, racism, evidence suppression, lying, and quid pro quos" supported by various forms of evidence, such as text messages, emails, sworn testimony transcripts, public arrest records, and photographs.
To investigate these claims, the Swanson team submitted Mr. Shedoudy’s phone to a third-party vendor for data extraction, including text communications among DTF and/or Bike Unit me mbers from October 1, 2019, to approximately March 1, 2023. The authenticity of each message was confirmed, except for one located on page 3 of Shedoudy’s allegations letter, which could not be found on the phone.
The Swanson team also reviewed d ata on arr ests made by DTF and Bike Unit officers from October 1, 2019 through November 22, 2020. This timeframe corresponded with Shedoudy’s tenure in the DTF and Bike Unit, and involved review of 481 randomly selected arrest reports, accounting for over 50% of the total.
Additionally, internal Department message board posts concerning DTF activities were gathered and reviewed by Swanson’s team, covering the period from November 6, 2019, to March 24, 2020. The investigation also included interviews with former Officer Shedoudy and members of the DTF, as well as with Chief Louis.
The Swanson & McNamara investigative report was completed in June 2023.
Those findings have not been made public. A summary of the findings, however, revealed that the text messages expressing racist attitudes, animosity towards the unhoused, and pressure to achieve a certain number of arrests, were authenticated by forensic analysis of former Officer Shedoudy’s phone.
While the Swanson & McNamara report was deemed confidential consistent wi th California Penal Code Section 832.7, the Berkeley Scanner26 quoted City spokesperson Matthai Chakko that “the investigation found that the department does not have a practice of racial bias,” that “the department does not have any arrest quotas,” and tha t the department follows all state laws and the constitution. Berkeleyside also published an article summarizing the City spokesperson ’s report: “According to city spokesperson Matthai Chakko,” the article read, “Swanson and McNamara’s investigation found that:
the department does not have a practice of racial bias; the department does not have any arrest quotas; the department follows state law and constitutional law…; and the department has existing policies that prohibit discrimination and harassment of protected classes.”27
This summary of the Swanson findings drew conclusions about the department as a whole and its official policies that went beyond any findings of the investigator whose
26 Article: Berkeley police bike team cleared of claims made by fired cop (berkeleyscanner.com):
https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/2023/07/20/policing/berkeley-police-bike-team-cleared-systemic-problems/ 27 Article: Berkeley police texts probe found no quotas or racial bias, city says (berkeleyside.org):
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/07/20/berkeley-police-text-scandal-investigation
10 task and method were to focus on specific practices of the Downtown Task Force and Bike Unit in a limited period of time. The findings of the Swanson team eroded public trust because they were not made public—other than the authenticity of the text messages — and because these overly general statements by the City spokesperson were made in piecemeal fashion to the press.
A Berkeleyside article about this City messaging quoted Mayor Jesse Arreguin’s public statement: “Regardless of the underlying findings and outcomes, the investigator verified the accuracy of the text messages. What is clear from a plain reading of the texts is that the behavior was unprofessional and does not meet the standards to which we should hold our City employees…. This episode further demonstrates the need to implement reforms.”28
Concurrent with, but independent of, the Swanson & McNamara investigation, the PAB launched a policy and practices review. According to the City Attorney’s interpretation of the Charter Amendment relating to PAB powers and duties, we were required to limit our investigation to an inquiry into relevant policies and practices and to recommend reforms as appropriate. The Swanson team’s authentication of the text messages and the allegations themselves have, among other issues, directed the PAB’s attention to the need for an additional policy prohibiting arrest quotas--implicit or explicit- -and the strengthening of many existing policies and practices. These recommendations are guided by a commitment to public safety and fair and impartial policing, and the need for a set of policies and Department culture that reflect those values.
While our investigation wa s necessarily limited to policy and practice recommendations, the PAB recognizes that policy is effective only to the extent that it is understood and enforced. A recent study published in Nature Human Behavior found that when officers in police organizations are not held accountable for policy violations and misconduct, the lack of serious accountability results in the propagation of misconduct in officers around them. 29 The st udy reported that even when shuffling the officer to a different unit, their peers are more likely to engage in misconduct themselves. The takeaway from that study is not only that policy reforms must be stringently enforced to be effective, but that unenforced policies breed infectious misconduct.
The PAB thus offers these policy reforms and at the same time commits itself to oversight of their enforcement. The PAB further makes recommendations for action by
28 Article: Berkeley officials slam 'drips of information' in BPD text investigation (berkeleys ide.org):
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/07/21/berkeley-bike-squad-investigation-criticized 29 “Causal Peer Effects in Police Misconduct,” Quispe-Torreblanca, Edika and Neil Stewart. Nature Human Behavior 3(8): 797-807; “Police Misconduct May Spread like a Contagion, New Study Finds,” Catherine Matacic , Science, May 27, 2019. https://www.science.org/content/article/police-misconduct-may-spread-contagion-new-study- suggests.
11 City Council in furtherance of accountability, transparency, and the PAB’s ability to monitor implementation which is where policies are materially “enacted”.
DATA SOURCES
This review is based on both quantitative and qualitative data and records. The primary data sources were:
• the authenticated text messages submitted by former Officer Shedoudy; • the Swanson Report, including the audiotaped interviews with BPD members; • stop and arrest data of the DTF, by race and across time; • a comparison of DTF stop and arrest data to that of the BPD as a whole; • the rate of DTF arrests for violations of court orders, such as “stay-away orders”; • the disposition patterns of the DTF and for the BPD as a whole; • BPD policies relating to arrest quotas, stay-away orders, fair and impartial policing, standards of conduct, off -duty co nduct, employee speech, personal communication devices, overtime compensation, and the Early Warning System.
These data30 provide an important window into the practices and culture of the DTF and guide our recommendations for reforms. While the BPD Transpar ency Hub allows the public—which in this case includes the PAB—to access raw data on stops and arrests, it is labor -intensive to analyze systematically these data in a way that is useful to full oversight. The ODPA staff and PAB Subcommittee Members spent many hours scrutinizing these data, and processing and organizing them into a form that was usable for our purposes.
LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA
While the PAB utilized a substantial amount of data in its review, some of these data were already in the public domain. The PAB and the ODPA made concerted efforts to access other records that we believed fell within the purview of the policy and practices review provisions outlined in the City Charter. We were not initially allowed access to the Swanson Report, nor to the taped interviews with DTF officers. The ODPA spent many hours and valuable time attempting to access them. The ODPA also sought access to all records in possession of BPD's Internal Affairs Bureau regarding any disciplinary matters relating to former officer Shedoudy, Sergeant Kacelek and other member s of the BPD Downtown Task Force and Bike Unit, and any complaints by members of the public filed with the BPD involving the Downtown Task Force . Despite concerted and repeated efforts, and despite the confidentiality oath taken by ODPA staff and PAB Members, these
30 After much discussion with the BPD, in September 2023 the PAB obtained access to body -worn camera footage for the period under review. The videos contain thousands of hours of footage and given the time and staffing constraints the PAB was unable to analyze all this footage in time for this report. For future inquiries and investigations, the ODPA recommends acquisition of a program such as TRULEO which does computerized analyses of vast video footage.
12 records were initially withheld from the ODPA and the PAB. Many months later, the ODPA and Subcommittee Members Moore and Calavita were allowed to read the Swanson Report but without the ability to take notes or make copies.
Ultimately, the PAB decided to use its subpoena power and issued a subpoena for the outstanding records. The PAB delegated the issuance of the subpoena to the ODPA, who served it to the department on March 12, 2024. This included a request for “Text messages (beyond those publicly available) and or certification/affidavit from officers that no additional records exist” as well as records “between members of the task force and City Manager Dee Williams-Ridley." Subsequently, Chief Louis informed the ODPA that the BPD did not hold any records beyond those that were publicly produced.
The ODPA and the PAB Chair continued to seek full PAB access to the Swanson Report and audiotaped interviews. Almost a year after the Swanson R eport was completed, the ODPA finally received the Report and audiotaped interviews, and PAB Members were given access . We independently spent many hours over several weeks reviewing the Report and interviews.
California Penal Code Section 832.7(a) 31 preclude us from quoting directly from these interviews or attaching officers’ identities to individual responses. Instead, these interviews will be used more generally as background information and collectively as collaborating evidence.
Given the already substantial delay in receiving the records we requested, the PAB has decided to issue this report now, with a potential addendum if additional relevant records are secured.
This lack of full access means that key questions could not be answered in th is PAB anal ysis and accompanying recommendations. These unanswered questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Were these racially inappropriate sentiments and other biased expressions previously exhibited by these or other officers?
• Did the BPD have kn owledge of such expressions or conduct, and if so, what actions were, or were not, taken to intervene?
• How have possible allegations of a similar nature been handled in the past? The obstacles encountered in accessing internal records underscore the import ance of transparency and cooperation between the City and the PAB . The PAB’s review of the Swanson team’s audiotaped recordings with DTF officers has deepened our conviction that for the PAB to fulfill its Charter-mandated function of providing police accountability, it must routinely have access to documents and records describing actual BPD practices.
31 California Penal Code Section 832.7:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=832.7.&lawCode=PEN
13 BPD cooperation with the City’s oversight body is critical to ensur ing public safety and socially just policing. It is also the fiscally responsible management approach.
FINDINGS
Authenticated Text Messages
Through the Swanson & McNamara investigation, Mr. Shedoudy's provided text messages were authenticated and are appended as Appendix 2. Mr. Shedoudy submitted his phone to a third -party vendor for extract ion of pertinent communications, encompassing text exchanges among DT F members from October 1, 2 019, to approximately March 1, 2023.
Statistical Analyses
The average number of arrests per DTF officer in the period from October 1, 2019 to November 22, 202 0—the period during which these text messages were sent --far exceeded that of the average number of arrests for other BPD officers. The eight officers in the DTF averaged 64 arrests that year, compared to the overall BPD average of 17. In addition, the nu mber of arrests per DTF officer varied greatly from 6 arrests by one member to 228 by another.
FIGURE 1. NUMBER OF ARREST BY OFFICER OF THE DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE AND BIKE UNIT
Similarly, the number of DTF arrests varied substantial ly by month , peaking in November 2019 as DTF members were being pressured to reach 100 (“81 arrests! We can do 19 by Friday for sure!” “I was thinking whoever gets the least arrests today does the waxing.”).
34 228
49 16
58 6
96 22
0 50
100
150
200
250
07151 -
Kacalek
10414 -
Michalczyk
13696 -
Shedoudy
13732 -
Breaux
13908 -
Seaton
14513 -
Pickett
15405 -
Schikore
15436 - Stern
14 FIGURE 2. DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE ARREST NUMBERS BY MONTH
These arrest numbers, together with the text messages, leave little doubt that pressure—more or less explicit, perhaps informal , seemingly jocular --was exerted to maximize arrest figures, sometimes the specific number of 100. The spike in arrests was so dramatic during some periods that, according to the Swanson team and some of the interviewed officers, jail staff complained they couldn’t keep up with their booking and detention.
Approximately an equal proportion of these arrests involved Black individuals (42.63%) and White individuals (43.03%), while Latino/a individuals accounted for 8.84% of the total. According to the 2020 census 32, the number of White individuals residing in Council District 4 which encompasses the dow ntown is approximately four times the number of Black residents in the area, suggesting that the arrest rate for Black people was almost four times as high as for White people. However, it is difficult to be precise about the racial disparity since the census may undercount the unhoused who were often the focus of DTF activity.
32 United States Census Bureau 2020 Census Data for Berkeley, California:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/berkeleycitycalifornia/SBO030217 34 80
68 71 69
40 20
13 9
31 24
11 27
12 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4
2019 2020
# OF ARREST Total
* - March 19, 2020 : Covid-19 Stay-at-home Order was issued.
15 FIGURE 3. RACE OF INDIVIDUALS ARRESTED BY THE DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE/BIKE UNIT (OCT.2019 TO NOV.2020)
Additionally, 20.63% of the 509 arrests made by the DTF during this period were for contempt of court (California Penal Code 16633), typically considered a misdemeanor.
Of these, 96 out of 105 contempt of court arrests also included a probation violation.
Given the relatively large size of the unhoused populati on and its proximity to the UC campus and downtown businesses, it is likely that a significant portion of these arrests were at least in part for violations of stay-away orders. This is supported by audiotaped interviews with DTF officers, which indicate t hat stay -away orders are central to their enforcement actions. In some cases, officers even requested that judges impose stay - away orders, facilitating subsequent arrests. Without closely reviewing individual incident reports and probationary conditions im posed on arrested individuals , it is difficult to determine how many of these violations were specifically for stay-away orders as distinct from other probation violations.
A considerable number of DTF arrests were dismissed outright with no complaint filed by the Alameda County District Attorney, with dismissed cases rising from 70 in 2019 to 188 in 2020.
33 California Penal Code Section 166:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=166.
2.16%
42.63%
8.84%
3.34%
43.03%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% Asian
Black
Hispanic
Other
White
Total
16 FIGURE 4. DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE ARREST SENT TO ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (OCT. 1, 2019 – NOV. 22, 2020)
Finally, it is notable that as documented in the City Auditor’s 2022 report on BPD overtime, in 2020 the BPD outspent its overtime budget by more than $5 million34. While much of this was due to contracts with outside entities, some was also the result of the “chain reaction” of compensatory time. As the Auditor explained, when an officer does overtime, they may receive either overtime pay or compensatory time off. When they choose the latter, another officer fills in with overtime , who then may choose compensatory time, and so on, eventually magnifying many times over the effect of the original overtime.
The text messages revealed by Shedoudy suggest that overtime work was liberally authorized. Sgt. Kacalek enthused that if his officers “kick ass” and “arrest peopl e” they “will never [be] jam[med] up about overtime.” The DTF interviews corroborate the essentially open-ended, unlimited access to overtime.
The data presented above represent a moment in time. Because this report is forward-looking and is focused on pol icy and practices, it is important to examine the subsequent state of DTF operations. Seven of the original officers 35 were on the Downtown Task Force/Bike Unit for all eight quarters from January 2021 to December 2022; Sgt. Kacalek was on DTF duty for five of those quarters.
34 City Auditor Report “Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities” https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/Berkeley Police - Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities.pdf
35 These were officers Breaux, Michalczyk, Pickett, Schikore, Seaton, and Stern, all of whom were also on the earlier DTF.
30 70
0 25
96 188
19 42
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
COMPLAINT FILED NO COMPLAINT FILED PENDING D.A. REVIEW NO DISPOSITION NOTED 2019 2020
17 Once again, the number of arrests by these seven officers ranges substantially from sixteen for one officer to 265 for another. Further, the 585 arrests by these eight officers constitute a significant portion of the 4,285 arrests made by the BPD during this period.
FIGURE 5. ARREST MADE BY THE BPD (JAN. 2021 - DEC. 2022)
Racial disparities in arrests by the DTF increased substantially in this period, with Black individuals constituting 46.9% of arrests, while White individuals made up 29.2% of arrests, and Latino/a people were 15.3% of those arrested.
Policy and Practices Deficiencies and Recommendations
These qualitative and quantitative findings strongly suggest that policy changes are necessary. Among the policies the PAB recommends strengthening are policies on:
• fair and impartial policing (Policy 401);
• the use of personal communication devices such as cellphones (Policy 701); • employee speech, expression and social networking (Policy 1029); • the early warning system (Policy 1041);
• standards of conduct (Policy 321); and
• overtime compensation requests (Policy 1019).
In addition, the PAB recommends:
• adding a stand -alone policy prohibiting implicit or explicit arrest quotas that go beyond the California Vehicle Code (Section 41600-41603) on vehicle stops36 and • consideration of an official standard for the enforcement of stay-away orders.
36 California Vehicle Code. Section 41600-41603. Chapter 7. Arrest Quotas:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=17.&title=&part=&chapt er=7.&article=
18 Before proceeding to these policy reviews, it is important to emphasize that policy changes are meaningless if they are not enforced or i f BPD officers are not sufficiently informed on policy matters. In our review of the evidence and audiotaped interviews, it was clear that DTF officers in some cases engaged in practices that were not consistent with policy and in other cases expressed confusion as to what those policies were.
We turn now to specific concerns and preliminary recommendations for reform of existing policies. Following that, we offer recommendations for a new policy prohibiting all arrest quotas; consideration of a standard fo r enforcement of stay -away orders; and additional training. The PAB presents these preliminary policy recommendations with the intention of collaborating with the BPD to refine and enhance the necessary reforms, ensuring they effectively address the needs of the Berkeley community.
Fair and Impartial Policing, Policy 401
BPD data have consistently shown that Black and Latino/a motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are far more likely to be stopped, arrested and searched than are White people. The 2018 Center for Policing Equity (CPE)37 report commissioned by the City found that Black motorists were 6.5 times more likely to be stopped by Berkeley police than White motorists and that Black pedestrians were 4.5 times more likely to be stopped.
Subsequent to this CPE report, Mayor Arreguin convened a Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing. It met for almost two years and submitted a package of recommendations to City Council on February 23, 2021. The recommendations, which were passed largely intact, were wide-ranging and significant and included, among many other proposals, recommendations for a requirement that intensive training focused on implicit bias be administered annually, and for reforms of the Early Warning System.
Data in the BPD Transparency Hub reveal that the disparities reported by the CPE remain entrenched. According to the 2024 PAB report on the Implementation of Fair and Impartial Policing directives 38, f or the period from April 2021 to October 2023, Black motorists were 5.8 times more likely to be stopped by the BPD than White motorists; 10 times more likely to be searched; and 1 0 times more likely to be arrested. Black pedestrians were 8 times more likely to be stopped than their White counterparts. Overall, Black residents of Berkeley were 6.55 times more likely to be stopped by BPD than White Berkeley residents.
As noted earlier, it is challenging to calculate with precision the racial disparities in arrests in the downtown area. What we do know, however, is that the racial disparity in
37 Report, “The Science of Justice: Berkeley Police Department National Justice Database City Report May 2018”:
https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley -CPE-Report-May-2018.pdf 38 Police Accountability Board Report “Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation”:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024%20PAB%20Report_FIP%20Implementation_Final.pdf
19 arrests has increased substantially from 2019 -2020 when approximately equal numbers of Black people and Whites were arrested by the DTF, to 2021-2022 when the percentage of arrestees who were White had fallen to 29.2% and Blacks and Latinos made up more than 62%.
We know too that the text messages from 2019-2020 reveal open racial animus among at least some officers. As Sgt. Kacalek joked derisively when watching a blurry video of a distillery, “Shedoudy’s Obama phone fucked up the video” (presumably ridiculing a program that provided free cell phones to eligible low-income households).
In a subsequent text, Sgt. Kacalek wrote about a media report of a particular incident and the alleged perpetrator: “Interesting how he listed him as ‘Dennis Daniels, male, 51 years old, no address’. I guess he isn’t black or no one could decipher his race and he isn’t homeless or even unhoused, just no address. #Iwantthecoldhardtruth.” The disdain extended to the unhoused people Sgt. Kacalek patrolled: “Stern [DTF patrol officer] is gonna come back with a new strain that wipes out the homeless pop. We will just ride by the bodies!”
Despite these inappropriate expressions of racial animus and disdain for the unhoused it appears that no DTF officers reported the inappropriate co nduct and expressions until the terminated officer Shedoudy disclosed the text messages to City Council. DTF members interviewed by the Swanson team pushed back against the notion that such messages were inappropriate, viewing them instead as intended as humor and not to be taken seriously—suggesting a jarring disconnect between the public reaction to the racist undertone of these texts and their matter-of-fact reception by DTF members.
In light of these quantitative and qualitative findings, the PAB recom mends the following additions to the Fair and Impartial Policing Policy (#401):
• A provision explicitly clarifying that the policy refers to both conduct and speech or expression and
• A provision that mandates annual intensive implicit bias training as called for in the Council directive in the Fair and Impartial Policing reforms of 202139 See Attachment 1 for the current Fair and Impartial Policing Policy, with recommended changes highlighted in red.
Personal Communication Devices, Policy 701
The cellphones used by the DTF to send the se text messages were officers’ personal devices. While the department issues personal communication devices (in this case, cellphones) to all sworn members and encourages their use for work-related issues
39 Report and Recommendations from Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-02- 23%20Special%20Item%2001%20Report%20and%20Recommendations.pdf
20 when radio communication is not feasible, the policy allows wide discretion. As was the case in the Swanson & McNamara investigation, the fact that the messages in question were sent on officers’ own personal devices —not those issued by the Department -- complicated considerably investigators’ access. Furthermore, some of the interviewed DTF members were not aware of any policy on this issue. The PAB therefore recommends:
• strengthening Policy 701 to stipulate that PCDs are to be used only when radio communication is not feasible;
• that members using a PCD be required to use department-issued PCDs, absent exigent circumstances;
• adding a provision making it clear that the proh ibition on inappropriate use of a PCD, whether on duty or off-duty on work-related issues, includes any expression that damages the mission, function, reputation or professionalism of the BPD; and • providing additional training on the use of PCD’s.
See Attachment 2 for the current Personal Communication Devices with recommended changes highlighted in red.
Employee Speech, Expression, and Social Networking, Policy 1029 The text messages that were exchanged among members of the DTF expressed racial animus and disdain for the unhoused. In this, they appear to have violated the BPD policy on employee speech and expression. Specifically, the policy prohibits any speech “pursuant to an official duty that tends to compromise or damage the mission, function, reputation or professionalism of the Berkeley Police Department or its employees.” The meaning of this policy appears to be clear ; however, in the context of DTF members’ interpretation of the messages in question as jesting, the PAB recommends not only the implicit bias training referred to above, but also:
• adding further specificity to leave no doubt about its meaning, explicitly including reference to its application whether the speech is transmitted through a personal or department-issued electronic device and whether the member is on or off-duty.
See Attachment 3 with the current Employee Speech, Expression, and Social Networking Policy, with recommended changes highlighted in red.
Early Warning System, Policy 1041
An Early Warning System (EWS), sometimes referred to as an Early Intervention and Risk Management System, was a central component of the directives of the City Council, f ollowing the recommendation of the Mayor’s Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing. As the Working Group stated in its recommendation to Council in February 2021, an effective system involves “identifying officer outliers in stops, searches, and use of force…and examining the reasons for racial disparities.” “Outliers” is a term of art that refers to those whose performance on certain indicators is outside the Department
21 average. The system does not focus on discipline but rather on identifying behavio r that may be problematic as early as possible. Such programs include monitoring, mentoring, training and, where appropriate, counseling.
In addition to enhancing public safety and officer welfare and safeguarding against bias, effective systems are a fin ancially responsible approach. According to a report by the Washington Post, twenty-five cities paid out more than $3.2 billion in settlements for police misconduct between 2010 and 2020, with claims for officers charged in more than one misconduct case ac counting for $1.5 billion.40 Over the past decade, the City of Berkeley has paid $1,242,860.97 across 471 claims in such settlements, with a total incurred cost of almost $2 million, including the cost of processing these claims.
The current EWS in Berkeley does not have an effective way of systematically identifying outliers on indicators such as numbers of stops, arrests and searches. While random audits of a few officers on a quarterly basis have been instituted, the small number randomly singled out is u nlikely to have an effective impact or to identify significant outliers, nor is it consistent with the directive from Council based on the Mayor’s Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing.
As criminologist Carol Archbold, who specializes in police acc ountability, said in the context of the Nature Human Behavior report on the contagiousness of misconduct, early intervention systems can be effective: “The spread [of misconduct] can be stopped if it’s tracked, and if something is done about it.”41
If an effective Early Warning System had been in effect, it is probable that, based on the statistics cited above —particularly the spike in arrests during certain periods — some members of the DTF would have been audited as outliers and the scrutiny could have minimized the damage.
In April 2023, City Council referred $100,000 to the June 2023 budget to hire a consultant for the design and help with implementing a new Early Intervention and Risk Management System. It will take some time before that project is complet e and a new system put in place. In the interim, the PAB recommends:
• quarterly audits of officers with unusually high numbers of stops, arrests, and/or searches, for people of color and the unhoused , instead of the current random audits of several officers
See attachment 4 for the current Early Warning System Policy 1041, with recommended changes outlined in red.
40 “The Hidden Billion Dollar Cost of Repeated Police Misconduct,” The Washington Post, March 9, 2022. 41 “Study Finds Misconduct Spreads among Police Officers Like Contagion,” Nova KQED, May 27, 2019. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/police-misconduct-peer-effects.
22 Standards of Conduct, Policy 321
As Mayor Arreguin stated in his press release following the statements of City Spokesperson Chakko, “What is clear from a plain reading of the texts is that the behavior was unprofessional and does not meet the standards to which we should hold our City employees…. This episode further demonstrates the need to implement reforms.” These authenticated texts reveal conduct that was clearly at odds with the official policy and underscore the need for explicit statements regarding the duty of all officers to report inappropriate conduct or violations of policy. It is of great concern that some DTF officers were not even aware of any mechanism for reporting observed misconduct.
The PAB is pleased that the Chief has adopted the Active Bystander for Law Enforcement (ABLE) program for which training will soon commence. That program will train officers to intervene when they wi tness their peers engaging in inappropriate conduct.
In addition to this important ABLE program, t he reforms we recommend to this Standards of Conduct policy will:
• make it clear that any behavior or expressions that bring disrepute to the Department—whether an officer is on or off-duty—will not be tolerated, and • Members have an obligation to report any such behavior or expressions by any other member, consistent with Policy 1010.9 concerning 'Employee Responsibility' to file a personnel complaint if miscon duct by a BPD colleague is observed.
See Attachment 5 for the current Standards of Conduct Policy with recommendations highlighted in red.
Overtime Compensation Requests, Policy 1019
The police overtime issue is a longstanding concern. A 1998 report by the National Institute of Justice declared, “There is a sense both inside and outside the law enforcement community that overtime is overused, misused, and only halfheartedly controlled.”42
On March 23, 2022, the Berkeley City Auditor submitted a report entitled “Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities.”43 The report found that “BPD does not adhere to their overtime policies and controls.” In fiscal year 2020, 21% of officers worked more than their weekly overtime limit
42 Bayley, David and Robert Worden. 1998. “Police Overtime: An Examination of Ke y Issues.” National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington DC.
43 Berkeley City Auditor, “Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities,” March 3, 2022. The report won an excellence award from the Association of Local Government Auditors.
23 of 44 hours at least once , risking their own health and safety and the safety of others.
One officer exceeded the limit in eleven weeks during 2020. Further, the Auditor’s report stated that the BPD did not “have an effective system to enforce their policy and manage overtime.”
The Auditor’s report further noted that “overtime was the biggest reason” why the BPD consistently spent more than their budget allocation. In order to align the overtime budget with actual outlays, in 2021 the City’s overtime budget allocation was raised to $5.3 million and another $1 million was put in reserve.
The Auditor noted that there are many legitimate reasons for the police use of overtime—for example, a call that comes in at the end of a shift or the need to cover for absences or vacancies. However, excessive overtime imposes significant physical, mental, and fiscal risks. She also noted that compensatory time for overtime worked sets off a “chain reaction” of overtime expenses, and that while such comp time is limited by policy it was unclear “whether this policy is being enforced” (p. 16). On June 25, 2024, Chief Louis gave Council an update on implementation of the Auditor’s twelve recommendations. She reported that five had been implemented and that the others were in process. However, we note that none of these recommendations deal squarely with the issue of the broad discretion related to overtime.
The Auditor advanced twelve recommendations—importantly, including improved security contracts with the ou tside entities that make up a large percentage of overtime hours. The Auditor’s final report included responses from the Department indicating that many of the recommendations are in the process of being implemented. Among these BPD responses was a “propos ed implementation plan” to “review existing policy and ensure that any policy updates or clarification are completed.” BPD policy on overtime requests and the verification of overtime worked relies on broad discretion and appears open to misuse. This wide discretion and potential for misuse are apparent in this text from Sgt. Kacalek: “I was at Kevin Reece’s birthday party just now and Dave was there and we briefly talked about DTF. He said just kick ass, arrest people, have fun, and get results and I will never jam you about overtime.” Indeed, the audiotaped interviews of DTF members suggest that DTF officers worked overtime at will.
While some supervisory discretion is inevitable and necessary, the current policy leaves wide gaps through which such misuse can proliferate. For example, Section 1019.1.1 of the Overtime Compensation Requests policy states, “All requests to work overtime shall be approved in advance by a supervisor.” However, this clear mandate is followed by the broad exemption that “if circu mstances do not permit prior approval,” approval can be sought after the fact when the overtime is completed.
The PAB does not offer specific policy reforms here. Instead, we recommend that the review of existing policies referred to in the BPD response to the Auditor be robust
24 and foreground the need to narrow this broad discretion. Importantly, for example, among other provisions it might:
• stipulate what circumstances, or types of circumstances, would comprise the need to bypass the otherwise straightforward directive that “all requests shall be approved in advance…” and
• consider excessive overtime as a factor triggering an Early Warning System audit.
While discretion and flexibility are inevitable, the conditions under which discretion is applied need to be described. The current policy perhaps unintentionally sends a message of virtually unlimited flexibility--a flexibility that some DTF officers interpreted as open-ended. See Attachment 6 for the current Overtime Compensation Policy.
Prohibition on Arrest Quotas
The legislative issue of police arrest quotas, though often obscured and scattered across many states, has its origins in Berkeley —a city renowned for its progressive and forward-thinking stance in shaping societal norms and legal frameworks (Ossei -Owusu, 2021).
Significant legislative activity on arrest quotas emerged in the 1970s, with Black Democratic Assemblyman John Miller introducing California's bill in 1975. Miller, often described as a "progressive independent in local politics," demonstrate d a keen political acumen, underpinning his support for quota bans with inclusive rhetoric (Id.). His district, which encompassed the diverse cities of Oakland and Berkeley, provided a unique perspective, one that resonated with concerns for both police officers and the public.
Miller articulated the inherent injustice in quotas, deeming them "unfair, undemocratic, and unjust."44 He was troubled by the notion that an officer's failure to meet quotas could lead to demotion, while simultaneously expressing con cerns for "the average California driver," who might find themselves disbelieved by a "rubber stamp traffic court system."45
California's statute, based on a convergence of bipartisan concerns, remains relevant today, specifically in the City of Berkeley. It serves as a historical testament to the enduring pursuit of justice and fair play, core tenets that guide our efforts to maintain police accountability, foster public trust, and safeguard civil rights.
While most people assume that a ban on police arrest quotas is already enshrined in the California Penal Code, it is limited to the California Vehicle Code . This is an oversight that needs to be corrected, both locally and at the State level.
The brief summary of the Swanson report provided to the public b y the City of Berkeley appears to absolve the DTF of establishing formal arrest quotas. However, the
44 See Ossei-Owusu, 2021 citing Measure to Outlaw CHP’s Ticket Quotas, supra note 69, at 1. 45 Id.
25 Swanson report stipulates that while no formal arrest quotas were established, there was an expectation that a certain number of arrests was to be aimed fo r. The text messages quoted above are replete with explicit and implicit references to “Operation 100” in which DTF patrol officers were encouraged by Sgt. Kacalek to achieve at least 100 arrests per month. “How’s Operation 100 going?”, he asks. And, “81 arrests! We can do 19 by Friday for sure!” And, by way of a (presumably) teasing reminder, “I was thinking whoever gets the least arrests today does the waxing.” DTF members who were interviewed consistently eschewed the term “quota”, but they acknowledged an expectation of high arrest numbers as an indication that they were being proactive and doing their job.
A spike in arrests attests to the seriousness of the Operation 100 expectation and its implicit quota.
Given the legislative history of arrest quotas , their (incorrectly) assumed ban in California, and their potential impact on our most marginalized community members, the PAB recommends that the BPD, in collaboration with the PAB develop a new, freestanding policy prohibiting all arrest quotas whether they refer to vehicles, cyclists, or pedestrians, whether formal, informal, or implicit, and whether they are enforced with formal disciplinary measures or solely incentives/disincentives. A sample arrest quota prohibition is attached in Appendix 3.
Stay-away Orders
Violation of a stay -away order is considered a contempt of court misdemeanor under California Penal Code 166(c)(1). While the DTF text messages do not explicitly reference stay-away orders, BPD data indicate that over 20% of DTF arrests during t his period were for violations of court orders. Among these cases, 91.4% were linked in part to violations of probation . Without a detailed review of individual incident reports , it is difficult to ascertain how many arrests stemmed primarily from a violation of a stay-away order.
Currently, BPD lacks a specific policy regarding stay -away orders. Some interviewed officers assert that enforcement allows no discretion, while others maintain that some discretion exists. Given the significant impact of stay -away orders on UC Berkeley property and downtown businesses, and officers' ability to request these orders post-arrest from a judge, the PAB strongly recommends that BPD establish a comprehensive stay-away order policy and provide training consistent with state law.
The current resources of the PAB do not allow for a detailed examination of the circumstances surrounding stay -away arrest. However, we recommend that BPD investigate the frequency and context of these arrests, and assess whether the district attorney's high dismissal rate (as noted earlier for DTF cases) is disproportionately related to stay-away orders.
26 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
1. Pass an ordinance or otherwise affirm the Police Accountability Board ’s ability to access documents and records in furtherance of its central “accountability” function, consistent with Charter Amendment Section 125.
The policy reforms recommended above are an important first step in ensuring that the kind of inappropriate conduct and expression revealed in t he DTF text messages do not recur. However, policy reforms are only a first step. No policy is effective if it is not fully implemented and enforced. Real law—real policy—takes place on the ground where it is literally “enacted” every day through practice.
The PAB “policy and practices review” of the texting incidents of concern here are a case in point. The content of the audiotaped interviews of DTF Members which were accessed by the PAB only after persistent and lengthy efforts have underscored how critical such authority is if the PAB is to fulfill its function of Police Department accountability and transparency. Without such access, our oversight would be largely limited to formal policies, with no meaningful “practices” oversight.
The Charter Amendme nt creating the PAB established as one of its primary purposes the promotion of “public trust through independent, objective, civilian oversight of the Berkeley Police Department,” including “setting and reviewing Police Department, policies, practices, and procedures…” (Section 125 (1); emphasis added)46.
If the Police Accountability Board is to fulfill its Charter-mandated function of police oversight and accountability, it must have the ability to access the internal records of the BPD that track its actual practices. This would include, but not be limited to, Internal Affairs Bureau records of internal and external complaints and their processing, Early Warning System records, body-worn camera footage, and police reports.
It should be noted further that the inability of this oversight body to provide oversight of daily BPD practices limits its ability to prevent or forestall the kinds of misconduct that went undisclosed for more than two years before being exposed by an individual who was no longer part of the police force.
This restriction on the PAB oversight function plays out in other incidents of interest as well, including serious allegations of significant misconduct —incidents that we as the police oversight body sometimes only learn about from pre ss reports months or years after the fact. We fully understand that the PAB is not authorized to recommend discipline outside of individual complaints . What is important is patterns of practice that may be revealed in a PAB investigation and that are integ ral to the PAB exercising its Charter - mandated oversight of not only BPD policy, but practices.
46 Berkeley City Charter Section 125(1): https://berkeley.municipal.codes/Charter/125(1)
27 To this end, the PAB recommends that City Council pass an ordinance or otherwise ensure that the PAB has the a uthority to access BPD records that attest to how formal policies are being implemented and enforced, both through BPD procedures and in daily practice on the ground . This recommendation addresses the core of our Charter - mandated function of oversight, accountability, and the promotion of trust.
In 2023, City Council passed its priority list for legislative activity at the state and federal levels, a list which authorizes its lobbyists to act on its behalf to champion legislation consistent with Berkeley’s values and interests. That list included a directive to “support efforts to increase peace officer accountability…”. “Peace officer accountability” was once again a lobbying priority for Berkeley in 2024.
An ordinance to ensure that the PAB may self-initiate investigations of alleged incidents of serio us misconduct will allow it to fulfill its Charter -mandated function of oversight. This would be consistent with the City’s lobbying efforts to “support efforts to increase peace officer accountability.”
2. Adopt a robust resolution ensuring full and meaningf ul accountability for sworn officers—whether on-duty or off -duty--who engage in misconduct of any kind but especially actions or expressions of racial or other types of bias.
Disciplinary actions imposed on sworn officers who engage in policy violations are not revealed to the public, consistent with California Penal Code 832.7. This lack of disclosure, combined with the inevitable rumor mill that works to fill the gap, has threatened to erode public trust. The erosion of trust has been furthered by revelations in the press that one recent incident resulted in a seeming exoneration by the BPD Internal Affairs Bureau, despite what Mayor Arreguin called his “shock and outrage” at the alleged incident.47 Council could help ensure accountability by adopting a resolution underscoring its support for robust and meaningful accountability for officers , whether on or off -duty, who engage in misconduct of any kind, but with a special emphasis on racial or other types of bias.
3. Direct the City Manager to work with the BPD , PAB and ODPA to create a public repository to fulfill the vision of California Penal Code Section 832.7 48 (b)(1) to allow for transparency in cases of sustained allegations of officer racism or other discriminatory conduct or expressions.
47 See “'Don’t give me that Black crap': Video from 2017 shows embattled Berkeley sergeant” (berkeleyscanner.com. September 13, 2023): https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/2023/09/14/policing/berkeley - police-sergeant-dave-marble-lawsuit-video/
48 California Penal Code Section 832.7:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=832.7.&lawCode=PEN
28 The Penal Code t hat protects peace officers' personnel records from public disclosure (Section 832.7) has been amended several times. These amendments now exempt the following records from protection:
1. Discharge of a Firearm: Any incident where a peace officer discharges a firearm at a person (Section 832.7(b)(A)(i)).
2. Use of Force: Any use of force resulting in death or great bodily injury (Section 832.7(b)(A)(ii)).
3. Sexual Assault: Any sustained finding that a peace officer engaged in sexual assault (Section 832.7(b)(B)(i)).
4. Dishonesty: Any sustained finding of dishonesty by a peace officer made by any law enforcement or oversight agency (Section 832.7(b)(C)).
The most recent amendment further allows the disclosure of records related to “any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in conduct including, but not limited to, verbal statements, writings, online posts, recordings, and gestures, involving prejudice or discrimination against a person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expr ession, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status” (Section 832.7(b)(D)).
The Berkeley City Council should direct the City Manager to collaborate with the Berkeley Police Department (BPD), the Police Accountability Board (PAB), and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability (ODPA) to implement these amendments.
Specifically, they should:
1. Create a public repository that proactively publishes relevant findings within 30 days of their conclusion, regardless of Public Records Act (PRA) requests; and
2. Ensure full transparency in cases of sustained allegations and other incidents eligible for public disclosure.
This action will fulfill the vision of the amendments to California Penal Code Section 832.7 as outlined in Senate Bill 16 (SB 16) 49, Senate Bill 1421 (SB 1421) 50, and Assembly Bill 748 (AB 748)51.
49 Senate Bill 16, Skinner. Peace officers: release of records:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB16 50 Senate Bill 1421, Skinner. Peace officers: release of records:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1421 51 Assembly Bill 748, Ting. Peace officers: video and audio recordings: disclosure:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB748
29 4. Call on California state legislators to extend the prohibition on arrest quotas, which are currently limited to the California Vehicle Code (Section 41600 - 41603).
Most people assume that a ban on police arrest quotas is already enshrined in California law, but it is limited to vehicle stops. This is an oversight that needs to be corrected, both locally and at the State level. Given the legislative history of arrest quotas, their (incorrectly) assumed ban in California’s Penal Code, and their potential impact on our most marginalized community members, the PAB recommends that Council call on the legislature to correct that oversight by extending the prohibition on arrest quotas , whether they be implicit or explicit, in the Penal Code.
Whatever the findings of the Swanson & McNamara team, the DTF text messages as well as the spikes in arrests during that month, drew the PAB’s attention to arrest quotas and, eventually, to the absence of their general prohibition in the Penal Code.
Once again, Berkeley could take the lead on spearheading a remedy for this apparent oversight.
SUMMARY
The Police Accountability Board is charged by the City Charter with oversight of the Berkeley Police Department’s policie s, practices, and procedures, in the interest of promoting accountability, transparency and public trust.
This report was triggered by a series of text messages sent among sworn officers of the BPD’s Downtown Task Force and Bike Unit , and its goal is to f ulfill—to the extent possible under current restrictions--its Charter-mandated oversight functions. The report is forward-looking, providing recommendations for policy and practice changes that may help prevent such harmful incidents in the future.
We draw our recommended policy reforms from implications of the text messages themselves, publicly available statistical data , the Swanson & McNamara Report, and DTF officers’ audiotaped interviews.
The policies focused on in this report are Fair and Impartial P olicing (#401); Personal Communication Devices (#701); Employee Speech, Expression, and Networking (#1029); Standards of Conduct (#321); the Early Warning System (#1041); and Overtime Compensation Requests (#1019). In addition, the PAB recommend s a freestanding prohibition on all arrest quotas, implicit or explicit, and a clear policy on the enforcement of stay-away orders.
These policy reforms are one important step. However, policy reforms are only meaningful to the extent that they are fully understood, implemented, and robustly enforced. The PAB thus recommend s, as a key priority, that City Council enact an ordinance or other mechanism to ensure that this oversight body —which has sworn an
30 oath of confidentiality--has the authority to access internal BPD records in the interest of preventing such damaging practices in the future.
Less significant perhaps, but of great symbolic value, the PAB recommends that Council pass a resolution affirming its strong support for full and meaningful accountability for officers who have engaged in misconduct whether they are on or off-duty.
The PAB also recommends that the Council call on the State Legislature to 1) add an exemption in cases of sustained racism or other bias, to 832.7 which protects police records from pub lic disclosure; and 2) rectify an oversight with regard a prohibition on arrest quotas--which is currently limited to the California Vehicle Code—by extending that prohibition in the California Penal Code. By doing so, the City of Berkeley can exhibit its leadership on these important social justice issues.
The text messages that were sent among officers of the Downtown Task Force were harmful to the community and arguably demoralizing to the many BPD officers who find such sentiments repugnant. This report is necessarily forward -looking and aims to provide an environment in which transparency, accountability, and justice can flourish.
This cannot be accomplished through policy changes alone. It requires collective efforts by the PAB, BPD and its leadership, the City Manager, and City Council. The PAB looks forward to this collaboration.
31 ATTACHMENTS
32 ATTACHMENT 1 . Fair and Impartial Policing: POLICY 401 (with recommended changes in red).
401.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy is intended to reaffirm the com mitment of the Berkeley Police Department to fair and impartial policing; to clarify the circumstances in which dispatchers and officers can consider race, ethnicity and other demographics; and to reinforce procedures that serve to assure the public that we are providing service and enforcing laws in an equitable way, including identifying, intercepting, and documenting profiling by proxy.
California Penal Code Section 13519.4(e) prohibits racial profiling by law enforcement officers. This policy explicit ly prohibits racial profiling and other biased policing. This policy describes the limited circumstances in which members can consider race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation/identity or socio-economic status in making law enforcement decisions.
401.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include:
Bias-based policing - Any police -initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity or national origin rather than the behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as being engaged in criminal activity.
401.2 POLICY
Investigative detentions, traffic stops, arrests, searches and property seizures by officers will be based on a standard of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Officers must be able to articulate specific facts and circumstances that support reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Officers shall not consider race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation/ identity or socio-economic status in establishing either reasonable suspicion or probable cause, or when carrying out other law enforcement activities except when officers are:
1. Seeking specific person(s) who have been described in part by any of the above listed characteristics, or
2. The person(s) are being sought for a specific law enforcement purpose.
33 Discrimination or harassment based on a trait or class described above is considered a “serious allegation” of misconduct.
401.3 RESPONSIBILITY TO REPORT AND TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION Employees who become aware of another employee engaging in biased policing — including both conduct and speech or expression —shall report it and shall adhere to reporting procedures set forth in the Personnel Complaints Policy.
A supervisor or command officer who becomes aware of biased policing shall adhere to notification and administrative procedures set forth in the Personnel Complaints Policy.
All reports of biased policing shall be investigated in accordance with the Pe rsonnel Complaints Policy.
401.4 PROFILING BY PROXY
Bias, racism or profiling by proxy occurs in a call for service when an individual call the police and makes false or ill -informed claims about persons they dislike or are biased against. Dispatchers and Officers have a role in mitigating bias -based calls for service (CFS), and proper handling of these calls is important to maintain and build trust between the police and the community.
Call takers have a responsibility to do an initial screen and triag e of all calls to ensure they are accurately entered as the correct CFS with the appropriate priority attached. Call takers should ask questions and explore whether there are concrete, observable behaviors that form the basis of the suspicious activity or crime the RP is reporting. Calls for service (CFS) should focus on behaviors of involved parties, not appearance. Reports of suspicious activity require the reporting party (RP) to articulate something criminal or reasonably suspicious about a person's behavior.
If a Call Taker believes an RP is making a bias-based call for service, they should:
1. Create a call for service,
2. Enter the details provided by the RP in the call narrative
3. In the Nature of Call field enter: "Supervisor review required" which will ensure that the call is not ready for dispatch, and
4. Notify the on-duty supervisor. Supervisor will review the merits of the call for service and either approve for dispatching or notify a Watch Commander (or designee)
5. Watch Commander will determine if a respo nse will be provided and/or follow -up up with the RP for more information.
34 401.5 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and reported annually to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020).
401.5.1 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA PROCEDURES
All sworn officers shall provide demographic statistical data once for ea ch individual as listed below:
1. All vehicle and bicycle detentions.
2. All pedestrian detentions
3. Anytime anyone is detained, regardless of the cause
4. Anytime anyone is searched regardless of the cause.
Officers shall provide demographic statistical data pursuan t to the requirements of the RIPA statute, AB 953.
401.6 ADMINISTRATION
Each year, the Operations Division Captain shall review the efforts of the Department to prevent racial or biased based profiling and submit an overview, including public concerns and complaints, to the Chief of Police.
The annual report should not contain any identifying information about any specific complaint, member of the public or officers. It should be reviewed by the Chief of Police to identify any changes in training or operations that should be made to improve service.
Supervisors should review the annual report and discuss the results with those they are assigned to supervise.
401.7 TRAINING
Training on racial or bias -based profiling and review of this policy should be c onducted as directed by the Personnel and Training Bureau.
All sworn members of this department will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of racial or bias -based profiling.
35 Pending participation in such POST -approved training and at all times, all members of this department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community.
Each sworn member of this department who received initial racial or bias-based profiling training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)).
All sworn members of the Department will be required to receive annual intensive implicit bias training.
36 ATTACHMENT 2 . Personal Communication Devices: POLICY 701 (with recommended changes in red)
701.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the use of mobile telephones and communication devices, whether issued or funded by the Department or personally owned, while on-duty or when used for authorized work-related purposes.
This policy generically refers to all such devices as Personal Communication Devices (PCDs) but is intended to include all mobile telephones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), wireless capable tablets and similar wireless two -way communications and/or portable Internet access devices . PCD use includes, but is not limited to, placing and receiving calls, text messaging, blogging and microblogging, emailing, using video or camera features, playing games and accessing sites or services on the Internet.
701.2 POLICY
The Berkeley Police Department allows members to utilize department-issued or funded PCDs and to possess personally owned PCDs in the workplace, subject to certain limitations. PCDs shall only be used in the workplace on work-related matters when radio communication is not f easible. Further, personally owned PCDs shall only be used on non-work-related issues, absent exigent circumstances . Any department -issued PCD used while on-duty, or used off-duty in any manner reasonably related to the business of the Department, will be subject to monitoring and inspection consistent with the standards set forth in this policy.
The inappropriate use of a PCD while on -duty may impair officer safety . Additionally, members are advised and cautioned that the use of a personally owned PCD eith er on- duty or after duty hours for business -related purposes may subject the member and the member’s PCD records to civil or criminal discovery or disclosure under applicable public records laws. Inappropriate use of a PCD, whether on duty or off -duty on w ork-related issues, includes but is not limited to any expression or speech that compromises or damages the mission, function, reputation or professionalism of the BPD.
Members who have questions regarding the application of this policy or the guidelines contained herein are encouraged to seek clarification from supervisory personnel.
701.3 PRIVACY EXPECTATION
Members forfeit any expectation of privacy with regard to any communication accessed, transmitted, received, or reviewed on any PCD issued or fund ed by the Department and